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
Claims 1-19 are pending in this application.
Drawing Objections
The drawings (Figures 1 & 2) filed on 10/28/2024 are objected to because the unlabeled rectangular boxes shown in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as "amended." If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet" or "New Sheet" pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference
claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Langi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164
USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR l.321(c) or l.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file
provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR l.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission.
For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/ process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info.l.jsp.
Claims 1-3 and 10-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,153,717. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are anticipated by the parent application, now US Patent 12,153,717.
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 1-2 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moloney et al (“Moloney,” WO 2017136879) in view of Tanimoto et al ("Tanimoto," JP2005176008, See Espacenet Translation of JP2004176008, Pages 1-20) and further in view of Bassler et al (“Bassler,” US 20190164241).
Regarding claim 1, Moloney discloses a computer-implemented method for managing digital evidence using a blockchain, the method comprising:
receiving a user request to verify the authenticity of an evidence data file, the evidence data file being identified by: (Moloney, [0160], metadata may be extracted .. may then be displayed by the client terminal; [161 ], the metadata may be stored within the blockchain itself such that the metadata may be retrieved from the blockchain during verification; [98], client terminal .. the user would capture an image of the 20 barcode borne by the document 2 so to allow the client terminal to verify the authenticity thereof; [101], document 2 may take the form of hard copy and soft copy documents; [105], users ... access the web functions exposed by the document verification server for verifying the documents; [145], [111] describe the transformed file [evidence file])
an evidence identifier, (Moloney discloses an evidence identifier [0125]) and
a hash code computed from the evidence data file; (Moloney discloses a hash code 43, FIG 2 computed from the evidence data file [119])
searching a blockchain for the evidence identifier, the blockchain having a block comprising data indicative of:
a hash of a previous block in the blockchain, (Moloney, 43, FIG 2, add hash to
block in blockchain; [0137], bitcoin blockchain [including the hash of the previous block
is an implicit feature of a block chain])
the evidence identifier, (Moloney, [0158], blockchain ... blocks containing the
hash..and associated document ID)
the hash code computed from the evidence data file, (Moloney, 43, FIG 2, [0158],
blockchain ... blocks containing the hash..and associated document ID)
wherein, if the evidence identifier is found in the blockchain, outputting an authenticity indicator to the user to notify the user that the evidence data file is verified as authentic by the data in the blockchain; (Moloney, [159], should a matching transaction be found within the blockchain, at step 51, a verification may be displayed to the user indicating that the document is authentic)
and displaying an authenticity indicator to the user with the image file, the authenticity indicator being indicative of data in the blockchain to notify a user viewing the authenticity indicator that the image file is verified as authentic by the data in the blockchain, (Moloney, [91], the client terminal 25 may be utilized for displaying
information indicative of the authenticity of a document)
Moloney fails to explicitly disclose a transformation operation, which produces a transformed evidence data file in the form of an image file from at least part of the evidence data file which, when decoded and viewed on a display screen, represents the appearance of at least part of the evidence data file; decoding and displaying the image file in response to a request from the user;
However, in an analogous art, Tanimoto discloses a transformation operation, which produces a transformed evidence data file in the form of an image file from at least part of the evidence data file, (Tanimoto, [0033], In step S4, in order to select a file in the LAN 70, shared file data that can be transmitted by facsimile transmission processing (for example, a document file that can be rasterized and converted into image data [transformed] in addition to TIFF or PDF image data, (Including a spreadsheet file) is displayed on the display unit 4, the user selects data to be transmitted by facsimile, and the main control unit 1 of the digital multi-function apparatus 20 reads the data of the selected file)
which, when decoded and viewed on a display screen, represents the appearance of at least part of the evidence data file, (Tanimoto, [0031], The data is also
decoded into image data by software, stored in the image memory 8, and printed by the
image recording unit 3 as necessary; [0033], In step S4, in order to select a file in the
LAN 70, shared file data that can be transmitted by facsimile transmission processing
(for example, a document file that can be rasterized and converted into image data in
addition to TIFF or PDF image data, (Including a spreadsheet file) is displayed on the
display unit 4, the user selects data to be transmitted by facsimile, and the main control
unit 1 of the digital multi-function apparatus 20 reads the data of the selected file).
decoding and displaying the image file in response to a request from the user; (Tanimoto, [0031], The data is also decoded into image data by software, stored in the image memory 8, and printed by the image recording unit 3 as necessary; [0033], In step S4, in order to select a file in the LAN 70, shared file data that can be transmitted by facsimile transmission processing (for example, a document file that can be rasterized and converted into image data in addition to TIFF or PDF image data, (Including a spreadsheet file) is displayed on the display unit 4, the user selects data to be transmitted by facsimile, and the main control unit 1 of the digital multi-function
apparatus 20 reads the data of the selected file; [0002] describes a request from the
user)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tanimoto with
the method/system of Moloney to include a transformation operation, which produces a transformed evidence data file in the form of an image file from at least part of the evidence data file which, when decoded and viewed on a display screen, represents the appearance of at least part of the evidence data file; decoding and displaying the image file in response to a request from the user. One would have been motivated to convert a document to an image to be displayed on a display unit for viewing (Tanimoto, [0031] & [0033]).
Moloney and Tanimoto fail to explicitly disclose and a timestamp indicating the time at which the transformation operation was performed;
However, in analogous art, Bassler discloses and a timestamp indicating the time at which the transformation operation was performed, (Bassler, [0028] & [0040] describes a times tamp as the time of generation)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Bassler with
the method/system of Moloney and Tanimoto to include and a timestamp indicating the time at which the transformation operation was performed. One would have been motivated to performing an electronic discovery process for providing evidence in a form of electronic data objects (Bassler, [0001]).
Regarding claim 2, Moloney, Tanimoto and Bassler disclose the method of claim 1.
Moloney further discloses wherein the method further comprises:
receiving a user request to access an evidence data file; (Moloney, [105]
describes request to access and verify documents)
outputting the transformed evidence data file to the user, the transformed evidence data file being identified by the same evidence identifier as the evidence data file requested by the user; (Moloney, [145] For example, the document may be modified to visibly display the computer readable data 27 such as wherein, for example, a PDF document is modified to include an image of the 20 barcode at the bottom right-hand side of the document. In this way, when subsequently verifying the electronic document, or a printout thereof, the user may utilise the camera device of the smart phone 25 to capture an image of the 20 barcode to verify the contents or the metadata of the document; [157], Where the computer readable data comprises the document ID, the
document ID may also be retrieved from the computer readable data so as to be able to
compare against the document ID used to retrieve the document [must be the same
evidence identifier as the evidence data file requested by the user] or associated with
the document; also see [111] which describes taking a document and scanning it to an
image and performing OCR to document content))
and outputting the authenticity indicator to the user to verify the authenticity of the transformed evidence data file only if the evidence identifier is found the blockchain, (Moloney, [159], should a matching transaction be found within the blockchain, at step
51, a verification may be displayed to the user indicating that the document is authentic)
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is a directed to a system. Claim 10 is similar in scope to claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is a directed to the system of claim 10. Claim 11 is similar in scope to claim 2 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moloney et al (“Moloney,” WO 2017136879), Tanimoto et al ("Tanimoto," JP2005176008, See Espacenet Translation of JP2004176008, Pages 1-20) in view of Bassler et al (“Bassler,” US 20190164241) and further in view of Baker et al (“Baker,” US 20040205465).
Regarding claim 3, Moloney, Tanimoto and Bassler disclose the method of claim 1.
Bassler further discloses wherein the blockchain has a block comprising data indicative of a further transformation operation, (Bassler, [0027] describes generating additional blocks of the blockchain and [0073] converting native files to formats, such as PDF or TIFF, which may allow for easier redaction and bates labeling)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Bassler with
the method/system of Moloney and Tanimoto to include wherein the blockchain has a block comprising data indicative of a further transformation operation. One would have been motivated to performing an electronic discovery process for providing evidence in a form of electronic data objects (Bassler, [0001]).
Moloney, Tanimoto and Bassler fail to explicitly disclose comprising:
determining if the evidence data file is a Portable Document Format (PDF) file and, if the evidence data file is not a PDF file, performing a transformation operation to convert the evidence data file into a PDF file; collating the evidence data file with at least one further evidence data file to create a composite PDF file; and paginating the composite PDF file by inserting page numbers onto the pages of the composite PDF file, wherein the composite PDF file is the transformed evidence data file.
However, in an analogous art, Baker discloses comprising:
determining if the evidence data file is a Portable Document Format (PDF) file and, if the evidence data file is not a PDF file, performing a transformation operation to convert the evidence data file into a PDF file; (Baker discloses in [0015], [0017] determining if the evidence data file is a Portable Document Format (PDF) file and, if the evidence data file is not a PDF file, performing a transformation operation to convert the evidence data file into a PDF file)
collating the evidence data file with at least one further evidence data file to create a composite PDF file; (Baker discloses in [0015] collating the evidence data file with at least one further evidence data file to create a composite PDF file)
and paginating the composite PDF file by inserting page numbers onto the pages of the composite PDF file, wherein the composite PDF file is the transformed evidence data file, (Baker discloses [0020]-[0026] and paginating the composite PDF file by inserting page numbers onto the pages of the composite PDF file, wherein the composite PDF file is the transformed evidence data file)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Baker with
the method/system of Moloney, Tanimoto and Bassler to include comprising:
determining if the evidence data file is a Portable Document Format (PDF) file and, if the evidence data file is not a PDF file, performing a transformation operation to convert the evidence data file into a PDF file; collating the evidence data file with at least one further evidence data file to create a composite PDF file; and paginating the composite PDF file by inserting page numbers onto the pages of the composite PDF file, wherein the composite PDF file is the transformed evidence data file. One would have been motivated to allow a party to manage document production using electronic media instead of paper (Baker, [0005]).
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is a directed to the system of claim 10. Claim 12 is similar in scope to claim 3 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moloney et al (“Moloney,” WO 2017136879), Tanimoto et al ("Tanimoto," JP2005176008, See Espacenet Translation of JP2004176008, Pages 1-20) in view of Bassler et al (“Bassler,” US 20190164241) and further in view of Song et al (“Song,” US 20170330180).
Regarding claim 4, Moloney, Tanimoto and Bassler disclose the method of claim 1.
Moloney, Tanimoto and Bassler fail to explicitly disclose wherein the block of the blockchain comprises data indicative of: at least one of a person and an entity that requested the transformation operation.
However, in an analogous art, Song discloses wherein the block of the blockchain comprises data indicative of: at least one of a person and an entity that requested the transformation operation, (Song discloses [0024], wherein the block of the blockchain [0021], [0024] comprises data indicative of: at least one of a person [0024], [0026] and an entity that requested the transformation operation [0021], [0071])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Song with
the method/system of Moloney, Tanimoto and Bassler to include wherein the block of the blockchain comprises data indicative of: at least one of a person and an entity that requested the transformation operation. One would have been motivated to provide the authentication information using system, which are more tolerant of a malicious threat such as hacking thanks to a process of maintaining a security level of a PC at a desired level by an authentication without installation of ActiveX controls, and which have a simple authentication process and are compatible with various web browsers (Song, [0023]).
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is a directed to the system of claim 10. Claim 13 is similar in scope to claim 4 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moloney et al (“Moloney,” WO 2017136879), Tanimoto et al ("Tanimoto," JP2005176008, See Espacenet Translation of JP2004176008, Pages 1-20), Bassler et al (“Bassler,” US 20190164241) in view of Song et al (“Song,” US 20170330180) and further in view of Tobin et al (“Tobin,” US 20190166095).
Regarding claim 5, Moloney, Tanimoto, Bassler and Song disclose the method of claim 4.
Moloney, Tanimoto, Bassler and Song fail to explicitly disclose wherein the block of the blockchain comprises data indicative of: security information including the IP address of each person and each entity and the MAC code of each person and each entity.
However, in an analogous art, Tobin discloses wherein the block of the blockchain comprises data indicative of: security information including the IP address of each person and each entity and the MAC code of each person and each entity, (Tobin discloses in [0019], [0025] wherein the block [0041] of the blockchain [0038] comprises data indicative of: security information [0037] including the IP address [0025] of each person [0026] and each entity [0030] and the MAC code [0025] of each person [0026] and each entity [0030])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tobin with
the method/system of Moloney, Tanimoto, Bassler and Song to include wherein the block of the blockchain comprises data indicative of: security information including the IP address of each person and each entity and the MAC code of each person and each entity. One would have been motivated to provide the system and method of invoking informational security can minimize the risk of compromising sensitive data from a single point of power (Tobin, [0029]).
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is a directed to the system of claim 13. Claim 14 is similar in scope to claim 5 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moloney et al (“Moloney,” WO 2017136879), Tanimoto et al ("Tanimoto," JP2005176008, See Espacenet Translation of JP2004176008, Pages 1-20) in view of Bassler et al (“Bassler,” US 20190164241) and further in view of Mercuri et al (“Mercuri,” US 20190013934).
Regarding claim 6, Moloney, Tanimoto and Bassler disclose the method of claim 1.
Moloney, Tanimoto and Bassler fail to explicitly disclose wherein the block of the blockchain comprises data indicative of: location data if the evidence data file is processed at a remote location.
However, in an analogous art, Mercuri discloses wherein the block of the blockchain comprises data indicative of: location data if the evidence data file is processed at a remote location, (Mercuri discloses wherein the block [0066] of the blockchain [0020] comprises data indicative of: location data [0038], [0087] if the evidence data file [0112] is processed at a remote location [0058])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mercuri with
the method/system of Moloney, Tanimoto and Bassler to include wherein the block of the blockchain comprises data indicative of: location data if the evidence data file is processed at a remote location. One would have been motivated to provide a computer system that interfaces with a blockchain to store data and interact with blocks on the blockchain (Mercuri, [0002]).
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is a directed to the system of claim 13. Claim 15 is similar in scope to claim 6 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moloney et al (“Moloney,” WO 2017136879), Tanimoto et al ("Tanimoto," JP2005176008, See Espacenet Translation of JP2004176008, Pages 1-20) in view of Bassler et al (“Bassler,” US 20190164241) and further in view of Muftic et al (“Muftic,” US 9,635,000).
Regarding claim 7, Moloney, Tanimoto and Bassler disclose the method of claim 1.
Moloney, Tanimoto and Bassler fail to explicitly disclose wherein part of the data in the blockchain is accessible to the public and another part of the data in the blockchain is private and only accessible by authorised users and the method comprises: permitting access to the blockchain if the user is authorised to access to the blockchain and preventing access the blockchain if the user is not authorised to access the blockchain.
However, in an analogous art, Muftic discloses wherein part of the data in the blockchain is accessible to the public and another part of the data in the blockchain is private and only accessible by authorised users and the method comprises: permitting access to the blockchain if the user is authorised to access to the blockchain and preventing access the blockchain if the user is not authorised to access the blockchain, (Muftic discloses wherein part of the data in the blockchain (Col. 15, Lines 29-34) is accessible to the public (Col. 6, Lines 34-45) and another part of the data in the blockchain is private (Col. 12, Lines 12-17; Col. 14, Lines 10-15; Col. 6, Lines 34-49) and only accessible by authorised users (Col. 12, Lines 35-42; Col. 11, Lines 34-43) and the method comprises: permitting access (Col. 6, Lines 34-49; Col. 11, Lines 34-43) to the blockchain (Col. 15, Lines 29-34) if the user is authorised to access (Col. 12, Lines 35-42; Col. 11, Lines 34-43) to the blockchain (Col. 15, Lines 29-34) and preventing access (Col. 3, Lines 27-29; Col. 12, Lines 63-67) the blockchain (Col. 15, Lines 29-34) if the user is not authorised (Col. 9, Lines 14-20; Col. 12, Lines 63-67) to access the blockchain (Col. 15, Lines 29-34))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Muftik with
the method/system of Moloney, Tanimoto and Bassler to include wherein part of the data in the blockchain is accessible to the public and another part of the data in the blockchain is private and only accessible by authorised users and the method comprises: permitting access to the blockchain if the user is authorised to access to the blockchain and preventing access the blockchain if the user is not authorised to access the blockchain. One would have been motivated to provide identity management systems that support user security, privacy, and anonymity for their identity and transaction data (Muftic, Col. 1, Line 67; Col. 2, Lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is a directed to the system of claim 10. Claim 16 is similar in scope to claim 7 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moloney et al (“Moloney,” WO 2017136879), Tanimoto et al ("Tanimoto," JP2005176008, See Espacenet Translation of JP2004176008, Pages 1-20) in view of Bassler et al (“Bassler,” US 20190164241) and further in view of Ma et al (“Ma,” US 20060072833).
Regarding claim 8, Moloney, Tanimoto and Bassler disclose the method of claim 1.
Moloney, Tanimoto and Bassler fail to explicitly disclose wherein the method comprises: receiving the image file at a first resolution at a client computing device to display the image file to the user and, in response to a further user request, receiving the image file at a second resolution at the client computing device to display the image file to the user, the second resolution being higher than the first resolution.
However, in analogous art, Ma discloses wherein the method comprises: receiving the image file at a first resolution at a client computing device to display the image file to the user and, in response to a further user request, receiving the image file at a second resolution at the client computing device to display the image file to the user, the second resolution being higher than the first resolution, (Ma discloses wherein the method comprises: receiving the image file [0006] at a first resolution [0006] at a client computing device [0022] to display the image file [0006] to the user [0016] and, in response to a further user request [0016], receiving the image file [0006] at a second resolution [0006] at the client computing device [0022] to display the image file [0006], [0016] to the user [0016], the second resolution [0006] being higher than the first resolution [0003])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ma with
the method/system of Moloney, Tanimoto and Bassler to include wherein the method comprises: receiving the image file at a first resolution at a client computing device to display the image file to the user and, in response to a further user request, receiving the image file at a second resolution at the client computing device to display the image file to the user, the second resolution being higher than the first resolution One would have been motivated to provide a method and system for transmitting an image progressively (Ma, [0006]).
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is a directed to the system of claim 10. Claim 17 is similar in scope to claim 8 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moloney et al (“Moloney,” WO 2017136879), Tanimoto et al ("Tanimoto," JP2005176008, See Espacenet Translation of JP2004176008, Pages 1-20) in view of Bassler et al (“Bassler,” US 20190164241) and further in view of Palmeri et al (“Palmeri,” WO2015035396).
Regarding claim 9, Moloney, Tanimoto and Bassler disclose the method of claim 1.
Moloney, Tanimoto and Bassler fail to explicitly disclose wherein the method comprises: obtaining the authenticity indicator through a public Application Programming Interface (API).
However, in an analogous art, Palmeri discloses wherein the method comprises: obtaining the authenticity indicator through a public Application Programming Interface (API), (Palmeri discloses [0217] wherein the method comprises: obtaining the authenticity indicator [0217] through a public Application Programming Interface (API) [0046], [0194]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Palmeri with
the method/system of Moloney, Tanimoto and Bassler to include wherein the method comprises: obtaining the authenticity indicator through a public Application Programming Interface (API). One would have been motivated to provide networked data communications services on server computers that can be called by remote applications on mobile computing devices to invoke messaging or communications functions (Palmeri, [0001]).
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is a directed to the system of claim 10. Claim 18 is similar in scope to claim 9 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moloney et al (“Moloney,” WO 2017136879), Tanimoto et al ("Tanimoto," JP2005176008, See Espacenet Translation of JP2004176008, Pages 1-20) in view of Bassler et al (“Bassler,” US 20190164241) and further in view of Mercuri et al (“Mercuri 948’,” US 20190013948).
Regarding claim 19, Moloney, Tanimoto and Bassler disclose the system of claim 10.
Moloney, Tanimoto and Bassler fail to explicitly disclose wherein the system comprises an Application Programming Interface (API) which enables a user to access data in a copy of the blockchain.
However, in an analogous art, Mercuri 948’ discloses wherein the system comprises an Application Programming Interface (API) which enables a user to access data in a copy of the blockchain, (Mercuri 948’ describes wherein the system comprises an Application Programming Interface (API) [0048] which enables a user [0049] to access data [0056] in a copy of the blockchain [0113], [0127]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mercuri 948’ with the method/system of Moloney, Tanimoto and Bassler to include wherein the system comprises an Application Programming Interface (API) which enables a user to access data in a copy of the blockchain. One would have been motivated to provide a computer system that interfaces with a blockchain and Internet of Things systems to store data and interact with blocks on the blockchain (Mercuri 948’, [0002]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES J WILCOX whose telephone number is (571)270-3774. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 A.M. to 5 P.M..
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, Luu T. Pham can be reached on (571)270-5002. 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.
/JAMES J WILCOX/Examiner, Art Unit 2439
/LUU T PHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2439