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
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/4/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
In communications filed on 3/4/2026, claims 1-22 are presented for examination. Claims 1, 21, and 22 are independent.
Amended claim(s): 1-2 and 21-22.
Applicants’ arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks filed 3/4/2026, with respect to claim(s) rejected under prior art have been fully considered and are persuasive in so far as newly amended element of the claims. Motwani et al in combination with newly cited art, Santa (US 11954147 B1) further teaches: wherein an image of the long-term project is different in the first digital capture as compared to the second digital capture and wherein the creator identifier data is unchanged from the first digital authentication token to the second digital authentication token. (Santa: Figs. 1-3, col. 5:16 to col. 6:10, col. 10:29-45, col. 12:25-59, i.e., tracking a work of art such as audio content by using one or more digital fingerprints that includes artist/owner information including a particular version of the content and adding more fingerprints as the content is modified/updated). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Motwani et al to include tracking a work of art such as audio content by using one or more digital fingerprints that includes artist/owner information including a particular version of the content and adding more fingerprints as the content is modified/updated as taught by Santa with the motivation to provide tracking of content (Santa: col. 1:45-46)
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motwani, Rakhi C., Frederick C. Harris Jr, and Kostas E. Bekris. "A proposed digital rights management system for 3d graphics using biometric watermarks." 2010 7th IEEE Consumer Communications and Networking Conference. IEEE, 2010 (hereinafter ‘Motwani’) in view of US 20190327094 A1 (hereinafter ‘Kan’) in view of US 20170206523 A1 (hereinafter ‘Goer’) in view of US 20200366669 A1 (hereinafter ‘Gupta’) in view of US 11954147 B1 (hereinafter ‘Santa’).
As regards claim 1, Motwani in combination with Ken (US 20190327094 A1) teaches: A computer-implemented method of authenticating creation of a creative work via a digital token, comprising: storing, via at least one processor, in at least one non-transitory computer readable memory a first digital capture of a long-term project at a first stage; (Motwani: Fig. 1, pages 2-3, i.e., the biometric watermark is attached to the content and proves the legitimacy/authenticity of the content. See also, Kan: ¶6-¶19, i.e., generating hash-based authentication codes for news content to prevent fake news)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Motwani to generate hash based authentication of news content as taught by Kan with the motivation to prevent spread of fake news (Kan: ¶6-¶19)
Motwani et al in combination with Goer (US 20170206523 A1) teaches: generating, via the at least one processor, a first stage hash value based on the first digital capture; (Motwani: Fig. 1, pages 2-3, i.e., the biometric watermark is attached to the content and proves the legitimacy/authenticity of the content. See also, Kan: ¶6-¶19, i.e., generating hash-based authentication codes for news content to prevent fake news. See Goer, Figs 22-24, ¶164-¶166, i.e., multiple hashes are applied through multiple stages of a content)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Motwani to include applying multiple hashes through multiple stages of a content as taught by Goer with the motivation to ensure reliability of a digital asset (Goer: ¶164-¶166)
Motwani et al in combination with Gupta further teaches: creating, via the at least one processor, a first digital authentication token based on the first stage hash value and creator identifier data; (Motwani: Fig. 1, pages 2-3, i.e., the biometric watermark is attached to the content and proves the legitimacy/authenticity of the content. See Goer, Figs 22-24, ¶164-¶166, i.e., multiple hashes are applied through multiple stages of a content. See also, Gupta: ¶14, ¶17, i.e., authentication token generating is a hash including a random seed generated using a random num generator i.e., deterministic function)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to modify Motwani to include seeds into a token wherein the seeds are generated using a random number generator as taught by Gupta with the motivation to generate authentication codes (Gupta: ¶17)
recording, via the at least one processor, the first digital authentication token on a notarized ledger; (See Goer, Figs 22-24, ¶150, ¶164-¶166, i.e., multiple hashes are applied through multiple stages of a content. See also, Gupta: ¶14, ¶17, i.e., authentication token generating is a hash including a random seed generated using a random num generator i.e., deterministic function)
storing, via the at least one processor, in at least one non-transitory computer readable memory a second digital capture of the long-term project at a second stage; (Motwani: Fig. 1, pages 2-3, i.e., the biometric watermark is attached to the content and proves the legitimacy/authenticity of the content. See Goer, Figs 22-24, ¶164-¶166, i.e., multiple hashes are applied through multiple stages of a content)
generating, via the at least one processor, a second stage hash value based on both the second digital capture and the first stage hash value; and (Motwani: Fig. 1, pages 2-3, i.e., the biometric watermark is attached to the content and proves the legitimacy/authenticity of the content. See Goer, Figs 22-24, ¶161-¶166, i.e., multiple hashes are applied through multiple stages of a content)
creating, via the at least one processor, a second digital authentication token based on the second stage hash value and the creator identifier data (Motwani: Fig. 1, pages 2-3, i.e., the biometric watermark is attached to the content and proves the legitimacy/authenticity of the content. See Goer, Figs 22-24, ¶161-¶166, i.e., multiple hashes are applied through multiple stages of a content. See also, Gupta: ¶14, ¶17, i.e., authentication token generating is a hash including a random seed generated using a random num generator i.e., deterministic function))
Motwani et al in combination with Santa (US 11954147 B1) further teaches: wherein an image of the long-term project is different in the first digital capture as compared to the second digital capture and wherein the creator identifier data is unchanged from the first digital authentication token to the second digital authentication token. (Santa: Figs. 1-3, col. 5:16 to col. 6:10, col. 10:29-45, col. 12:25-59, i.e., tracking a work of art such as audio content by using one or more digital fingerprints that includes artist/owner information including a particular version of the content and adding more fingerprints as the content is modified/updated)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Motwani et al to include tracking a work of art such as audio content by using one or more digital fingerprints that includes artist/owner information including a particular version of the content and adding more fingerprints as the content is modified/updated as taught by Santa with the motivation to provide tracking of content (Santa: col. 1:45-46)
Claims 21-22 recite substantially the same features as recited in claim 1 above and are therefore rejected based on the rationale discussed in the rejection.
As regards claim 2, Motwani et al combination teaches the method of claim 1, the first digital capture and the second digital capture of the long-term project include a digital image of the long-term project and wherein the first digital capture further comprises at least one of: a digital 3D scan data of the long-term project or digital audio data of the long-term project. (Motwani: Figs. 1-3, pages 2-4. See also, Kan: ¶6-¶20. See also, Santa: Figs. 1-3, col. 5:16 to col. 6:10, col. 10:29-45, col. 12:25-59)
As regards claim 3, Motwani et al combination teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the creator identifier data comprises at least one of the following: a DNA sequence information, a fingerprint, an image of a creator of the long term project, iris information, an ear print, a facial feature, and a vital sign. (Motwani: Figs. 1-3, pages 2-4)
As regards claim 4, Motwani et al combination teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising recording the second digital authentication token on the notarized ledger with a reference to the first digital authentication token. (See Goer, Figs 22-24, ¶150, ¶164-¶166)
As regards claim 5, Motwani et al combination teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the notarized ledger comprises at least one of the following: a blockchain, a distributed ledger, and a hashgraph. (See Goer, Figs 22-24, ¶150, ¶164-¶166)
As regards claim 6, Motwani et al combination teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising validating authenticity of the long-term project by comparing the second digital authentication token with the first digital authentication token. (Motwani: Figs. 1-3, pages 2-4. See also, Kan: ¶14)
As regards claim 7, Motwani et al combination teaches the method of claim 1, wherein creating the second digital authentication token comprises incorporating a timestamp. (See Goer, Figs 22-24, ¶49, ¶150, ¶164-¶166)
As regards claim 8, Motwani et al combination teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the long-term project comprises at least one of: a portrait, a sculpture, a game, a newspaper article. (Motwani: Figs. 1, 2, pages 2-4.)
As regards claim 9, Motwani et al combination teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising generating a virtual sequence from the creator identifier data using a deterministic function. (Motwani: Fig. 1, pages 2-3, i.e., the biometric watermark is attached to the content and proves the legitimacy/authenticity of the content. See also, Gupta: ¶14, ¶17, i.e., authentication token generating is a hash including a random seed generated using a random num generator i.e., deterministic function)
As regards claim 10, Motwani et al combination teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the virtual sequence is created using a private key associated with a creator of the long term project. (Motwani: Fig. 1, pages 2-3)
As regards claim 11, Motwani et al combination teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first digital authentication token comprises an image-based token. (Motwani: Fig. 1, pages 2-3)
As regards claim 12, Motwani et al combination teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising enabling verification of progress between the first stage and the second stage. (Motwani: Fig. 1, pages 2-3. See Goer, Figs 22-24, ¶161-¶166)
As regards claim 13, Motwani et al combination teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the second stage hash value is generated using a rolling hash function. (Motwani: Fig. 1, pages 2-3, i.e., the biometric watermark is attached to the content and proves the legitimacy/authenticity of the content. See Goer, Figs 22-24, ¶161-¶166, i.e., multiple hashes are applied through multiple stages of a content)
As regards claim 14, Motwani et al combination teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising storing the first and second digital authentication tokens in an authentication token database. (Motwani: Fig. 1, pages 2-3)
As regards claim 15, Motwani et al combination teaches the method of claim 1, wherein creating the first digital authentication token comprises modifying a digital image based on the creator identifier data. Motwani: Fig. 1, pages 2-3, i.e., the biometric watermark is attached to the content and proves the legitimacy/authenticity of the content)
As regards claim 16, Motwani et al combination teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising validating the second digital authentication token against the first digital authentication token recorded on the notarized ledger. (See Goer, Figs 22-24, ¶150, ¶164-¶166, i.e., multiple hashes are applied through multiple stages of a content. See also, Gupta: ¶14, ¶17, i.e., authentication token generating is a hash including a random seed generated using a random num generator i.e., deterministic function)
As regards claim 17, Motwani et al combination teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the creator identifier data remains constant between the first and second digital authentication tokens. (Motwani: Figs. 1-3, pages 2-4, i.e., the artist creating the digital work and the identifiers)
As regards claim 18, Motwani et al combination teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising publishing a final version of the long-term project with at least one of the first or second digital authentication tokens. (Motwani: Figs. 1-3, pages 2-4, matching between the watermark features and the biometric template and a stored template to a threshold level; Motwani: Figs. 1-3, pages 2-4, i.e., storing the packaged token/digital content on a repository)
As regards claim 19, Motwani et al combination teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first and second digital authentication tokens are dynamic tokens that change based on the respective stages of the long-term project. (Motwani: Figs. 1-3, pages 2-4. See also, Kan: ¶6-¶19
As regards claim 20, Motwani et al combination teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising generating a validation score based on comparing features of the first digital authentication token with features of the second digital authentication token. (Motwani: Figs. 1-3, pages 2-4. See also, Kan: ¶14)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED A ZAIDI whose telephone number is (571)270-5995. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 5:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Jeffrey Nickerson can be reached at (469) 295-9235. 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.
/SYED A ZAIDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432