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 responsive to application filed on 2/20/2025. Claims 1-19 were cancelled by a preliminary amendment and new claims 20-36 were presented for examination. Consequently, claims 20-36 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 21-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 20 recites evaluating information concerning content using trusted recorded information to determine the integrity, authenticity, and /or provenance of the content. This represents an abstract idea within the mental process grouping specifically, an evaluation or judgment of information. The specification similarly describes determining content authenticity, integrity, and provenance by querying trusted ledger information.
Step 2A, Prong Two: The additional limitations, including the trusted content application, candidate content assertion, trusted ledger nodes, cryptographically linked ledger entries, and interface indication, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Rather, these elements are used to obtain trusted information, perform the content verification, and present the result. The specification described blockchain and other trusted ledger technologies as mechanisms used to implement the digital content verification service. The claim does not recite an improvement to the operation of the computer, cryptographic process, ledger, blockchain or network itself.
Step 2B: The additional elements, considered individually and as an ordered combination, amount to implementing the abstract content verification process using computer and ledger technology. The claimed arrangement does not provide an additional technological feature sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter. Claims 21-36 further recite webpages, hashing, metadata/database storage, blockchain, caching, and visual/text/audio indications. These limitations further specify how the content verification is implemented or how its result is stored or presented, but do not change the eligibility analysis. Even though the specification states that derivative ledgers may reduce query latency, claim 32 does not recite the specific technical features that achieve the asserted improvement.
Accordingly, claims 20-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Double Patenting
Claims 20-36 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims1-16 of United States Patent 12,197,612. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claims contain every element of the instant application and as such is encompassed by the claims of this instant application. Claims 20-36 of the instant application therefore is/are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claim(s) and as such is/are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. A later patent/application claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim. “A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. (In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896,225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus); ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001) (Cf., Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 944, 214 USPQ 761, 767 (CCPA 1982); In re Goodman (CA FC) 29 USPQ2d 2010 (12/3/1993)).
Conclusion
The art made of record which is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
- Lev-Ami et al. U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2021/0224357, discloses System, device, and method of providing authenticity and rights verification mechanism for media content and for its derived versions. A media authenticity server is configured to receive a content item, and to generate for it a record having a unique content identifier and indications of permitted modifications, and optionally also copyright information usage restrictions. The media authenticity server authorizes or blocks modifications requests regarding the content item. The media authenticity server tracks and logs the permitted modifications performed on the content item, and makes this log available for inspection to end-user devices via a web browser or via a content consumption application. Optionally, playback or consumption of a modified version of the content item is blocked, or is accompanied by a warning message, if the modified version is not associated with an authenticated log of permitted modifications.
- Code et al. U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2017/0134162, discloses a system and process for securing digital media file content for persistence is disclosed. Aspects of the system and process protect content from being altered or embedded with malicious code during distribution through a network. A digital media file is embedded with a hash function. In some embodiments, successive frames may be hashed. A copy of the hash function may be retrieved from a trusted source which may be located within a distributed ledger network. Copies of the digital media file and hash function are checked at network member nodes to verify authenticity of the content. During verification, the media file may be checked to verify if successive frames (for example 2 or more) comply with the trusted hash function. Metadata for authenticated media files may provide trusted information about the original media file.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARGON N NANO whose telephone number is (571)272-4007. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM-3:30 PM. M.S.T..
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, Nicholas Taylor can be reached at 571 272 3889. 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.
/SARGON N NANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights