Office Action 2: Notice of Allowance (2024-09-18)

CLAIMS:
Amendments to the Claims:

This listing of claims will replace all prior versions, and listings, of claims in the application:

Listing of Claims:

REPLY TO OFFICE ACTION OF JUNE 5, 2024

1\. (Currently Amended) A device configured to broadcast blocks incorporating artifact origination tokens, the device comprising:a network interface;
a memory; and
a processor, the processor configured to:
obtain an artifact origination token, wherein the artifact origination token comprises:an artifact-to-time association element, the artifact- to-time association element com prisin\[\[es\]\]:an artifact reference corresponding to an artifact generated using a trusted service; and a timestamp comprising a reference to the artifact reference;

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;
access 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\. (Currently Amended) The device of claim 1, wherein\[\[:\]\] broadcasting the block comprises:
receiving:the block; and
origination evidence comprising a series of timestamps associated with a series of versions of the artifact; and
obtaining the proof is based on the block and the origination evidence.

3\. (Currently Amended) The device of claim 2,wherein the origination evidence is generated based on a timestamped version of the artifact.

4\. (Currently Amended) The device of claim 2,wherein the origination evidence is at least one of:
evidence of possession of the artifact, wherein the evidence of possession of the artifact is obtained from the trusted service; or an assertion of possession of the artifact, wherein the assertion of possession of the artifact is obtained from the trusted service.

5\. (Cancelled)

6\. (Currently Amended) The device of claim 1, wherein the artifact reference is a URL linking to where \[\[an\]\]the artifact is stored.

7\. (Currently Amended) The device of claim 1, wherein the artifact-to-time association element further comprises at least one of:
an artifact checksum, wherein the artifact checksum verifies that the artifact is not corrupted;
a certainty score, wherein the certainty score corresponds to a degree of certainty of validity for the timestamp;
an origination assessment score, wherein the origination assessment score corresponds to a likelihood that generation of the artifact, as identified by the artifact reference, is authentic;
a precision score, wherein the precision score corresponds to a likelihood that the artifact, as identified by the artifact reference, is authentic; or a context descriptor, wherein the context descriptor describes at least part of the artifact-to-time association element.

8-10. (Cancelled)99

11\. (Currently Amended) The device of claim 1, wherein the proof is generated based on an iterative process .

12\. (Currently Amended) The device of claim 1, wherein the timestamp further comprises at least one of:
a reference to a blockchain;
an assertion to the timestamp by a trusted entity; or an origination timestamp, wherein the origination timestamp identifies a point of creation for the artifact .

13\. (Currently Amended) The device of claim 1, wherein the proof comprises a proof of origination.

11-16. (Cancelled)215

17\. (Currently Amended) The device of claim 1 \[\[6\]\], wherein the artifact is a docume it.

18-19. (Cancelled)

20\. (Cancelled)

21\. (New) A method for broadcasting blocks incorporating artifact origination tokens, the method comprising:
o taining an artifact origination token, wherein the artifact origination token comprises:an artifact-to-time association element, the artifact-to-time association e ement comprising:
an artifact reference corresponding to an artifact generated using a trusted service; and
a timestamp comprising a reference to the artifact reference;
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;
accessing a ledger entry comprising the artifact origination token and a public key;
computing a challenge using a cryptographic system, wherein the challenge is based o i the ledger entry; and
b-oadcasting 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.

22\. (New) The method of claim 21, wherein broadcasting the block comprises:
receiving:the block; and
origination evidence comprising a series of timestamps associated with a series of versions of the artifact; and
obtaining the proof based on the block and the origination evidence.

23\. (New) The method of claim 22, wherein the origination evidence is generated based on a timestamped version of the artifact.

24\. (New) The method of claim 22, wherein the origination evidence is at least one of:
evidence of possession of the artifact, wherein the evidence of possession of the artifact is obtained from the trusted service; or an assertion of possession of the artifact, wherein the assertion of possession of the artifact is obtained from the trusted service.

25\. (New) The method of claim 21, wherein the artifact reference is a URL linking to where the artifact is stored.

26\. (New) The method of claim 21, wherein the artifact-to-time association element further comprises at least one of:
an artifact checksum, wherein the artifact checksum verifies that the artifact is not corrupted;
a certainty score, wherein the certainty score corresponds to a degree of certainty of validity for the timestamp;
an origination assessment score, wherein the origination assessment score corresponds to a likelihood that generation of the artifact, as identified by the artifact reference, is authentic;

a precision score, wherein the precision score corresponds to a likelihood that the artifact, as identified by the artifact reference, is authentic; or a context descriptor, wherein the context descriptor describes at least part of the artifact-to-time association element.

27\. (New) The method of claim 21, wherein the proof is generated based on an iterative process.

28\. (New) The method of claim 21, wherein the timestamp further comprises at least one of:
a reference to a blockchain;
an assertion to the timestamp by a trusted entity; or an origination timestamp, wherein the origination timestamp identifies a point of creation for the artifact.

29\. (New) The method of claim 21, wherein the proof comprises a proof of origination.

30\. (New) The method of claim 21, wherein the artifact is a document.

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.”

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


CITED REFERENCE SUMMARIES: Ref US20210035246T: [content unavailable]
Ref US20200007331T: [content unavailable]