Office Action 1: Non-Final Rejection (2024-06-05)
Rejection types: 103 - Obviousness, 112 - Written Description/Enablement

CLAIMS:
What is claimed is:
1\. A device configured to broadcast blocks incorporating artifact origination tokens, the device comprising: a network interface; memory; and a processor, the processor configured to: obtain an artifact-to-time association element, wherein the artifact-to-time association element comprises: an artifact reference; and a timestamp comprising a reference to the artifact reference; obtain an artifact origination token, wherein the artifact origination token comprises: the artifact-to-time association element; a certifier descriptor indicating a certifier public key; and a certifier digital signature, the certifier digital signature generated based on the certifier public key and the artifact-to-time association element; obtain a ledger entry comprising the artifact origination token and a public key; compute a challenge using a cryptographic system, wherein the challenge is based on the ledger entry; and broadcast a block that incorporates the ledger entry to securely add the block to a distributed ledger, wherein the block is capable of being validated by using a cryptographic system to obtain a proof based on the challenge.
2\. The device of claim 1, wherein: the processor is further configured to receive the block; and the proof is obtained based on the block.
3\. The device of claim 1, wherein the proof is generated based on an iterative process.
4\. The device of claim 1, wherein the timestamp further comprises a reference to a blockchain.
5\. The device of claim 1, wherein the timestamp further comprises assertions.
6\. The device of claim 1, wherein the artifact reference is a URL to where an artifact is stored.
7\. The device of claim 1, wherein the artifact-to-time association element further comprises an artifact checksum.
8\. The device of claim 1, wherein the artifact-to-time association element further comprises a certainty score.
9\. The device of claim 1, wherein the artifact-to-time association element further comprises a precision score.
10\. The device of claim 1, wherein the artifact-to-time association element further comprises an origination assessment score.
11\. The device of claim 1, wherein the artifact-to-time association element further comprises a context descriptor.
12\. The device of claim 1, wherein the timestamp is an origination timestamp.
13\. The device of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to receive a proof of origination.
14\. The device of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to receive origination evidence.
15\. The device of claim 14, wherein the origination evidence is based on timestamped version of an artifact.
16\. The device of claim 14, wherein the origination evidence comprises a series of timestamps associated with a series of version of an artifact.
17\. The device of claim 16, wherein the artifact is a document.
18\. The device of claim 16, wherein the artifact was generated using a trusted service.
19\. The device of claim 18, wherein the origination evidence is obtained from the trusted service.
20\. The device of claim 18, wherein the origination evidence is an assertion obtained by from the trusted service.

OFFICE ACTION:
DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is in reply to papers filed on 2022-09-01. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1 is/are independent.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18-19 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.  The art of record does not disclose the artifact was generated using a trusted service as recited in claim 18.
Claim(s) 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objections to informalities; to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 112 set forth in this Office action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the unlabeled items shown in Figure(s) 1 should be provided with sufficient descriptive text labels to orient the viewer as to what is being depicted.  While is may not be necessary to provide a text label for each item depicted, the viewer should be given sufficient guidance to identify areas of the figure that will be of interest..  Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b)  CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2 (pre-AIA ) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA  the applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 20, the phrase evidence is . . . obtained by from the trusted service makes the claims ambiguous and therefore indefinite.  The claim is amenable of multiple plausible constructions (e.g., the evidence is obtained by the trusted service and (ii) the evidence is obtained from the trusted service), leaving a person having ordinary skill in the art unable to determine what the Applicant does and does not regard as the invention.  See Ex parte Kenichi Miyazaki, 89 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1207, *11 (BPAI 2008).
Summary of Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following table summarizes the rejections set forth in detail below of the claims over the prior art.
Claim No.
Schouppe '246 in view of Wentz '331
Schouppe '246 in view of Wentz '331 in view of Khandelwal '883
Schouppe '246 in view of Wentz '331 in view of Official Notice
1
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
2
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
3
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
4
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
5
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
6
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
7
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
8
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
9
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
10
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
11
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
12
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
13
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
14
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
15
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
16
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
17
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of AIA  35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 AIA  35 U.S.C. 103 that 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary.  Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103    as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication 20210035246 to Schouppe (hereinafter Schouppe '246) in view of U.S. Publication 20200007331 to Wentz (hereinafter Wentz '331).  Schouppe '246 is prior art to the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2).    Wentz '331 is prior art to the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2).
Per claim 1 (independent):
Schouppe '246 discloses a device configured to broadcast blocks incorporating artifact origination tokens (generates non-fungible token (NFT) and adds to blockchain [Schouppe '246 ¶ 0065-0066, 0081-0085])
Schouppe '246 discloses a network interface; memory; a processor, the processor configured to perform operations (processor(s), memory, computer readable media, storage, executable instructions [Schouppe '246 ¶ 0090-0098])
Schouppe '246 discloses obtain an artifact-to-time association element, wherein the artifact-to-time association element comprises an artifact reference; and a timestamp comprising a reference to the artifact reference (records timestamp and creates hash of file contents, userID, and timestamp [Schouppe '246 ¶ 0065])
Schouppe '246 discloses obtain an artifact origination token, wherein the artifact origination token comprises the artifact-to-time association element (generates NTF compliant with VIP-181 or ERC-721 standard [Schouppe '246 ¶ 0066] containing timestamp and hashes [Schouppe '246 ¶ 0065])
Schouppe '246 does not disclose a certifier descriptor indicating a certifier public key
Schouppe '246 does not disclose a certifier digital signature, the certifier digital signature generated based on the certifier public key and the artifact-to-time association element
However, Schouppe '246 discloses a hash generated based on the artifact-to-time association element (records timestamp and creates hash of file contents, userID, and timestamp [Schouppe '246 ¶ 0065])
Schouppe '246 does not disclose obtain a ledger entry comprising the artifact origination token and a public key
However, Schouppe '246 discloses obtain a ledger entry comprising the artifact origination token (creates blockchain record including NFT with timestamps [Schouppe '246 ¶ 0065-0066, 0058] to facilitate transactions [Schouppe '246 ¶ 0071, 0075])
Schouppe '246 discloses compute a challenge using a cryptographic system, wherein the challenge is based on the ledger entry (proof of work consensus algorithm uses block as input to solve puzzle by iteratively guessing solution until an acceptable solution is found [Schouppe '246 ¶ 0089])
Schouppe '246 discloses broadcast a block that incorporates the ledger entry to securely add the block to a distributed ledger, wherein the block is capable of being validated by using a cryptographic system to obtain a proof based on the challenge (proof of work consensus algorithm uses block as input to solve puzzle by iteratively guessing solution until an acceptable solution is found [Schouppe '246 ¶ 0089])
Further:
Wentz '331 discloses a certifier descriptor indicating a certifier public key (includes cryptographically signed assertions in block chain record [Wentz '331 ¶ 0080]; assertions include trusted timestamp [Wentz '331 ¶ 0100, 0116; Figs. 1 and 3]; includes public key corresponding to signature [Wentz '331 ¶ 0023, 0071, 0080])
Wentz '331 discloses a certifier digital signature, the certifier digital signature generated based on the certifier public key and the artifact-to-time association element (includes cryptographically signed assertions in block chain record [Wentz '331 ¶ 0080]; assertions include trusted timestamp [Wentz '331 ¶ 0100, 0116; Figs. 1 and 3])
Wentz '331 discloses obtain a ledger entry comprising the artifact origination token and a public key (includes cryptographically signed assertions in block chain record [Wentz '331 ¶ 0080]; assertions include trusted timestamp [Wentz '331 ¶ 0100, 0116; Figs. 1 and 3]; includes public key corresponding to signature [Wentz '331 ¶ 0023, 0071, 0080])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (1) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and (2) before the invention was made to have modified Schouppe '246 with the blockchain implementation and third-party attestors of Wentz '331 to arrive at an apparatus, method, and product including:
a certifier descriptor indicating a certifier public key
a certifier digital signature, the certifier digital signature generated based on the certifier public key and the artifact-to-time association element
obtain a ledger entry comprising the artifact origination token and a public key
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because including assertions third-party attestors in an immutable ledge vastly expands the types of assertions the immutable ledger can record, allowing specialized entities to contribute necessary data, e.g. timestamps, virus scans, search results, and various kinds of testing.  A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been further motivated to combine them at least because Wentz '331 teaches [Wentz '331 ¶ 0100, 0116; Figs. 1 and 3; ¶ 0023, 0071, 0080] modifying a blockchain recording non-fungible tokens (NFTs) [Schouppe '246 ¶ 0065-0066, 0081-0085] such as that of Schouppe '246 to arrive at the claimed invention; because doing so constitutes use of a known technique (blockchain implementation and third-party attestors [Wentz '331 ¶ 0100, 0116; Figs. 1 and 3; ¶ 0023, 0071, 0080]) to improve similar devices and/or methods (blockchain records NFTs [Schouppe '246 ¶ 0065-0066, 0081-0085]) in the same way; because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (blockchain implementation and third-party attestors [Wentz '331 ¶ 0100, 0116; Figs. 1 and 3; ¶ 0023, 0071, 0080]) to known devices and/or methods (blockchain recording NFTs [Schouppe '246 ¶ 0065-0066, 0081-0085]) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and because the modification amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.  Here, (1) the prior art included each element (as detailed above); (2) one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in this combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately (blockchain records NFTs [Schouppe '246 ¶ 0065-0066, 0081-0085] using validation and time assertions from third-party attestors [Wentz '331 ¶ 0100, 0116; Figs. 1 and 3; ¶ 0023, 0071, 0080]); (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable; and (4) other considerations do not overcome this conclusion.
Per claim 2 (dependent on claim 1):
Schouppe '246 in view of Wentz '331 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above, incorporated herein by reference
Schouppe '246 discloses the processor is further configured to receive the block and the proof is obtained based on the block (proof of work consensus algorithm uses block as input to solve puzzle by iteratively guessing solution until an acceptable solution is found [Schouppe '246 ¶ 0089])
Per claim 3 (dependent on claim 1):
Schouppe '246 in view of Wentz '331 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above, incorporated herein by reference
Schouppe '246 discloses the proof is generated based on an iterative process (proof of work consensus algorithm uses block as input to solve puzzle by iteratively guessing solution until an acceptable solution is found [Schouppe '246 ¶ 0089])
Per claim 5 (dependent on claim 1):
Schouppe '246 in view of Wentz '331 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above, incorporated herein by reference
Schouppe '246 does not disclose the timestamp further comprises assertions
Further:
Wentz '331 discloses the timestamp further comprises assertions (includes cryptographically signed assertions in block chain record [Wentz '331 ¶ 0080]; assertions include trusted timestamp [Wentz '331 ¶ 0100, 0116; Figs. 1 and 3])
For the reasons detailed above with respect to claim 1, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (1) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and (2) before the invention was made to have modified Schouppe '246 with the blockchain implementation and third-party attestors of Wentz '331 to arrive at an apparatus, method, and product including:
the timestamp further comprises assertions
Per claim 7 (dependent on claim 1):
Schouppe '246 in view of Wentz '331 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above, incorporated herein by reference
Schouppe '246 discloses the artifact-to-time association element further comprises an artifact checksum (records timestamp and creates hash of file contents, userID, and timestamp [Schouppe '246 ¶ 0065])
Per claim 8 (dependent on claim 1):
Schouppe '246 in view of Wentz '331 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above, incorporated herein by reference
Schouppe '246 does not disclose the artifact-to-time association element further comprises a certainty score
Further:
Wentz '331 discloses the artifact-to-time association element further comprises a certainty score (trusted timestamps [Wentz '331 ¶ 0116; Figs. 1 and 3] are evaluated according to confidence levels [Wentz '331 ¶ 0107])
For the reasons detailed above with respect to claim 1, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (1) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and (2) before the invention was made to have modified Schouppe '246 with the blockchain implementation and third-party attestors of Wentz '331 to arrive at an apparatus, method, and product including:
the artifact-to-time association element further comprises a certainty score
Per claim 12 (dependent on claim 1):
Schouppe '246 in view of Wentz '331 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above, incorporated herein by reference
Schouppe '246 discloses the timestamp is an origination timestamp (generates NTF compliant with VIP-181 or ERC-721 standard [Schouppe '246 ¶ 0066] containing timestamp and hashes [Schouppe '246 ¶ 0065])
Claim(s) 4, 6, 9, 10, 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103    as being unpatentable over Schouppe '246 in view of Wentz '331 in view of U.S. Publication 20220229883 to Khandelwal et al. (hereinafter Khandelwal '883).  Khandelwal '883 is prior art to the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2).
Per claim 4 (dependent on claim 1):
Schouppe '246 in view of Wentz '331 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above, incorporated herein by reference
Schouppe '246 does not disclose the timestamp further comprises a reference to a blockchain
Further:
Khandelwal '883 discloses the timestamp further comprises a reference to a blockchain (timestamp is a reference to an Ethereum blockchain entry where the blockchain is the trusted timekeeper [Khandelwal '883 ¶ 0035-0036])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (1) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and (2) before the invention was made to have modified Schouppe '246 with the blockchain implementation and third-party attestors of Khandelwal '883 to arrive at an apparatus, method, and product including:
the timestamp further comprises a reference to a blockchain
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because including assertions third-party attestors in an immutable ledge vastly expands the types of assertions the immutable ledger can record, allowing specialized entities to contribute necessary data, e.g. timestamps, virus scans, search results, and various kinds of testing.  A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been further motivated to combine them at least because Khandelwal '883 teaches [Khandelwal '883 ¶ 0035-0037, 0070-0079] modifying a blockchain recording non-fungible tokens (NFTs) [Schouppe '246 ¶ 0065-0066, 0081-0085] such as that of Schouppe '246 to arrive at the claimed invention; because doing so constitutes use of a known technique (blockchain implementation and third-party attestors [Khandelwal '883 ¶ 0035-0037, 0070-0079]) to improve similar devices and/or methods (blockchain records NFTs [Schouppe '246 ¶ 0065-0066, 0081-0085]) in the same way; because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (blockchain implementation and third-party attestors [Khandelwal '883 ¶ 0035-0037, 0070-0079]) to known devices and/or methods (blockchain recording NFTs [Schouppe '246 ¶ 0065-0066, 0081-0085]) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and because the modification amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.  Here, (1) the prior art included each element (as detailed above); (2) one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in this combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately (blockchain records NFTs [Schouppe '246 ¶ 0065-0066, 0081-0085] using validation and time assertions from third-party attestors [Khandelwal '883 ¶ 0035-0037, 0070-0079]); (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable; and (4) other considerations do not overcome this conclusion.
Per claim 6 (dependent on claim 1):
Schouppe '246 in view of Wentz '331 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above, incorporated herein by reference
Schouppe '246 does not disclose the artifact reference is a URL to where an artifact is stored
Further:
Khandelwal '883 discloses the artifact reference is a URL to where an artifact is stored (NFT system implemented as web server [Khandelwal '883 ¶ 0033] storing original artifact referenced by link [Khandelwal '883 ¶ 0156])
For the reasons detailed above with respect to claim 4, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (1) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and (2) before the invention was made to have modified Schouppe '246 with the blockchain implementation and third-party attestors of Khandelwal '883 to arrive at an apparatus, method, and product including:
the artifact reference is a URL to where an artifact is stored
Per claim 9 (dependent on claim 1):
Schouppe '246 in view of Wentz '331 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above, incorporated herein by reference
Schouppe '246 does not disclose the artifact-to-time association element further comprises a precision score1
Further:
Khandelwal '883 discloses the artifact-to-time association element further comprises a precision score (validators provide information assessing the likelihood of a forgery/counterfeit to enable issuance of authenticity insurance [Khandelwal '883 ¶ 0043, 0215-0216])
For the reasons detailed above with respect to claim 4, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (1) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and (2) before the invention was made to have modified Schouppe '246 with the blockchain implementation and third-party attestors of Khandelwal '883 to arrive at an apparatus, method, and product including:
the artifact-to-time association element further comprises a precision score
Per claim 10 (dependent on claim 1):
Schouppe '246 in view of Wentz '331 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above, incorporated herein by reference
Schouppe '246 does not disclose the artifact-to-time association element further comprises an origination assessment score
Further:
Khandelwal '883 discloses the artifact-to-time association element further comprises an origination assessment score (validators compute value assessing originality [Khandelwal '883 ¶ 0070-0079]; validators validate time of creation  [Khandelwal '883 ¶ 0037])
For the reasons detailed above with respect to claim 4, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (1) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and (2) before the invention was made to have modified Schouppe '246 with the blockchain implementation and third-party attestors of Khandelwal '883 to arrive at an apparatus, method, and product including:
the artifact-to-time association element further comprises an origination assessment score
Per claim 13 (dependent on claim 1):
Schouppe '246 in view of Wentz '331 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above, incorporated herein by reference
Schouppe '246 does not disclose the processor is further configured to receive a proof of origination
Further:
Khandelwal '883 discloses the processor is further configured to receive a proof of origination (validators compute value assessing originality [Khandelwal '883 ¶ 0070-0079]; validators validate time of creation  [Khandelwal '883 ¶ 0037]; generates Package of Proof [Khandelwal '883 ¶ 0037, 0041-0047, 0068-0069])
For the reasons detailed above with respect to claim 4, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (1) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and (2) before the invention was made to have modified Schouppe '246 with the blockchain implementation and third-party attestors of Khandelwal '883 to arrive at an apparatus, method, and product including:
the processor is further configured to receive a proof of origination
Per claim 14 (dependent on claim 1):
Schouppe '246 in view of Wentz '331 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above, incorporated herein by reference
Schouppe '246 does not disclose the processor is further configured to receive origination evidence
Further:
Khandelwal '883 discloses the processor is further configured to receive origination evidence (validators compute value assessing originality [Khandelwal '883 ¶ 0070-0079]; validators validate time of creation  [Khandelwal '883 ¶ 0037]; generates Package of Proof [Khandelwal '883 ¶ 0037, 0041-0047, 0068-0069])
For the reasons detailed above with respect to claim 4, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (1) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and (2) before the invention was made to have modified Schouppe '246 with the blockchain implementation and third-party attestors of Khandelwal '883 to arrive at an apparatus, method, and product including:
the processor is further configured to receive origination evidence
Per claim 15 (dependent on claim 14):
Schouppe '246 in view of Wentz '331 in view of Khandelwal '883 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 14 above, incorporated herein by reference
Schouppe '246 does not disclose the origination evidence is based on timestamped version of an artifact
Further:
Khandelwal '883 discloses the origination evidence is based on timestamped version of an artifact (validators compute value assessing originality [Khandelwal '883 ¶ 0070-0079]; validators validate time of creation  [Khandelwal '883 ¶ 0037]; generates Package of Proof [Khandelwal '883 ¶ 0037, 0041-0047, 0068-0069])
For the reasons detailed above with respect to claim 4, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (1) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and (2) before the invention was made to have modified Schouppe '246 with the blockchain implementation and third-party attestors of Khandelwal '883 to arrive at an apparatus, method, and product including:
the origination evidence is based on timestamped version of an artifact
Per claim 16 (dependent on claim 14):
Schouppe '246 in view of Wentz '331 in view of Khandelwal '883 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 14 above, incorporated herein by reference
Schouppe '246 does not disclose the origination evidence comprises a series of timestamps associated with a series of version of an artifact
Further:
Khandelwal '883 discloses the origination evidence comprises a series of timestamps associated with a series of version of an artifact (validators compute value assessing originality [Khandelwal '883 ¶ 0070-0079]; validators validate time of creation  [Khandelwal '883 ¶ 0037]; generates Package of Proof [Khandelwal '883 ¶ 0037, 0041-0047, 0068-0069])
For the reasons detailed above with respect to claim 4, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (1) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and (2) before the invention was made to have modified Schouppe '246 with the blockchain implementation and third-party attestors of Khandelwal '883 to arrive at an apparatus, method, and product including:
the origination evidence comprises a series of timestamps associated with a series of version of an artifact
Per claim 17 (dependent on claim 16):
Schouppe '246 in view of Wentz '331 in view of Khandelwal '883 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 16 above, incorporated herein by reference
Schouppe '246 discloses the artifact is a document (asset is a document [Schouppe '246 ¶ 0057])
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103    as being unpatentable over Schouppe '246 in view of Wentz '331 in view of the knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art is prior art to the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).
Per claim 11 (dependent on claim 1):
Schouppe '246 in view of Wentz '331 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above, incorporated herein by reference
Schouppe '246 does not disclose the artifact-to-time association element further comprises a context descriptor
However, the Specification discloses Context descriptors can be descriptions of how the timestamps were performed, what types of mappings were used to represent the artifact, and/or other information. [Specification ¶ 0261].  Thus, consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation, a context descriptor can be the name of a hash function used to represent the artifact.
Further:
Wentz '331 discloses the artifact-to-time association element context includes a context descriptor (context includes selecting a mapping used to represent the artifact from among many available hash functions [Wentz '331 ¶ 0016])
For the reasons detailed above with respect to claim 1, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (1) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and (2) before the invention was made to have modified Schouppe '246 with the blockchain implementation and third-party attestors of Wentz '331 to arrive at an apparatus, method, and product including:
the artifact-to-time association element context includes a context descriptor
Still further:
The Examiner takes Official Notice that it was well known at the time in the art of cryptographic protocols to record the name of the algorithm used when selecting from more that one approved algorithm, e.g. when selecting one of several hashing or digesting algorithms.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (1) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and (2) before the invention was made to have modified Schouppe '246 with knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art to arrive at an apparatus, method, and product including:
the artifact-to-time association element further comprises a context descriptor
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.

APPLICANT REBUTTAL: REMARKS/ARGUMENTS Summary of the Office Action The Office action dated June 5, 2024 (the “Office action”) contains the following objections and rejections: The drawings are objected to on the basis that they lack sufficient description. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) for indefiniteness for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as the invention. Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 8, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0035246 by Schouppe et al. (“Schouppe”), in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0007331 by Wentz et al. (“Wentz”). Claims 4, 6, 9-10, and 13-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Schouppe in view of Wentz, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0229883 by Khandelwal et al. (“Khandelwal”). Summary of the Amendments Claims 1–20 were previously pending in this application. Claims 1–4, 6–7, 11–13, 17 are amended. Claims 5, 8–10, 14–16, and 18–20 are cancelled. Claims 21–30 were added. The amendments are made to address potential antecedent issues and do not change the scope of the claims. Support for the amendments can be found throughout the specification, e.g., paras. [0054], [0261]-[0267], [0271], [0274]. Applicant submits that no new matter has been added in the amendments. Objection to the Drawings Figure 1 is objected to on the basis that the “unlabeled items…“should be provided with sufficient descriptive text labels to orient the viewer as to what is being depicted. Applicant has amended this figure, in the interest of advancing prosecution, to rotate the figure, enhance the detail, and clarify references to transferred data and (fungible and non-fungible) tokens within the illustrated NFT platform. Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests the rejection be withdrawn. Rejection of the Claims under 35 U.S.C. §112 Claim 20 is rejected for being indefinite on the basis that the phrasing “evidence is … obtained by from the trusted service” makes the claim ambiguous. Applicant has amended the limitations corresponding to the claim, in the interest of advancing prosecution, to clarify that the evidence is obtained “from the trusted service.” Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection be withdrawn. Rejection of the Claims under 35 U.S.C. §103 Claim 1 is rejected as unpatentable in view of the combined teachings of the Schouppe and Wentz references. Applicant respectfully submits that the cited references do not disclose or suggest the method of the amended claim 1. Specifically, the cited references do not disclose or suggest an artifact-to-time association element, the artifact-to-time association element comprising: an artifact reference corresponding to an artifact generated using a trusted service. In reference to these limitations (that were part of the previous claim 18), the Office action acknowledges that the “art of record does not disclose that ‘the artifact was generated using a trusted service.’” As such, having incorporated this claim into claim 1, Applicant respectfully submits that the amended claim 1 is not obvious in view of the combined teachings of the Schouppe and Wentz references and requests reconsideration of the rejection. Therefore, Applicant submits that claims 1–4, 6–7, 11–13, 17, and 21–30 is allowable over the cited art of record. Claims 2–4, 6–7, 11–13, and 17, depend on claim 1. For reasons similar to those outlined above with respect to claim 1, Applicant respectfully submits that the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest the features of amended claims 2–4, 6–7, 11–13, and 17. Moreover, for reasons similar to those outlined above with respect to claims 1–4, 6–7, 11–13, and 17, Applicant respectfully submits that the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest the features of claims 21–30, based on the above claims. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that these claims are allowable over the cited art of record and requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection. Conclusion In view of the foregoing amendments and remarks, it is respectfully submitted that this application is in condition for allowance. Accordingly, reconsideration of the application and allowance of the claims are respectfully requested. Although the present paper may include a combination of alterations to the application or claims, or characterizations of claim scope or referenced art, Applicant is not conceding that previously pending claims in this application are not patentable over the cited references. Rather, any alterations and/or characterizations are made to strictly facilitate prosecution of this application. As such, reviewers of this or any parent, child, or related prosecution history shall not reasonably infer that Applicant has made any disclaimers or disavowals of any subject matter supported by the present application. Applicant has submitted amendments and arguments believed to be sufficient to overcome all of the outstanding rejections. Consequently, Applicant has not advanced every argument for the allowability of the claims over the references of record. As such, Applicant does not acquiesce to any of the Examiner's statements or characterizations not specifically traversed. If the Examiner should have any remaining questions or objections, a telephone interview to discuss and resolve these issues is respectfully requested. The Commissioner is authorized to charge any fee under 37 CFR 1.16 and 1.17 that may be required during the entire pendency of the application to Deposit Account No. 50-4407. Please show our docket number with any transaction to the Deposit Account. Respectfully submitted, KPPB LLP /Michael K. Ofori/ Michael K. Ofori Registration No. 80,513 949.852.0000 MKO/gk

NEXT OFFICE ACTION: DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is in reply to papers filed on 2024-09-05. Claims 1-4, 6-7, 11-13, 17, 21-30 are pending, following Applicant's cancellation of claims 5, 8-10, 14-16, 18-20; and addition of new claims 21-30. Claims 1, 21 is/are independent.
The objections to the drawings are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection(s) of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Drawings
The drawing(s) filed on 2024-09-05 is/are accepted by the Examiner.
Reasons for Allowance
The prior art of record (in particular, U.S. Publication 20210035246 to Schouppe (hereinafter Schouppe '246) in view of U.S. Publication 20200007331 to Wentz (hereinafter Wentz '331)) does not disclose, with respect to claim 21 , an artifact reference corresponding to an artifact generated using a trusted service in the recited context.  Rather, Schouppe '246 discloses a method for managing non-fungible tokens (NFTs) [Schouppe '246 ¶ 0065-0066, 0081-0085], including use of an artifact reference generated using a trusted service [Schouppe '246 ¶ 0065-0066], wherein the artifact reference corresponds to an artifact.  To this, Wentz '331 adds the use of public key cryptography to certify and verify the NFT and its contents and metadata [Wentz '331 ¶ 0100, 0116; Figs. 1 and 3; 0023, 0071, 0080].  Neither reference teaches that the underlying artifact of the NFT needs to have been originally generated using a trusted service.
For the reasons described above, the prior art of record does not disclose, with respect to claim(s) 1, features corresponding to those of claim 21  in the respective context(s).
Dependent claims 2-4, 6-7, 11-13, 17, 22-30 are allowed in view of their respective dependence from claims 1, 21.
Conclusion
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee.  Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”

CITED REFERENCE SUMMARIES: Ref US11468431B2: Claims:
A blockchain computer system, the blockchain computer system comprising: a blockchain gaming computer network configured as a mainchain including a distributed electronic ledger having a cryptographically secured backlinked list of interconnected blocks, the mainchain having a plurality of computing nodes with respective computer processors executing in a peer-to-peer network, the blockchain gaming computing network enabling a plurality of decentralized blockchain based games and non-fungible tokens configured to enable state changes; at least a portion of the plurality of computing nodes in the mainchain configured to execute at least a portion of instances of one or more of the plurality of decentralized games within the blockchain gaming computing network; at least one node of the plurality of nodes, in the blockchain gaming computing network, configured to interface with a plurality of sidechains computationally anchored to the mainchain; the plurality of sidechains implemented using a plurality of computing sidechain nodes executing in parallel to the plurality of computing nodes of the mainchain; the plurality of sidechains further configured to store and execute data referenced in the electronic ledger of the mainchain including images and state change outputs associated with the non-fungible tokens and decentralized blockchain based games in order to minimize data storage requirements of the mainchain and enhance scalability of the mainchain; the plurality of sidechains handling validation of the blocks in the distributed electronic ledger of the mainchain through a proof of authority (PoA) consensus protocol, such that the plurality of sidechains handling of validation of the blocks in the mainchain enables enhanced scalability, increased transaction throughput, and decreased latency via offsetting processing load from the mainchain and implementing the proof of authority (PoA) consensus protocol to validate the blocks in the mainchain; wherein at least one of sidechain nodes causes a change of state of a locked non-fungible token to be recorded in the electronic ledger of the mainchain through a validation process via the proof of authority (PoA) consensus protocol in response to processing of a smart contract executable script of the locked non-fungible token, the processing of the smart contract causing a computational attestation of completion of a work requirement by a first node in the blockchain gaming computing network; and wherein the unlocking of the locked electronic utility token enables the first node in the blockchain gaming computing network access to resources in the blockchain gaming computing network.
a blockchain gaming computer network configured as a mainchain including a distributed electronic ledger having a cryptographically secured backlinked list of interconnected blocks, the mainchain having a plurality of computing nodes with respective computer processors executing in a peer-to-peer network, the blockchain gaming computing network enabling a plurality of decentralized blockchain based games and non-fungible tokens configured to enable state changes;
at least a portion of the plurality of computing nodes in the mainchain configured to execute at least a portion of instances of one or more of the plurality of decentralized games within the blockchain gaming computing network;
at least one node of the plurality of nodes, in the blockchain gaming computing network, configured to interface with a plurality of sidechains computationally anchored to the mainchain;
the plurality of sidechains implemented using a plurality of computing sidechain nodes executing in parallel to the plurality of computing nodes of the mainchain;
the plurality of sidechains further configured to store and execute data referenced in the electronic ledger of the mainchain including images and state change outputs associated with the non-fungible tokens and decentralized blockchain based games in order to minimize data storage requirements of the mainchain and enhance scalability of the mainchain;
the plurality of sidechains handling validation of the blocks in the distributed electronic ledger of the mainchain through a proof of authority (PoA) consensus protocol, such that the plurality of sidechains handling of validation of the blocks in the mainchain enables enhanced scalability, increased transaction throughput, and decreased latency via offsetting processing load from the mainchain and implementing the proof of authority (PoA) consensus protocol to validate the blocks in the mainchain;
wherein at least one of sidechain nodes causes a change of state of a locked non-fungible token to be recorded in the electronic ledger of the mainchain through a validation process via the proof of authority (PoA) consensus protocol in response to processing of a smart contract executable script of the locked non-fungible token, the processing of the smart contract causing a computational attestation of completion of a work requirement by a first node in the blockchain gaming computing network; and
wherein the unlocking of the locked electronic utility token enables the first node in the blockchain gaming computing network access to resources in the blockchain gaming computing network.
The blockchain computer system of claim 1 , wherein blockchain gaming computing network further includes: the first node of the plurality of nodes in the blockchain gaming computing network, wherein the first node has a memory, the first node memory configured to execute a first digital wallet storing the locked non-fungible token; the first node configured to perform computational work in the blockchain gaming computing network, where the computational work completed by the first node is recorded in the distributed ledger of the mainchain; wherein the at least one node of the plurality of nodes executing the blockchain smart contract of the locked non-fungible token verifies whether a threshold time participation level is met by the computational work performed by the first node.
the first node of the plurality of nodes in the blockchain gaming computing network, wherein the first node has a memory, the first node memory configured to execute a first digital wallet storing the locked non-fungible token;
the first node configured to perform computational work in the blockchain gaming computing network, where the computational work completed by the first node is recorded in the distributed ledger of the mainchain;
wherein the at least one node of the plurality of nodes executing the blockchain smart contract of the locked non-fungible token verifies whether a threshold time participation level is met by the computational work performed by the first node.
The blockchain computer system of claim 2 , wherein the blockchain gaming computing network further includes: a second node of the plurality of nodes in the blockchain gaming computing network, wherein the second node has a memory, the second node memory configured to execute a second digital wallet; the first node of the plurality of nodes in the blockchain gaming computing network transmitting the locked electronic non-fungible token to the second node wallet, where the transmission of the locked non-fungible token completed by the first node is recorded in the distributed ledger of the blockchain gaming computing network; the second node configured to perform computational work in the blockchain gaming computing network, where the computational work completed by the first node is recorded in the distributed ledger of the blockchain gaming computing network; and wherein the at least one node of the plurality of nodes executing the blockchain smart contract of the locked non-fungible token verifies whether the threshold time participation level is met by the computational work performed by the first node and second nodes.
a second node of the plurality of nodes in the blockchain gaming computing network, wherein the second node has a memory, the second node memory configured to execute a second digital wallet;
the first node of the plurality of nodes in the blockchain gaming computing network transmitting the locked electronic non-fungible token to the second node wallet, where the transmission of the locked non-fungible token completed by the first node is recorded in the distributed ledger of the blockchain gaming computing network;
the second node configured to perform computational work in the blockchain gaming computing network, where the computational work completed by the first node is recorded in the distributed ledger of the blockchain gaming computing network; and
wherein the at least one node of the plurality of nodes executing the blockchain smart contract of the locked non-fungible token verifies whether the threshold time participation level is met by the computational work performed by the first node and second nodes.
The blockchain computer system of claim 2 , wherein the locked non-fungible token is configured to represent ownership of a collectible digital gaming asset, and wherein the threshold time participation level is partially met if the first node of the plurality of nodes satisfies at least one consumptive use.
The blockchain computer system of claim 2 , wherein the participation includes participation while the at least one node is in possession of a utility token.
The blockchain computer system of claim 2 , wherein the participation includes referencing at least one address that identifies a network resource accessible by the at least one node via the blockchain gaming computing network.
The blockchain computer system of claim 1 , further comprising a third node of the plurality of nodes having a memory, the memory configured to store a digital wallet associated with the third node of the plurality of nodes and wherein, to determine whether the third node has satisfied the computational work function, such that the computational work function of a locked non-fungible token assigned to at least one third node is attested to including: the at least one node of the plurality of nodes configured to identify at least one attestation stored on the blockchain gaming computing network, the at least one attestation associated with the third node digital wallet; and wherein the at least one node is further configured to employ a blockchain smart contract to identify the at least one attestation.
the at least one node of the plurality of nodes configured to identify at least one attestation stored on the blockchain gaming computing network, the at least one attestation associated with the third node digital wallet; and
wherein the at least one node is further configured to employ a blockchain smart contract to identify the at least one attestation.
The blockchain computer system of claim 7 , wherein the at least one attestation includes an anti-money laundering (AML) type attestation or a know your customer (KYC) security type attestation.
The blockchain computer system of claim 7 , wherein the at least one attestation attests to an amount of time spent, by the third node, streaming digital content over the blockchain gaming computing network.
The blockchain computer system of claim 1 , wherein the blockchain-based game includes a utility token and wherein the transaction includes activation or trade of the utility token.
The blockchain computer system of claim 1 , wherein the at least one sidechain node is configured to divert processing of the smart contract of the locked non-fungible token to the sidechain plurality of nodes via a WebAssembly (WASM) binary instruction application programming interface to increase security and memory safety during the smart contract execution process.
The blockchain computer system of claim 1 , wherein the at least one sidechain node is configured to divert processing of the smart contract of the locked non-fungible token to the sidechain plurality of nodes wherein at least one of the plurality of nodes uses a trusted execution environment (TEE) to process instructions from the smart contract and increase security and memory safety during the smart contract execution process.
The blockchain computer system of claim 12 wherein the sidechain is further configured to minimize storage requirements and challenges of the mainchain by diverting data storage and access requests from the mainchain to the sidechain including modeling, texture, sound and environment data associated with at least one of: any non-fungible tokens or the plurality of decentralized games.
The blockchain computer system of claim 1 , wherein the sidechain is further configured to minimize storage requirements and challenges of the mainchain by diverting data storage and access needs from the mainchain to the sidechain.
A blockchain computer system comprising: a plurality of computing nodes operating to create a mainchain blockchain based network, the mainchain blockchain based network being anchored to a plurality of childchain blockchain networks; the mainchain including a distributed electronic ledger having a cryptographically secured backlinked list of interconnected blocks, the mainchain having a plurality of computing nodes with respective computer processors executing in a peer-to-peer network, the blockchain computer system enabling a plurality of decentralized blockchain based games and non-fungible tokens configured to enable state changes; at least a portion of the plurality of computing nodes in the mainchain configured to execute at least a portion of instances of one or more of the plurality of decentralized games within the blockchain computer system; at least one node of the plurality of nodes, in the blockchain computer system, configured to interface with the plurality of childchains computationally anchored to the mainchain; the plurality of childchains implemented using a plurality of computing child nodes executing in parallel to the plurality of computing nodes of the mainchain; the childchains further configured to store and execute data referenced in the electronic ledger of the mainchain including images and state change outputs associated with the non-fungible tokens and decentralized blockchain based games in order to minimize data storage requirements of the mainchain and enhance scalability of the mainchain; the childchains handling validation of the blocks in the distributed electronic ledger of the mainchain through a proof of authority (PoA) consensus protocol, such that the childchains improving handling of validation of blocks in the mainchain by enhancing scalability, increasing transaction throughput, and decreasing latency via the proof of authority (PoA) consensus protocol; wherein at least one of child nodes causes a change of state of a locked non-fungible token to be recorded in the electronic ledger of the mainchain through a validation process via the proof of authority (PoA) consensus protocol in response to processing of a smart contract executable script of the locked non-fungible token, the processing of the smart contract causing a computational attestation of completion of a work requirement by a first node in the blockchain computer system; and wherein the unlocking of the locked electronic utility token enables the first node in the blockchain computer system access to resources in the blockchain computer system.
a plurality of computing nodes operating to create a mainchain blockchain based network, the mainchain blockchain based network being anchored to a plurality of childchain blockchain networks;
the mainchain including a distributed electronic ledger having a cryptographically secured backlinked list of interconnected blocks, the mainchain having a plurality of computing nodes with respective computer processors executing in a peer-to-peer network, the blockchain computer system enabling a plurality of decentralized blockchain based games and non-fungible tokens configured to enable state changes;
at least a portion of the plurality of computing nodes in the mainchain configured to execute at least a portion of instances of one or more of the plurality of decentralized games within the blockchain computer system;
at least one node of the plurality of nodes, in the blockchain computer system, configured to interface with the plurality of childchains computationally anchored to the mainchain;
the plurality of childchains implemented using a plurality of computing child nodes executing in parallel to the plurality of computing nodes of the mainchain;
the childchains further configured to store and execute data referenced in the electronic ledger of the mainchain including images and state change outputs associated with the non-fungible tokens and decentralized blockchain based games in order to minimize data storage requirements of the mainchain and enhance scalability of the mainchain;
the childchains handling validation of the blocks in the distributed electronic ledger of the mainchain through a proof of authority (PoA) consensus protocol, such that the childchains improving handling of validation of blocks in the mainchain by enhancing scalability, increasing transaction throughput, and decreasing latency via the proof of authority (PoA) consensus protocol;
wherein at least one of child nodes causes a change of state of a locked non-fungible token to be recorded in the electronic ledger of the mainchain through a validation process via the proof of authority (PoA) consensus protocol in response to processing of a smart contract executable script of the locked non-fungible token, the processing of the smart contract causing a computational attestation of completion of a work requirement by a first node in the blockchain computer system; and
wherein the unlocking of the locked electronic utility token enables the first node in the blockchain computer system access to resources in the blockchain computer system.
Ref US20220229883A1: Claims:
A system for creative works management comprising: a decentralized validation of intellectual property (IP) component, executing on a processor, for validating an electronic submission of a creative work from a user, the validation based on input from a set of validators and a proof of validation stored to a blockchain; a decentralized timestamping of intellectual property component, executing on the processor that is in communication with the blockchain, for storing the electronic submission on the blockchain and for generating a hash code associated with the electronic submission for storage on the blockchain; an enforceable and divisible tokenization of intellectual property component, executing on the processor, for minting a non-fungible token (NFT) of the creative work to generate a validated NFT of the creative work on the blockchain; an encapsulating trust mechanisms into NFT component, executing on the processor, for combining validation of the electronic submission with the validated NFT and for storing the combination on the blockchain; and a monetization component, executing on the processor and in electronic communication with the user and the blockchain, for assisting the user in monetizing the validated NFT.
a decentralized validation of intellectual property (IP) component, executing on a processor, for validating an electronic submission of a creative work from a user, the validation based on input from a set of validators and a proof of validation stored to a blockchain;
a decentralized timestamping of intellectual property component, executing on the processor that is in communication with the blockchain, for storing the electronic submission on the blockchain and for generating a hash code associated with the electronic submission for storage on the blockchain;
an enforceable and divisible tokenization of intellectual property component, executing on the processor, for minting a non-fungible token (NFT) of the creative work to genera
[Truncated to input limit]