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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 02/14/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 9 and 17 have been amended. No Claims have been canceled. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s arguments, on page 10-14 of the remark filed on 02/14/2025, on the newly amended limitations of independent claim 1 “periodically annotating, using the interface, the legally enforceable blockchain ledger with one or more encumbrance interests associated with the titled property that are recorded on the recording authority ledger through a process that does not require a signature of the property owner of the titled property, thereby creating a complete record of all transactions associated with the titled property on the legally enforceable blockchain ledger; wherein the one or more encumbrance interests recorded on the recording authority ledger include at least one of a mechanic's lien, a judgment, a court order, a possessory interest, security interest, future interest, leases, and covenants: and.”, arguments are persuasive.
Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over Blackman et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200234386) and Awasthy et al. (U.S No. 11501365) further in view of Moss-Pultz et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20160300234), has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the following prior art: Rosenoer et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20180285971) in conjunction with Blackman et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200234386) and Awasthy et al. (U.S No. 11501365) and Moss-Pultz et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20160300234)). Please refer to the 35 U.S.C. 103 section below for a detailed explanation.
For the reasons stated above and the new ground(s) of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 below, Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument, see Applicant’s Remarks Page 10-14, regarding allowance of the application. Examiner asserts that claims 1-20 are rejected for the reasons stated above in conjunction with the new ground(s) of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 below.
Conclusion: Blackman- Awasthy- Moss-Pultz- Rosenoer teaches the aforementioned limitations of independent claims and 1, 9 and 17 rendering the claim limitations obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention.
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 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, 9-10 and 17-18 , is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blackman et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200234386, hereinafter referred to as “Blackman”) Awasthy et al. (U.S No. 11501365, hereinafter referred to as “Awasthy”) and Moss-Pultz et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20160300234, hereinafter referred to as “Moss-Pultz”) further in view of Rosenoer et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20180285971, hereinafter referred to as “Rosenoer”)
In regards to Claim 1, Blackman teaches a method utilizing one or more processors and one or more memories, the method comprising: (Par. (0063-0067); processor and memory)
receiving at the one or more processors, from a recording authority ledger, data representative of a titled property, wherein ownership of an asset is documented and registered on the recording authority ledger, and wherein the data representative of the titled property is processed with a hash function to obtain a hash value; (Figure 1 labels “Ownership Ecosystem” “New Transaction Block”, “Vendor Management Side-chain” “Validator Node” “Unique Property Blockchain”; 301, 302 and 7. FA generates ownership …”; recording authority ledger (vendor management sidechain and validator node with public records such as titles” transfers on label 7. to Ownership Ecosystem associated with unique property blockchain a transfer of ownership with title), (Par. (0034); recording authority ledger (off-chain or side-chain corresponding to maintaining and storing public records with title), (Par. (0030); new transaction blocks are created for property blockchain), (Par. (0010); transaction blocks with hash), (Par. (0038-0039); property transaction includes hash associated with title and transaction information recorded with title transfers of property mortgages etc.), (Par. (0033); permission nodes in property blockchain receive property transactions from public node associated with data representative of the property title (filed lien against a property that is validated by permissioned nodes of blockchain))
creating, using the one or more processors, a blockchain transaction by using the hash value of the data representative of the titled property transferred from the recording authority ledger to a legally enforceable blockchain ledger; (Par. (0042-0043); creating of blockchain blocks with property attributes and pointers to traditional ledger (off-chain); blockchain corresponding to two transfers of ownership and history information used to create chronological records of property), (Par. (0039); property transactions include a hash that provides information associated with title policies),
generating, by the one or more processors, a chain of title between the recording authority ledger and the legally enforceable blockchain ledger to verify enforceability of a subsequent blockchain transaction on the legally enforceable blockchain ledger, (Par. (0030 and 0038); generating blockchain transaction with title), (Figure 1 labels “Ownership Ecosystem” “New Transaction Block”, “Vendor Management Side-chain” “Validator Node” “Unique Property Blockchain”; 301, 302 and 7. FA generates ownership …”; recording authority ledger (vendor management sidechain and validator node with public records such as titles” transfers on label 7. to Ownership Ecosystem associated with unique property blockchain a transfer of ownership with title), (Par. (0029-0034); transferring title of property from vendor management sidechain with ledger to property blockchain that validates/verifies transactions and proves ownership before storage))
thereby automatically resolving disputes regarding the titled property on the legally enforceable blockchain ledger by tracing the chain of title cryptographically back to the recording authority ledger; and (Par. (0053-0054); resolving disputes across blockchain and shared vendors regarding mortgage and titles), (Par. (0047-0048 and 0056-0061); resolving disputes regarding the titled property on the legally enforceable blockchain ledger (using blockchain to make decision and determine approval and track wild deeds, illegal deeds or commitment issues on title policy))
wherein the recording authority ledger includes a registry of records maintained by a recording authority entity. (Par. (0034); off-chain that stores land/ownership and title information))
Blackman does not explicitly teach executing a smart contract in the blockchain transaction to define one or more terms of transferring the data representative of the titled property to the legally enforceable blockchain ledger; storing the smart contract in the blockchain transaction on the legally enforceable blockchain ledger; in response to receiving the data from the recording authority ledger, (i) establishing an interface between the recording authority ledger and the legally enforceable blockchain ledger using a computing system; (ii) establishing a legal and cryptographic relationship between the recording authority ledger and the legally enforceable blockchain ledger, wherein the hash value of the data representative of the titled property includes a cryptographically signed recorded covenant added to the recording authority ledger that shunts and redirects, using the interface, subsequent recording authority ledger transactions from the recording authority ledger to the legally enforceable blockchain ledger and stipulates that the subsequent recording authority ledger transactions must be signed with a blockchain ledger cryptographic signature; and periodically annotating, using the interface, the legally enforceable blockchain ledger with one or more encumbrance interests associated with the titled property that are recorded on the recording authority ledger through a process that does not require a signature of the property owner of the titled property, thereby creating a complete record of all transactions associated with the titled property on the legally enforceable blockchain ledger; wherein the one or more encumbrance interests recorded on the recording authority ledger include at least one of a mechanic's lien, a judgment, a court order, a possessory interest, security interest, future interest, leases, and covenants: and
Wherein Awasthy teaches executing a smart contract in the blockchain transaction to define one or more terms of transferring the data representative of the titled property to the legally enforceable blockchain ledger; (Col. 21 lines 50-67; once certain parameters smart contract executes transfer the asset title; transfer and title exchange), Col. 8 lines 1-45; transfer of title assets upon execution of smart contracts and storage within blockchain by receiving property assets and updating on blockchain loan information)
storing the smart contract in the blockchain transaction on the legally enforceable blockchain ledger; (Col. 15 lines 18-40; generated block with smart contract 244 and hash of previous block; smart contract stored on blockchain), (Col. 2 lines 30-50; block with smart contract stored)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Blackman to incorporate the teaching of Awasthy to utilize the above feature of a smart contract with terms defining data representative of property titles and storing of the smart contract because of the analogous concept of transfer of property title information utilizing a blockchain network, with the motivation of implementing an immutable ledger that organizes and safeguards records of titles, deed and asset information of properties. By having a smart contract with a set of rules and criteria that need to be met corresponding to titles of property the user can be assured that lost, misfiled and defective titles would not be a concern due to the digital track of titles and deed. This helps counties and districts with the categorization of titles based on the one or more terms and in return safeguards to critical and sensitive information of home owners and users wishing to have an authentic way of transferring title data. (Awasthy Col. 1 lines 25-50)
Blackman and Awasthy do not explicitly teach in response to receiving the data from the recording authority ledger, (i) establishing an interface between the recording authority ledger and the legally enforceable blockchain ledger using a computing system; (ii) establishing a legal and cryptographic relationship between the recording authority ledger and the legally enforceable blockchain ledger, wherein the hash value of the data representative of the titled property includes a cryptographically signed recorded covenant added to the recording authority ledger that shunts and redirects, using the interface, subsequent recording authority ledger transactions from the recording authority ledger to the legally enforceable blockchain ledger and stipulates that the subsequent recording authority ledger transactions must be signed with a blockchain ledger cryptographic signature; and periodically annotating, using the interface, the legally enforceable blockchain ledger with one or more encumbrance interests associated with the titled property that are recorded on the recording authority ledger through a process that does not require a signature of the property owner of the titled property, thereby creating a complete record of all transactions associated with the titled property on the legally enforceable blockchain ledger; wherein the one or more encumbrance interests recorded on the recording authority ledger include at least one of a mechanic's lien, a judgment, a court order, a possessory interest, security interest, future interest, leases, and covenants: and
Wherein Moss-Pultz teaches in response to receiving the data from the recording authority ledger, (i) establishing an interface between the recording authority ledger and the legally enforceable blockchain ledger using a computing system; (Par. (0023-0024);displaying at user interface transfer of record from public ledger to distributed consensus of ownership using blockchain)
(ii) establishing a legal and cryptographic relationship between the recording authority ledger and the legally enforceable blockchain ledger, (Par. (0023); record associated with recording authority ledger and separate blockchain corresponding to transfer and hashing), (Par. (0088) asset record and immutable chain-of-title corresponding to legal significance), (Par. (0063); contract associated with transferring of records)
wherein the hash value of the data representative of the titled property includes a cryptographically signed recorded covenant added to the recording authority ledger (Par. (0017-0018); transferring of titles and records using hashing), (Par. (0048-0051); property hash and transfer of record and ownership of property to blockchain),
that shunts and redirects, using the interface, subsequent recording authority ledger transactions from the recording authority ledger to the legally enforceable blockchain ledger and (Par. (0023-0024); rejecting of transfer record corresponding to public ledger and generating subsequent transfer record and remitting and recording record into separate blockchain)
stipulates that the subsequent recording authority ledger transactions must be signed with a blockchain ledger cryptographic signature; and (Par. (0061-0063); signing of the records), (Par. (0023-0024); signing and digital signature of blockchain corresponding to records)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Blackman and Awasthy to incorporate the teaching of Moss-Pultz to utilize the above features because of the analogous concept of transfer of property title information utilizing a blockchain network, with the motivation of transferring property title information from a traditional or public ledger to blockchain ledger by redirecting to create an immutable log and transfer ownership without concerns of forgery and tampering. By implementing authentication techniques such as a hashing and signatures corresponding to property titles and records the integrity of the records and assets are more securely protected. (Moss-Pultz Par. (0003-0005))
Blackman, Awasthy and Moss-Pultz do not explicitly teach periodically annotating, using the interface, the legally enforceable blockchain ledger with one or more encumbrance interests associated with the titled property that are recorded on the recording authority ledger through a process that does not require a signature of the property owner of the titled property, thereby creating a complete record of all transactions associated with the titled property on the legally enforceable blockchain ledger; wherein the one or more encumbrance interests recorded on the recording authority ledger include at least one of a mechanic's lien, a judgment, a court order, a possessory interest, security interest, future interest, leases, and covenants: and
Wherein Rosenoer teaches periodically annotating, using the interface, the legally enforceable blockchain ledger with one or more encumbrance interests associated with the titled property that are recorded on the recording authority ledger through a process that does not require a signature of the property owner of the titled property, thereby creating a complete record of all transactions associated with the titled property on the legally enforceable blockchain ledger; (Par. (0032-0033); updating the credit file in blockchain with new actions corresponding to interest and security interest), (Par. (0042-0043); updating and status changes of blockchain corresponding to interest), (Par. (0035 and 0042); that does not require a signature of the property owner of the titled property, thereby creating a complete record of all transactions associated with the titled property on the legally enforceable blockchain ledger; (no signatures and transactions written into blockchain))
wherein the one or more encumbrance interests recorded on the recording authority ledger include at least one of a mechanic's lien, a judgment, a court order, a possessory interest, security interest, future interest, leases, and covenants: and (Par. (0032); interest rates, principal and interest corresponding to security interest))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Blackman, Awasthy and Moss-Pultz to incorporate the teaching of Rosenoer to utilize the above features because of the analogous concept of verification of property information utilizing a blockchain network, with the motivation of preventing risk from home-equity and mortgages using blockchain to track property information and in return allow consumer secure practices. (Rosenoer Par.(0006-0009))
In regards to Claim 2, the combination the combination of Blackman, Awasthy, Moss-Pultz and Rosenoer teach the method of claim 1, the method according to claim 1, wherein the legally enforceable blockchain ledger includes an automated enforcement agent configured to provide customizable services to verify compliance of the subsequent blockchain transaction with the one or more terms before adding the subsequent blockchain transaction on the legally enforceable blockchain ledger; and (Par. (0034); validator nodes of blockchain verifying titles and documents), (Par. (0008); verifying prior to creating new transaction block associated with ownership; validating transactions then adding transactions to property blockchain), (Par. (0048); verify compliance (determine whether the blockchain transaction meets the requirements by validation of blockchain transaction associated with majority agreements across nodes before adding), (Par. (0055); verify compliance of the subsequent blockchain transaction with the one or more terms before adding ( validate the incoming money, payoffs with lender before being added to blockchain)
Blackman and Awasthy do not explicitly teach wherein the blockchain ledger cryptographic signature is a blockchain ledger manager cryptographic signature generated by a private key.
Wherein Moss-Pultz teaches wherein the blockchain ledger cryptographic signature is a blockchain ledger manager cryptographic signature generated by a private key. (Par. (0022); signature generated with private key))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Blackman, Awasthy, and Rosenoer to incorporate the teaching of Moss-Pultz for the reasons discussed in independent claim 1 stated above.
In regards to Claims 9-10 and 17-18, claims 9-10 and 17-18 recited similar limitations to claims 1-2 and the teachings of Blackman, Awasthy, Moss-Pultz and Rosenoer address all the limitations of claims 1-2 and are thereby rejected under the same grounds.
Claims 3-4,11-12 and 19-20 , is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blackman et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200234386, hereinafter referred to as “Blackman”), Awasthy et al. (U.S No. 11501365, hereinafter referred to as “Awasthy”), Moss-Pultz et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20160300234, hereinafter referred to as “Moss-Pultz”) and Rosenoer et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20180285971, hereinafter referred to as “Rosenoer”) further in view of Kameta et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200193538, hereinafter referred to as “Kameta”)
In regards to Claim 3, the combination of Blackman, Awasthy, Moss-Pultz and Rosenoer do not explicitly teach processing the data representative of the titled property with the hash function by signing the hash value with the private key of the blockchain ledger manager; and storing the signed hash value on the legally enforceable blockchain ledger.
Wherein Kameta teaches processing the data representative of the titled property with the hash function by signing the hash value with the private key of the blockchain ledger manager; and (Par. (0168-0173); signs hash value with private key )
storing the signed hash value on the legally enforceable blockchain ledger. (Figure 10 label “hash”; transaction with hash value stored in blockchain ledger), (Par. (0174); storing of hash values of blocks in blockchain)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Blackman, Awasthy, Moss-Pultz and Rosenoer to incorporate the teaching of Kameta to utilize the above feature of signing a hash value with a private key and storing the signed hash because of the analogous concept of transfer of hash based verification of deed and property title data associated with transfer of storage using blockchain technologies, with the motivation of signing hashes with a specific key, this helps prevent compromise or modification because by having a signed hash and storing the signed hash linked with a key users can have a state of comparison and identify before alteration is done to property data, liens, loans mortgages etc. the corresponding valid in comparison to other hashes that match or not. (Kameta Par. (0002-0005))
In regards to Claim 4, the combination of Blackman, Awasthy, Moss-Pultz and Rosenoer teach the method of claim 1, Blackman further teaches the method according to claim 3, further comprising: initiating an examination and verification process before adding the subsequent blockchain transaction to the legally enforceable blockchain ledger to determine whether the subsequent blockchain transaction meets requirements of the legally enforceable blockchain ledger. (Par. (0008); verifying prior to creating new transaction block associated with ownership; validating transactions then adding transactions to property blockchain), (Par. (0048); determine whether the blockchain transaction meets the requirements ( validation of blockchain transaction associated with majority agreements across nodes before adding), (Par. (0055); the requirements of the blockchain ledger ( validate the incoming money, payoffs with lender before being added to blockchain)
In regards to Claims 11-12 and 19-20, claims 11-12 and 19-20 recite similar limitations to claims 3-4 and the teachings of Blackman, Awasthy, Moss-Pultz, Rosenoer and Kameta address all the limitations discussed in claims 3-4 and are thereby rejected under the same grounds.
Claims 5, 7, 13, and 15 , is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blackman et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200234386, hereinafter referred to as “Blackman”),Awasthy et al. (U.S No. 11501365, hereinafter referred to as “Awasthy”), Moss-Pultz et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20160300234, hereinafter referred to as “Moss-Pultz”) Rosenoer et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20180285971, hereinafter referred to as “Rosenoer”) and Kameta et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200193538, hereinafter referred to as “Kameta”) further in view of Kravitz et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20180019993, hereinafter referred to as “Kravitz”)
In regards to Claim 5, the combination of Blackman, Awasthy, Moss-Pultz, Rosenoer and Kameta do not explicitly teach issuing a certificate of approval when the subsequent blockchain transaction meets the requirement of the legally enforceable blockchain ledger, wherein the certificate of approval includes details of the subsequent blockchain transaction; and signing the certificate of approval with a private key of an issuer of the certificate of approval.
Wherein Kravitz teaches issuing a certificate of approval when the subsequent blockchain transaction meets the requirement of the legally enforceable blockchain ledger, (Par. (0064); certificate of approval (proof of ownership attributes in transaction certificate), (Par. (0053); when the blockchain transaction meets the requirement (one or more attributes are verified and issuance of certificate is generated), (Par. (0029-0031); tokens attached with transaction associated with contractual requirements that have been met; token embodying transaction certificate)
wherein the certificate of approval includes details of the subsequent blockchain transaction; and (Par. (0006); certificate corresponding to identifying transaction), (Par. (0040); certificate with transaction information in field such as attributes)
signing the certificate of approval with a private key of an issuer of the certificate of approval. (Par. (0076); signing certificate with secret key) (Par. (0029-0031); token associated with transaction certificate), (Par. (0032); token corresponding to certificate is signed with private key)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Blackman, Awasthy, Moss-Pultz, Rosenoer and Kameta to incorporate the teaching of Kravitz to utilize the above feature of issuing a certificate associated with requirements of a transaction and signing the certificate of approval because of the analogous concept of transfer of blockchain technologies and the transfer of property data such as loans, ownership and assets, with the motivation of signing a certificate that indicates approval of a transaction with a private key to have an unmodifiable record in the blockchain that securely protects the users private information from harm. By signing with a secret or private key a certificate of approval, nodes in the blockchain network can be aware of validated certificates corresponding to property data such as deeds, liens, mortgages etc. and creates a layer of detection against forged or unauthorized entities because only the valid entity with the private key can have access to the data and a record is then stored and aware to all nodes in the network of approval that is not susceptible to harm or vulnerability to other users storing their data. (Kravitz Par. (0001-0002))
In regards to Claim 7, the combination of Blackman, Awasthy, Moss-Pultz, Rosenoer and Kameta do not explicitly teach wherein the certificate of approval is issued via an automated process that approves the subsequent blockchain transaction.
Wherein Kravitz teaches wherein the certificate of approval is issued via an automated process that approves the subsequent blockchain transaction. (Par. (0053); issuing transaction certificates associated with verify attributes of ownership), (Par. (0055); authorizing of transactions corresponding to certificates enrolled)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Blackman, Awasthy, Moss-Pultz, Rosenoer and Kameta to incorporate the teaching of Kravitz to utilize the above feature of an automated process of approving blockchain transactions associated with issuing a certificate because of the analogous concept of transfer of blockchain technologies and the transfer of property data such as loans, ownership and assets, with the motivation of having an automated process ran by software to ensure users that compromise and risk would not be a factor in associated with their deeds, titles, property data etc. By having an approval of the blockchain transaction and issuing of certificates that are process with software the system is more flexible and versatile to combat issues with ownership. This creates a more effective way as oppose to traditional property title storage with files that are fragmented, misfiled and endure long processing time. By having an efficient software process transactions can be validated more frequently and the free flowing exchange of data can be performed leading to assured users in the blockchain network with high confidence. (Kravitz Par. (0001-0002)
In regards to Claim 13 and 15, claims 13 and 15 recite similar limitations to claims 5 and 7 and the teachings of Blackman, Awasthy, Moss-Pultz, Rosenoer Kameta and Kravitz address all the limitations discussed in claims 5 and 7 and are thereby rejected under the same grounds.
Claims 6, 8, 14 and 16 , is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blackman et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200234386, hereinafter referred to as “Blackman”) and Awasthy et al. (U.S No. 11501365, hereinafter referred to as “Awasthy”), Moss-Pultz et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20160300234, hereinafter referred to as “Moss-Pultz”) Rosenoer et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20180285971, hereinafter referred to as “Rosenoer”)
Kameta et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200193538, hereinafter referred to as “Kameta”) and Kravitz et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20180019993, hereinafter referred to as “Kravitz”) further in view of Ruschin et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20180075028, hereinafter referred to as “Ruschin”)
In regards to Claim 6, the combination of Blackman, Awasthy, Moss-Pultz, Rosenoer, Kameta and Kravitz do not explicitly teach wherein the issuer of the certificate of approval is a representative appointed as a title agent by a property owner of the titled property.
Wherein Ruschin teaches wherein the issuer of the certificate of approval is a representative appointed as a title agent by a property owner of the titled property. (Par. (0029 and 0084); each node is associated with owner of title), (Par. (0074); node that is owner of title corresponding to issuing/ issuer of certificates)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Blackman, Awasthy, Moss-Pultz, Rosenoer, Kameta and Kravitz to incorporate the teaching of Ruschin to utilize the above feature of issuing a certificate by a property owner of the title because of the analogous concept of blockchain technologies and the transfer of property data such as loans, ownership and assets, with the motivation of having an issuer of the certificate to be a property owner of the title to create a verified interaction between buyer and sellers of land property, estates etc. By issuing a certificate by the property owner users in communication are assured that a valid entity that is authorized and with proof of ownership based on a certificate is the rightful entity to conduct the business. This mitigates forgery or harm based on the issuer that can be traced and in return creates a secure exchange of titles, deeds and property data without concern of risk. (Ruschin Par. (0001-0005))
In regards to Claim 8, the combination of Blackman, Awasthy, Moss-Pultz, Rosenoer, Kameta and Kravitz do not explicitly teach storing the subsequent blockchain transaction to the legally enforceable blockchain ledger based on the issued certificate of approval.
Wherein Ruschin teaches storing the subsequent blockchain transaction to the legally enforceable blockchain ledger based on the issued certificate of approval. (Par. (0087); transaction recorded in blockchain corresponding to issuing of certificate)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Blackman, Awasthy, Moss-Pultz, Rosenoer, Kameta and Kravitz to incorporate the teaching of Ruschin to utilize the above feature of storing the blockchain transaction based on the issued certificate because of the analogous concept of blockchain technologies and the transfer of property data such as loans, ownership and assets, with the motivation of storing blockchain transaction with sensitive data such as titles, deeds, liens and other files in an immutable ledger that can be traced and validated by consensus nodes to securely protect the contents. By having a link between the certificate and the transactions that are stored users can be assured no modification or compromise can be done to the system and in return creates logs that can be traced back for maintenance and checking digitally of pertinent information. This creates a highly effective way of storing and saves time in the exchange between lenders and consumers. (Ruschin Par. (0001-0005))
In regards to Claim 14 and 16, claims 13 and 15 recite similar limitations to claims 6 and 8 and the teachings of Blackman, Awasthy, Moss-Pultz, Rosenoer Kameta, Kravitz and Ruschin address all the limitations discussed in claims 6 and 8 and are thereby rejected under the same grounds.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rodriguez; Francisco (U.S No. 12131214) “Digital Identity System”. Considered this reference because it addressed hash based verification of proof of ownership associated with titles, land and mortgagees of buyers and sellers.
Tsai; David (U.S Pub. No. 20240354760) “SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MANAGING VIRTUAL VEHICLES ASSOCIATED WITH CORRESPONDING PHYSICAL VEHICLES”. Considered this application because it relates to the transfer of vehicle titles through multiple nodes of a blockchain.
ALFEROV; Igor (U.S Pub. No. 20200272619) “METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR AUDIT AND PAYMENT CLEARING OF ELECTRONIC TRADING SYSTEMS USING BLOCKCHAIN DATABASE”. Considered this application because it addressed the use of blockchain technologies and the transfer of assets and property.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 HASSAN A HUSSEIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3554. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am-5pm.
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, Eleni Shiferaw can be reached on (571)272-3867. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-y.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/H.A.H./ Examiner, Art Unit 2497 /ELENI A SHIFERAW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2497