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
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 04/07/2026. In the instant Amendment, no claims were amended, claims 1 and 10 are independent claims, Claims 1-19 are pending in this application. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 04/07/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent No: 12,153,717 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
The objection to Figures 1 and 2 under 37 C.F.R. 1.84 is moot because substitute formal drawings were submitted. The substitute drawings have been entered and considered. The objection to the drawings is moot and is withdrawn.
The non-statutory double patenting rejection to claims 1-3 and 10-12 has been withdrawn as per the terminal disclaimer being filed on 04/07/2026 and approved on 04/11/2026.
Applicant’s arguments in the instant Amendment, filed on 04/07/2026 with respect to the limitations below, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on (page 10): that all 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections share the same deficiency because they rely on Moloney, Tanimoto and Bassler and those references do not render the claims obvious.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. This argument is not persuasive. The rejection is based on the combined teachings of the references, not on a showing that any one reference alone discloses the full claim. The proper inquiry under 35 U.S.C. 103 is whether the references, as taken together, would have suggested the claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art. The Examiner maintains that Moloney, Tanimoto and Bassler collectively teach or suggest the disputed limitations.
Applicant argues on (page 10): that Moloney and Bassler are incompatible with Tanimoto’s facsimile system. Moloney and Bassler describe blockchain systems that are incompatible with the facsimile system of Tanimoto, so combining them would be impracticable.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. This argument is not persuasive. Obviousness does not require that references be physically merged without modification or that they be drawn from identical operating environments. A reference is relevant for all that it teaches. The rejection relies on Tanimoto for teachings relating to image or data processing and on Moloney and/or Bassler for blockchain-based evidence or data handling. The fact that Tanimoto is disclosed in facsimile context does not preclude its teachings from being applied in combination with blockchain-based systems, (See Moloney, [160]-[161], [98], [101], [105], [145], [111], [0125], [119], [137], FIG 2, Item 43, [158]-[159], [91]; Tanimoto, [0033], [0031], [0002]; Bassler, [0028], [0040]).
Applicant argues on (pages 10-12): that Tanimoto is limited to facsimile transmission processing, and therefore does not teach data handling compatible with Moloney’s blockchain system.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. This argument is not persuasive. Tanimoto is relied upon not merely for facsimile transmission as an end use, but for its teaching of processing document data into image data for viewing, displaying and transmission. That teaching would have suggested to one of ordinary skill the use of known image-conversion techniques in other document/evidence handling systems, including blockchain-based systems taught by Moloney and Bassler, (See Moloney, [160]-[161], [98], [101], [105], [145], [111], [0125], [119], [137], FIG 2, Item 43, [158]-[159], [91]; Tanimoto, [0033], [0031], [0002]; Bassler, [0028], [0040]).
Applicant argues on (pages 10-12): that Tanimoto’s converted image data is only for fax transmission, not blockchain use. Tanimoto discloses converting a document file into image data, that image data is only transmitted by facsimile and would not be immediately compatible with Moloney’s blockchain system.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. This argument is not persuasive. Immediate native compatibility is not the test for obviousness. The issue is whether a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to adapt known techniques from one system for use in another with predictable results. Applying Tanimoto’s known document-to-image processing to evidence data managed in a blockchain framework would have been a predictable variation with the ordinary skill in the art, (See Moloney, [160]-[161], [98], [101], [105], [145], [111], [0125], [119], [137], FIG 2, Item 43, [158]-[159], [91]; Tanimoto, [0033], [0031], [0002]; Bassler, [0028], [0040]).
Applicant argues on (pages 10-12): that Tanimoto’s converted image data is only for fax transmission, not blockchain use. Although Tanimoto discloses converting a document file into image data, that image data is only transmitted by facsimile and would not be immediately compatible with Moloney’s blockchain system.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. This argument is not persuasive. Immediate native compatibility is not the test for obviousness. The issue is whether a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to adapt known techniques from one system for use in another with predictable results. Applying Tanimoto’s known document-to-image processing to evidence data managed in a blockchain framework would have been a predictable variation within the ordinary skill in the art, (See Moloney, [160]-[161], [98], [101], [105], [145], [111], [0125], [119], [137], FIG 2, Item 43, [158]-[159], [91]; Tanimoto, [0033], [0031], [0002]; Bassler, [0028], [0040]).
Applicant argues on (pages 10-12): that there is no suitable interface that is disclosed for transmitting data from Tanimoto to Moloney. Even if Tanimoto were modified, it does not disclose or teach a suitable interface that would allow the data file to be transmitted from Tanimoto’s facsimile apparatus to Moloney’s blockchain system.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. This argument is not persuasive. The prior art need not expressly disclose every implementation detail, including a specific interface, where such interfacing would have been within the routine skill of an a person of ordinary skill in the art. Establishing communication between known data-processing components would have been a predictable design choice and does not render the combination non-obvious, (See Moloney, [160]-[161], [98], [101], [105], [145], [111], [0125], [119], [137], FIG 2, Item 43, [158]-[159], [91]; Tanimoto, [0033], [0031], [0002]; Bassler, [0028], [0040]).
Applicant argues on (pages 10-12): that Moloney does not disclose the claimed “transformation operation” language of claim 1. Moloney does not disclose a blockchain having a block comprising data indicative of “a transformation operation, which produces a transformed evidence data file in the form of an image file from at least part of an evidence data file.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. This argument is not persuasive because it attacks Moloney in isolation. The rejection does not rely on Moloney alone for this limitation. Moloney is relied upon for blockchain/evidence record teachings, while Tanimoto is relied upon for transformation of source document/data content into image-form data for display/viewing. The combination of these teachings would have suggested the claimed transformation-related limitation, (See Moloney, [160]-[161], [98], [101], [105], [145], [111], [0125], [119], [137], FIG 2, Item 43, [158]-[159], [91]; Tanimoto, [0033], [0031], [0002]; Bassler, [0028], [0040]).
Applicant argues on (pages 10-12): that the combination does not teach “decoded and viewed on a display screen.” There is no teaching in Tanimoto or Moloney that would lead one of a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a method including a blockchain search and a transformed image file that, when decoded and viewed no a display screen, represents the appearance of at least part of the evidence data file.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. This argument is not persuasive because Tanimoto teaches generating image data for display or viewing from source document information. Moloney and Bassler teach blockchain-based handling of evidence or related data. Combining blockchain-based storage or retrieval with image-based presentation of underlying evidence data would have been an obvious way to improve review and usability of stored evidence-related information, (See Moloney, [160]-[161], [98], [101], [105], [145], [111], [0125], [119], [137], FIG 2, Item 43, [158]-[159], [91]; Tanimoto, [0033], [0031], [0002]; Bassler, [0028], [0040]).
Applicant argues on (pages 10-12): that Tanimoto’s combination of two image types does not produce the claimed transformed evidence data file. The combination of two types of image data in Tanimoto does not produce the claimed “transformed evidence data file in the form of an image file from at least part of the evidence data file.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. This argument is not persuasive. The rejection is not limited to a verbatim identity between Tanimoto’s preferred embodiment and the claim language. Rather, Tanimoto is relied upon for its broader teaching of transforming source data into image-form data suitable for display or transmission. In view of Moloney and Bassler’s teachings regarding blockchain-based evidence data management, it would have been obvious to apply such image transformation to evidence-related data, (See Moloney, [160]-[161], [98], [101], [105], [145], [111], [0125], [119], [137], FIG 2, Item 43, [158]-[159], [91]; Tanimoto, [0033], [0031], [0002]; Bassler, [0028], [0040]).
Applicant argues on (pages 10-12): that there is no teaching of how data indicative of a transformation operation becomes part of a blockchain block. It is not obvious from Tanimoto or Moloney how data indicative of a transformation operation would be produced and how this data may form part of a block in a blockchain.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. This argument is not persuasive. Moloney and Bassler teach storing and managing evidence-related data using blockchain structures. Tanimoto teaches transformation of source data into image-form data. Recording information reflecting such transformation within a blockchain-based record would have been an obvious implementation of known data logging/record keeping practices in blockchain systems, (See Moloney, [160]-[161], [98], [101], [105], [145], [111], [0125], [119], [137], FIG 2, Item 43, [158]-[159], [91]; Tanimoto, [0033], [0031], [0002]; Bassler, [0028], [0040]).
Applicant argues on (pages 10-12): that Bassler also does not cure the incompatibility problem. Bassler, like Moloney, discloses an electronic discovery process using blockchain, but not one configured for use with a facsimile apparatus or to receive data by facsimile transmission. Thus, there is no teaching leading one to combine Tanimoto with Bassler.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. This argument is not persuasive. Bassler is not relied on for facsimile teachings. Bassler is relied on as further evidence/discovery handling was known in the art. A reference need not address the same type as another reference to be combinable under 35 U.S.C. 103. The combination is based on complementary teachings: blockchain-based evidence management from Moloney and Bassler and image/data transformation from Tanimoto, (See Moloney, [160]-[161], [98], [101], [105], [145], [111], [0125], [119], [137], FIG 2, Item 43, [158]-[159], [91]; Tanimoto, [0033], [0031], [0002]; Bassler, [0028], [0040]).
Applicant argues on (page 12) that claim 1 is novel and inventive over the cited prior art. Because the cited art does not teach how Tanimoto’s facsimile system could be combined with the blockchain systems of Moloney and Bassler, claim 1 is novel and inventive.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. This argument is not persuasive. For reasons above, the Examiner maintains that the cited references collectively would have suggested the subject matter of claim 1 to one or ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, claim 1 remains unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103, (See Moloney, [160]-[161], [98], [101], [105], [145], [111], [0125], [119], [137], FIG 2, Item 43, [158]-[159], [91]; Tanimoto, [0033], [0031], [0002]; Bassler, [0028], [0040]).
Applicant argues on (page 12) that claim 10 is patentable for the same reasons as claim 1. Claim 10 recites the same distinguishing features as claim 1 and is novel and inventive for at least the same reasons.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. This argument is not persuasive for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1. The combination of the cited references is considered to teach or suggest the limitations of claim 10 as well. Therefore, claim 10 remains unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103, (See Moloney, [160]-[161], [98], [101], [105], [145], [111], [0125], [119], [137], FIG 2, Item 43, [158]-[159], [91]; Tanimoto, [0033], [0031], [0002]; Bassler, [0028], [0040]).
Applicant's arguments (pages 12-14): Additionally, as to the dependent
claims 2-9 and 11-19 the Applicant argues that the claims are dependent
directly or indirectly from a respective one of claims of independent claims 1 and 10 and are therefore distinguished from the cited art at least by virtue OR
allowable at least based on of their additionally recited patentable subject matter.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. The Examiner
respectfully submits that dependent claims 2-9 and 11-19 are rejected at
least based on the rationale and resource presented to the argument for their
respective based claims, and the reference applied to the dependent claims 2-9 and 11-19.
Therefore, in view of the above reasons, the Examiner maintains the
rejection with the cited prior art references.
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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
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
Prosecution Insights