DETAILED ACTION
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 .
information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 08/27/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS statement has been considered by the Examiner.
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.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuchar; David Charles et al. US 20200027089 (herein after Kuchar) in view of Hart; Michael John US 20220263893 (hereinafter Hart).
As per claim 34, Kuchar teaches: A computer-based system for system for distributed electronic asset storage and transaction processing, the system comprising:
at least one blockchain network (blockchain network 118. Kuchar: fig. 1A,);
one or more servers (“The local node trust score indicates a likelihood that the blockchain address is involved in fraudulent activity. The method further comprises receiving, from a plurality of remote servers” Kuchar: para. 4); and
one or more nodes operatively communicating with the one or more servers via the at least one blockchain network, each of the one or more nodes including one or more memories and one or more processors (Kuchar: para.247);
wherein the one or more servers are configured to:
store one or more electronic assets in the one or more memories of the one or more nodes (“The trust network 100 includes a utility token blockchain ledger 606 that may be stored in utility token data stores 604 across the nodes.” Kuchar: para. 111);
determine a reward value for a given node of the one or more nodes, the reward value being based on one or more of: reliability of the given node, availability of the given node, storage space of one or more memories of the given node, computing cycles of one or more processors of the given node, a computational aggregate value corresponding to the given node, and a computational aggregate score corresponding to the given node (“In some implementations, the reward protocol may pay rewards based on one or more distribution reputation values for nodes based on the distribution of consensus trust scores to requestors and the distribution of trust scores as fraud alerts. The reward protocol may pay a larger portion of rewards for nodes that distribute a greater amount of trust scores. In some implementations, the reward protocol may pay rewards based on one or more performance reputation values. For example, the reward protocol may pay larger rewards to nodes with greater bandwidth, processing power, throughput, and availability.” Kuchar: para.119. Also, “the reward protocol may pay rewards based on one or more data storage reputation values” Kuchar: para.120).
Kuchar does not teach, however, Hart discloses: process one or more transactions on the at least one blockchain network using the one or more processors of the one or more nodes (“At 445, the STA 425-a may receive the request for the data. At 450, the STA 425a may determine that a node (i.e., STA 430) associated with a plurality of neighboring nodes has an available computing resources level to process the data. In some cases, the STA 425-a may determine that the node (i.e., STA 430) has the available computing resources level to process the data based on configuration information. The configuration information may include at least one of a mesh network identifier, a mesh network topology, a mesh neighbor list, resource information, or a combination thereof. The resource information may also include a computing resource availability, a storage resource availability, or both.” Hart: para. 90 and fig. 4 steps 445, 450 and 455);
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 Kuchar with the teachings of Hart to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied for distribution of tasks and efficient use of resources (Hart: para. 6 and 29).
As per claim 37, the rejection of claim 34 is incorporated herein. Kuchar teaches: the one or more servers are configured to store the one or more electronic assets in a storage space of the one or more memories of the one or more nodes responsive to a storage request received from a requesting node, the storage request including an indication of the storage space (Kuchar: par. 51).
As per claim 40, the rejection of claim 34 is incorporated herein. Albrecht teaches: the one or more servers are further configured to distribute the one or more electronic assets for storage at a highest-ranked node of the one or more nodes (Albrecht: para. 120).
As per claim 41, . the rejection of claim 34 is incorporated herein. Kuchar teaches: the one or more servers are configured to process the one or more transactions responsive to a processing request received from a requesting node (Kuchar: para. 38 and 51).
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuchar in view of Hart and further in view of BENNISON; JAMES E. US 20210182436 (hereinafter Bennison).
As per claim 36, the rejection of claim 34 is incorporated herein. The combination of Kuchar and Hart does not teach, however, Bennison discloses: the one or more servers are further configured to perform quantum resistant encryption of the one or more electronic assets (Bennison: para.1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kuchar and Hart with the teaching of Bennison to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to make the digital asset tamper resistant (Bennison: para. 1).
Claim 38, 39, 43 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuchar in view of Hart and further in view of Albrecht; Thomas et al. US 20060072420 (hereinafter Albrecht).
As per claim 38, the rejection of claim 34 is incorporated herein. The combination of Kuchar and Hart does not teach, however, Albrecht discloses:
the one or more servers are further configured to transform the one or more electronic assets into one or more fragments for dispersion (“the array of A storage fields is logically divided into k.sub.0 sub-arrays, each sub-array having A/k.sub.0 storage fields, where k.sub.0.gtoreq.2. A given write operation to the array is performed for input data blocks which are each writable in A/k.sub.0 storage fields, i.e. in one sub-array. (The overall write process may of course involve various stages of processing input data to achieve the final form in which the data is actually stored in the storage array. …). In each group of k.sub.0 input data blocks, each block is written to a different one of the k.sub.0 sub-arrays.” Albrecht: para. 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kuchar and Hart with the teaching of Bennison to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied so that each input data block is of a size such that, after any processing inherent in the write process, the entire block can be written within A/k.sub.0 storage fields (Bennison: para. 1).
As per claim 39, the rejection of claim 34 is incorporated herein. The combination of Kuchar and Hart does not teach, however; Albrecht discloses: the one or more servers are further configured to generate redundancy data based the one or more electronic assets (Albrecht: para. 43).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kuchar and Hart with the teaching of Albrecht to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to check the accuracy of data.
As per claim 43, the rejection of claim 34 is incorporated herein. The combination of Kuchar and Hart does not teach, however; Albrecht discloses: the one or more servers are further configured to transform data associated with a processing request into one or more fragments using an inherent parallelism technique (by appropriate selection of the values of r and C in the coding process, the system can be employed with any array size A and can accommodate any size of user data block. Methods embodying this aspect of the invention thus exploit the inherent parallelism of the probe-based array to provide an efficient and flexible system for writing user data blocks with a high degree of tolerance to errors. Albrecht: para. 29).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kuchar and Hart with the teaching of Albrecht to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to improve the speed of data verification.
As per claim 44, the rejection of claim 43 is incorporated herein. The combination of Kuchar and Hart does not teach, however; Albrecht discloses: the one or more servers are further configured to perform a redundancy validation of the one or more fragments (“A cyclical redundancy check (CRC) code is added to each block of user data by CRC coder 8…” Albrecht: para. 43).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kuchar and Hart with the teaching of Albrecht to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to detect error when storing data.
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuchar in view of Hart and further in view of MAHONEY; Jeffrey W. US 20200366495 (hereinafter Mahoney).
As per claim 42, the rejection of claim 41 is incorporated herein. The combination of Kuchar and Hart does not teach, however, Mahoney discloses: the processing request is: (i) a translation code generation request, (ii) a translation code usage request, (iii) a blockchain update request, (iv) a metric data acquisition request, or (v) a reward data acquisition request (“if the network node determines that its hash different from the hashes generated by the majority of peer nodes, the network node may request a block from a node generating the majority hash and update the local copy of the blockchain by appending a block received in response to the request”. para. 8), and wherein the one or more servers are further configured to perform quantum resistant encryption of data associated with the processing request (“The proof of majority method may use elliptical curve cryptography or quantum computing resistant cryptography to ensure confidentiality, authenticity, and non-reputability of all transactions originated with the wallets.” Mahoney).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kuchar and Hart with the teaching of Mahoney to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to tamper proof the digital asset.
Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuchar in view of Hart and further in view of He; Xiaopeng US 20210336839 (hereinafter He).
As per claim 45, the rejection of claim 34 is incorporated herein. The combination of Kuchar and Hart does not teach, however, He discloses: the one or more servers are further configured to distribute data associated with a processing request to a highest-ranked node of the one or more nodes for processing by the highest-ranked node (“Node's evaluation and ranking guarantees that the best performing, and the most reliable node get to handle the service request from user nodes.” He: para. 170).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kuchar and Hart with the teaching of He to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to ensure delivery of service.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson; Christopher Charles US 20220005032 (hereinafter Anderson) in view of DiTomaso; Joseph et al. US 20180101504 (hereinafter DiTomaso).
As per claim 35, Anderson teaches: A computer-implemented method for translation of a digital item in a first online environment, the method comprising:
creating a smart contract; and generating, via the created smart contract, translation code for the digital item based on native code of the digital item, the native code corresponding to a content of the digital item in the first online environment, the translation code representing one or more unique attributes of the digital item (“Upon confirmation of the digital contract being updated by the contract update module 317, the smart contract generation module 320 may convert the digital contract in the natural language format to an updated real-world contract including the updated contractual preconditions, the offerings, and/or the pricing details (unique attributes of the digital item). The updated real-world contract corresponds to the digital contract in the legal format having the one or more contractual clauses. The smart contract generation module 320 may also generate an updated smart contract corresponding to the updated contractual precondition in the updated real-world contract.” Anderson: para. 41).
Anderson does not teach, however; DiTomaso discloses: wherein the translation code is configured to make the digital item usable in one or more additional online environments, the one or more additional online environments being different from the first online environment (“the embodiments herein may be applied to any web-based post that includes textual description and still images which can be transposed into audio and video content. Also, the examples herein are described with respect to static content being extracted from a host website (i.e., a first website) and converted into enhanced content on a second website. However, the original content and the enhanced content may be extracted and output via a single website rather than two or more websites.” DiTomaso: para. 20).
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 Anderson with the teachings of DiTomaso to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to make the digital item accessible (usable) on different websites (DiTomaso: para. 29).
As per claim 50, the rejection of claim 35 is incorporated herein. Anderson teaches: transforming the digital item into a translated digital item based on the generated translation code (“The smart contract generation module 320 facilitates automatic conversion of the contract details included in the digital contract from the natural language format to a legal format having one or more contractual clauses. The smart contract generation module 320 may employ template automation techniques to convert the contract details in the natural language format to the legal format.” Anderson: para. 33).
As per claim 51, the rejection of claim 50 is incorporated herein. Anderson teaches: storing the translated digital item on a distributed electronic asset storage system via a storage request (“The blockchain storage module 330 may store timestamped records of the updated real-world contract, the updated smart contract, the updated token coin in the digital ledgers 145-165 of the nodes 115-135 simultaneously in the blockchain network 140.”. Anderson: para. 42).
As per claim 52, the rejection of claim 35 is incorporated herein. Anderson does not teach, however, DiTomaso discloses: generating an analysis of at least one of: (i) the first online environment and (ii) the one or more additional online environments, the one or more analyses related to at least one of: online environment laws, online environment rules, and online environment mechanics (DiTomaso: para. 20-21).
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 Anderson with the teachings of DiTomaso to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to consider the rules of a second online environment.
Claims 46-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of DiTomaso and further in view of Sethi; Parminder Singh et al. US 20230041350 (hereinafter Sethi).
As per claim 46, the rejection of claim 35 is incorporated herein. The combination of Anderson and DiTomaso does not teach, however; Sethi disclose: generating a tree data structure based on the digital item (Sethi: para. 39).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Anderson and DiTomaso with the teaching of Sethi to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied in order to generate an easy way to simplify complex problems.
As per claim 47, the rejection of claim 46 is incorporated herein. The combination of Anderson and DiTomaso does not teach, however; Sethi disclose: one or more leaf nodes of the generated tree data structure include one or more attributes of the digital item (The lowest levels of selection of a value (attribute) are the leaf nodes of the dependency tree 455. Sethi: para. 46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Anderson and DiTomaso with the teaching of Sethi to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied in order to have the leaf nodes storing the actual information.
As per claim 48, the rejection of claim 47 is incorporated herein. The combination of Anderson and DiTomaso does not teach, however; Sethi disclose: the one or more attributes of the digital item include at least one of: color, armor, value, weight, and special abilities (Sethi: para. 46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Anderson and DiTomaso with the teaching of Sethi to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied in order to have the leaf nodes storing the actual information that are to be stored.
As per claim 49, the rejection of claim 46 is incorporated herein. The combination of Anderson and DiTomaso does not teach, however; Sethi disclose: the tree data structure is generated using at least one of: an artificial intelligence (AI) technique and a machine learning (ML) technique. (Sethi: para. 39).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Anderson and DiTomaso with the teaching of Sethi to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied in order to create a logical digital model of contents.
Claim 53 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of DiTomaso and further in view of Mehta; Jatin V. et al. US 20220292143 (hereinafter Mehta).
As per claim 53, the rejection of claim 52 is incorporated herein. The combination of Anderson and DiTomaso does not teach, however; Mehta disclose: the analysis is generated using at least one of: an artificial intelligence (AI) technique and a machine learning (ML) technique (“The content characterization system employs artificial intelligence, machine learning, fuzzy logic, and data science algorithms in analyzing the website data, generating the structured data objects with the core object, dynamically incorporating changes in website data in the structured data objects, and determining structured data objects relevant to a received search query.” Mehta: para. 28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Anderson and DiTomaso with the teaching of Mehta to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied in order to perform analysis in real-time.
Claim 54-57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of DiTomaso and further in view of Hesketh; John Benjamin et al. US 20190236137 (hereinafter Hesketh).
As per claim 54, the rejection of claim 52 is incorporated herein. The combination of Anderson and DiTomaso does not teach, however; Hesketh disclose:
determining working mechanics for the one or more additional online environments based on the generated analysis (user conversation in a first website through translation (a working mechanics) is transmitted in a different form to a second website. Hesketh: para.121).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Anderson and DiTomaso with the teaching of Hesketh to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied in order to facilitate translation of content from one website to another in different format.
As per claim 55, the rejection of claim 52 is incorporated herein. The combination of Anderson and DiTomaso does not teach, however; Hesketh disclose: harmonizing at least one of (1) one or more attributes of the digital item and (ii) one or more abilities of the digital item with the one or more additional online environments, based on the generated analysis (the details of the user order (the same attributes) are reflected in the output of the second website. Hesketh: para.121).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Anderson and DiTomaso with the teaching of Hesketh to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied in order to facilitate translation of content from one website to another in different format.
As per claim 56, the rejection of claim 35 is incorporated herein. The combination of Anderson and DiTomaso does not teach, however; Hesketh disclose:
performing a harmonization of at least one of laws, rules, and mechanics between the first online environment and the one or more additional online environments (the rule being translation of user's preferences and/or selections of pizza toppings, as specified by the user. Hesketh: para.121).
As per claim 57, the rejection of claim 56 is incorporated herein. The combination of Anderson and DiTomaso does not teach, however; Hesketh disclose: the harmonization is performed using at least one of: an artificial intelligence (AI) technique and a machine learning (ML) technique (“As a third such example, the conversational representation 204 for a particular website 116 may be developed using a variety of processing techniques, such as lexical evaluation; natural-language parsing; machine vision, including object and face recognition; knowledge systems; Bayesian classifiers; linear regression; artificial neural networks; and genetically adapted models.” Hesketh: para. 107) .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Anderson and DiTomaso with the teaching of Hesketh to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied in order to perform analysis in real-time.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHODRAT JAMSHIDI whose telephone number is (571)270-1956. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-6:00.
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, Carl Colin can be reached at 5712723862. 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.
/GHODRAT JAMSHIDI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493