DETAILED ACTION
This is office action on the merits in response to the application filed on 09/15/2025.
Claims 1-18 have been filed by the applicant.
Claims 1, 16-18 are currently amended.
Claims 1-18 are currently pending and have been examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/15/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 103:
The applicant provided the argument regarding the same 2 limitations as provided in the previous response. The examiner maintains the same position and would like to provide further clarification as below.
The applicant provided arguments for the limitation “determine, via the at least one processor, an exchange node of the target blockchain network, the exchange node of the target blockchain network, in which the determination of the exchange node of the target blockchain includes selection of an exchange node of a target blockchain that is structured for facilitating inter-blockchain network transactions with the exchange node of the source blockchain network”. The applicant asserts that the examiner’s response in the last office action is impermissible and not responsive by declaring all words in the claim “do not change the scope of the claim”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. As previously provided, the definition of determine is “to settle or decide by choice of alternatives or possibilities” according to Merriam-Webster web dictionary. As such, the above limitation/amendment is interpreted as “determine (choose) an exchange node, which includes selection of an exchange node.” Therefore, the second portion (underlined portion) is simply repeating the first portion and the above limitation as a whole is interpreted as “determine (select/choose) an exchange node.
In addition, the applicant further argues the above limitation provides structural changes. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation is recited as “an exchange node …is structured for…”, that may represent a hardware or software change to the exchange node. However, the claims recite an inter-blockchain network transaction facilitating apparatus, none of “source blockchain network”, “target blockchain network” and “exchange node” is part of the recited apparatus, thus no patentable weight is given to them. Also, whether or not the limitation is given patentable weight, the examiner has provided teaching of every limitation, see 103 rejections below.
The applicant further argues that the examiner mischaracterized Rangan and Rangan does not teach “add..a securing resue-preventing transaction to the source blockchain networks blockchain, in which the securing reuse-preventing transaction is structured as preventing the crypto tokens from being reused on the source blockchain network ”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. First, as stated in previous office action, the portion of “in which…” is intended use language because the limitation only describing the intended result of the reuse-preventing transaction, but the claims does not positively recite steps of how the system generates the securing reuse-preventing transaction, how the system further process the securing reuse-preventing transaction to prevent reuse and how the system achieves to prevent reuse.
The applicant further argues that the examiner mischaracterized Rangan because Rangan is focusing on moving rights and liabilities instead of reuse prevention. The applicant also suggests Rangan provide opportunity for reuse. The examine respectfully disagrees. Rangan clearly discloses “resue prevention” that when rights and liabilities is moved to an interim blockchain, an entry is made on the transferor blockchain removing the rights and liabilities from the transferor blockchain. This can include creating blocks on the transferor blockchain which disallow, constructively delete, or otherwise preclude use of or access to the rights and liabilities for transfer. [Col 12:55-62]. In addition, it would have been understood in the blockchain technology that “reuse prevention” is achieved by consensus and solve “proof-of-work”, Rangan also provides these features [Col 9:2-13, Col 9:26-40, Col 9:65-Col 10:14].
Therefore, Rangan teaches the above limitations.
Finally, as a general note, the repeated assertions that the action has “ignored” claim language (remarks pp. 11–12, 14–16, and 26–28) are incorrect. Rather, the claim language has been considered and evaluated, and found not to have patentable weight. The examiner has provided reasons to support these conclusions. The applicant’s remarks allege that the conclusions are not permissible and amount to “abrogation of duty” by the Office (remarks pp. 12–13 and 16) as “no analysis of the amendment was even attempted” (remarks p. 11). Once again, the examiner notes that each instance of claim interpretation is supported by reasoning. While the applicant might disagree with these conclusions or the analysis that supports the conclusions, they are not arbitrary and the limitations have not been ignored.
Claim Objections:
The examiner understands the confusion of applicant. To further clarify, the claims recite an exchange node in source blockchain and another exchange node in target blockchain. The examiner suggests applicant to amend to distinguish two different exchange node.
Rejection under 112:
The examiner has reconsidered and withdrawn some of the 112 limitation.
To further clarify the remaining 112 issue, the examiner understood the claims is meant to determine one exchange node of one target blockchain network. However, the present claims could be interpreted to involve at least two exchange nodes and two target blockchain networks. The examiner suggests the applicant could amend the limitation to “determine an exchange node of the target blockchain network…..includes selection of [an] the exchange node of [a] the target blockchain network”.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
3. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means to store a component collection” and “means to process…..” in claim 17.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objection
Claims 1, 4, 6-8, 13, 15-18 recite plurality of “exchange node” which associated with “source blockchain” or “target blockchain”. The examiner suggests further clarify the terms used in the claims to distinguish different exchange nodes.
Claims 1 and 16-18 recite “A inter-blockchain network” in preamble. It should be “An inter-blockchain network”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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 this instant case,
Claim 1 further recite “determine an exchange node of the target blockchain network, in which the determination …. includes selection of an exchange node of a target blockchain”. It is unclear the relationship between “an exchange node” and “the exchange node”; and the relationship between “the target blockchain” and “a target blockchain”, because it is not clear that
a. they are the same node/blockchain, or
b. another exchange node on another target blockchain is selected during the step.
In addition, claims 16-18 presents the same issue of unclear “exchange nodes”.
Further the dependent claims are also rejected as being dependent on the above claims.
Rejections under 35 § U.S.C. 103
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 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.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10586062 B1 (“Rangan”) and US 20200167773 A1 (“Cervenka”) and US 20200119925 A1 (“Wang”).
Per claims 1, 16, 17, and 18, Rangan discloses:
add, a securing reuse-preventing transaction to the source blockchain network’s blockchain, in which the securing reuse-preventing transaction is structured as preventing the crypto tokens from being reused on the source blockchain network (e.g. an entry in made on the transferor blockchain removing the rights and liabilities from the transferor blockchain. This can include creating blocks on the transferor blockchain which disallow, constructively delete, or otherwise preclude use of or access to the rights and liabilities for transfer) (see column 12, Ln 56-67. Also see Column 11, LN 64 – Column 12, LN 67, Col 9:2-13, Col 9:26-40, Col 9:65-Col 10:14); Note: as stated above in 112 rejection, the nodes and the source blockchain network is outside the scope of the claimed invention. Therefore, the limitation of “the securing transaction prevents the crypto tokens from being reused on the source blockchain network” is outside the scope of the claimed invention and does not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. In addition, “the securing transaction prevents the crypto tokens from being reused on the source blockchain network” is the intended use of the securing transaction on the source blockchain network.
determine, an exchange node of the target blockchain network (e.g. acquirer blockchain), in which the determination of the exchange node of the target blockchain includes selection of an exchange node of a target blockchain that is structured for facilitating inter-blockchain network transactions with the exchange node of the source blockchain network (e.g. transferor blockchain)… (Column 11, LN 64 – Column 12, LN 35, see Col 9:2-64 for how nodes are participating in the transaction); Note: the limitation “the exchange node of the target blockchain network facilitating inter-blockchain network transactions with the exchange node of the source blockchain network” does not distinguish over the prior art because it is describing the functions/steps being performed by the exchange node of the target blockchain network which is outside the scope of the claims that is directed to the steps/functions being performed by the inter-blockchain network transaction facilitating apparatus.
generate, via the exchange node of the source blockchain network, an inter-blockchain exchange request (e.g. rights and liabilities can be transferred between blockchains) for the determined exchange node of the target blockchain network (e.g. acquirer blockchain), the inter-blockchain exchange request effectuating processing of the inter-blockchain network transaction on the target blockchain network (e.g. acquirer blockchain)… (Column 11, LN 64 – Column 12, LN 35). Note: the limitation “the inter-blockchain exchange request effectuating processing of the inter-blockchain network transaction on the target blockchain network” does not distinguish over the prior art because it is describing the intended use the inter-blockchain exchange request and is not positively recited as a step/function of the inter-blockchain network transaction facilitating apparatus. The positively recited steps of the inter-blockchain network transaction facilitating apparatus are performed the same way regardless of what the inter-blockchain exchange request is used for.
Although Rangan discloses inter-blockchain network transactions that generates a securing transaction on the source blockchain to transfer ownership of financial accounts, Rangan does not specifically disclose obtain, via an exchange node of a source blockchain network, an inter-blockchain network transaction transferring crypto tokens from a first user of the source blockchain network to a second user of a target blockchain network; validate, via at least one processor, input data associated with the inter-blockchain network transaction and confirming that the first user is authorized to transfer the crypto tokens; …including determining an exchange conversion rate from a source blockchain network to a target blockchain network; …including applying the exchange conversion rate from a source blockchain network to a target blockchain network…. However, Cervenka, in analogous art of inter-blockchain transactions, discloses:
obtain, via an exchange node (e.g. ledger manager) of a source blockchain network (e.g. blockchain A), an inter-blockchain network transaction (e.g. transaction) to transfer crypto tokens from a first user (e.g. user A) of the source blockchain network (e.g. blockchain A) to a second user (e.g. user B) of a target blockchain network (e.g. blockchain B) (Section [0153]-[0154]); Note: the limitation “to transfer crypto tokens from a first user of the source blockchain network to a second user of a target blockchain network” does not distinguish over the prior art because it is describing the intended result of the positively recited step/function of obtaining an inter-blockchain network transaction. Obtaining the inter-blockchain network transaction is performed the same way regardless of its intended purpose.
validate, input data associated with the inter-blockchain network transaction (e.g. verify the transaction) and confirming that the first user is authorized to transfer the crypto tokens (e.g. a determination may be made is to whether user A has a sufficient balance in pool A for the transaction, or whether the transaction is within transaction limits applicable to either user A or pool A) (Section [0055]).
…in which the determination includes determining an exchange conversion rate (e.g. exchange rate) from a source blockchain network (e.g. blockchain A) to a target blockchain network (e.g. blockchain B) (Section [0155]);
…including applying the exchange conversion rate (e.g. exchange rate) from a source blockchain network (e.g. blockchain A) to a target blockchain network (e.g. blockchain B)… (Section [0155]).
Cervenka further discloses: at least one memory (e.g. memory) (Section [0039]-[0044]); a component collection (e.g. application) stored in the at least one memory (e.g. memory) (Section [0039]-[0044]); any of at least one processor (e.g. processor) disposed in communication with the at least one memory (e.g. memory), the any of at least one processor executing processor-executable instructions (e.g. instructions) from the component collection, storage of the component collection structured with processor-executable instructions (Section [0039]-[0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the inter-blockchain transaction system of Rangan to include the use of a transaction request to transfer currency from a first user of a first blockchain to a second user of a second blockchain and utilize an exchange rate for the transaction, as taught by Cervenka, in order to allow users of separate blockchains to send currency to each other of equal value and reduce delays in transaction settlement (See Cervenka Section [0003]-[0007]).
Although Rangan/Cervenka discloses inter-blockchain network transactions to transfer exchange rate converted currency from a first user to a second user, Rangan/Cervenka does not specifically disclose …further including updating a multiple network pathway routing inter-blockchain network addressing table. However, Wang, in analogous art of blockchain interactions, discloses:
…further including updating a multiple network pathway routing inter-blockchain network addressing table (e.g. updating information in the routing table) (Section [0064] and [0068]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the inter-blockchain transaction system of Rangan/Cervenka to include the use of a routing table, as taught by Wang, in order to allow the inter-blockchain system to utilize optimal routes when transferring currency between blockchains (See Wang Section [0065]-[0066]).
Per claim 4, Rangan/Cervenka/Wang discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Rangan further discloses:
in which the exchange node of the source blockchain network (e.g. transferor blockchain) is specified as the exchange point between the source blockchain network (e.g. transferor blockchain) and the target blockchain network (e.g. acquirer blockchain) in the inter-blockchain network transaction by the first user (Column 11, LN 64 – Column 12, LN 21). As noted above in the independent claim, “the exchange node of the source blockchain network” is outside the scope of the system, and does not have patentable weight.
Per claim 5, Rangan/Cervenka/Wang discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Rangan further discloses:
in which the securing transaction transfers the crypto tokens to an address on the source blockchain network form which the crypto tokens cannot be transferred (e.g. an entry is made on the transferor blockchain removing the rights and liabilities form the transferor blockchain) (Column 12, LN 56-67). Note: the limitation “wherein the securing transaction transfers the crypto tokens to an address on the source blockchain network form which the crypto tokens cannot be transferred” does not distinguish over the prior art because it is describing the intended use of the securing transaction and is not positively recited as a function being performed by the inter-blockchain network transaction facilitating apparatus.
Per claim 6, Rangan/Cervenka/Wang discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Rangan further discloses:
in which the exchange node of the target blockchain network (e.g. blockchain for storing information regarding the rights and liabilities associated with the acquirer) is specified (e.g. identified) by a configuration setting of the exchange node on the source blockchain network (e.g. manually by the transferor) (Column 12, LN 11-21).
Per claim 11, Rangan/Cervenka/Wang discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Rangan further discloses:
in which the inter-blockchain exchange request includes proof that the source crypto tokens cannot be reused on the source blockchain network (e.g. acknowledging transfer of the transferors rights and liabilities) (Column 12, LN 56-67). Note: the limitation “wherein the inter-blockchain exchange request includes proof that the source crypto tokens cannot be reused on the source blockchain network” does not distinguish over the prior art because it is describing the inter-blockchain exchange request and is not positively recited as a function of the inter-blockchain network transaction facilitating apparatus.
Per claim 12, Rangan/Cervenka/Wang discloses all of the limitations of claim 11 above. Rangan further discloses:
in which the proof includes a transaction identifier of the securing transaction (e.g. acknowledging transfer of the transferors rights and liabilities on the transferor blockchain) (Column 12, LN 56-67). Note: the limitation “wherein the proof includes a transaction identifier of the securing transaction” does not distinguish over the prior art because it is describing the proof and is not positively recited as a function of the inter-blockchain network transaction facilitating apparatus.
Per claim 13, Rangan/Cervenka/Wang discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Rangan further discloses:
an inter-blockchain exchange processing component (e.g. interim blockchain) (Column 12, LN 45-67);
in which the processor issues instructions from the inter-blockchain exchange processing component, stored in the memory, to: obtain, via the exchange node of the target blockchain network (e.g. acquirer blockchain), the inter-blockchain exchange request (e.g. rights and liabilities) (Column 12, LN 45-67);
validate, via at least one processor, that the crypto tokens may not be reused on the source blockchain network (e.g. confirming removal, disallowance, deletion) (Column 13, LN 5-23);
add, via at least one processor, the inter-blockchain network transaction (e.g. rights and liabilities) to the target blockchain network’s blockchain (e.g. acquirer blockchain) (Column 13, LN 24-31).
Per claim 14, Rangan/Cervenka/Wang discloses all of the limitations of claim 13 above. Rangan further discloses:
in which the inter-blockchain network transaction (e.g. rights and liabilities) is added to the target blockchain network’s blockchain (e.g. acquirer blockchain) in an unmodified form (Column 13, LN 24-31).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rangan/Cervenka/Wang, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of US 20180288022 A1 (“Madisetti”).
Per claim 2, Rangan/Cervenka/Wang do not specifically disclose in which the source blockchain network is configured to server a first region, and the target blockchain network is configured to server a second region. However, Madisetti, in analogous art of blockchain transactions, discloses:
in which the source blockchain network is configured to server a first region, and the target blockchain network is configured to server a second region (e.g. organizations can have multiple private blockchain networks where each network is dedicated to a specific use case or department or business vertical) (Section [0005]). Note: the limitation “wherein the source blockchain network is configured to server a first region, and the target blockchain network is configured to server a second region” does not distinguish over the prior art because it is describing the blockchain networks and does not affect the functions of the inter-blockchain network transaction facilitating apparatus in a manipulative sense.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the inter-blockchain transaction system of Rangan/Cervenka/Wang the concept of using dedicated blockchains for each department as taught by Madisetti since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Since both Rangan and Madisetti disclose multiple blockchains, one of ordinary skill in the art would know that dedicating each blockchain to a specific region would render predictable results.
Per claim 3, Rangan/Cervenka/Wang/Madisetti disclose all of the limitations in claim 2 above. Madisetti further discloses:
in which a region is one of: a geographic region, a unit of an organization (e.g. department), a sidechain (Section [0005]). Note: the limitation “wherein a region is one of: a geographic region, a unit of an organization, a sidechain” does not distinguish over the prior art because it is describing the region of the blockchain and does not affect the functions of the inter-blockchain network transaction facilitating apparatus in a manipulative sense.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rangan/Cervenka/Wang, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of US 20160203477 A1 (“Yang”).
Per claim 7, Rangan/Cervenka/Wang do not specifically disclose in which the exchange node of the target blockchain network is determined dynamically based on the best crypto token exchange rate between crypto tokens of the source blockchain network and crypto tokens of the target blockchain network form crypto token exchange rates offered by exchange nodes of the target blockchain network. However, Yang, in analogous art of blockchain transactions, discloses:
in which the exchange node of the target blockchain network is determined (e.g. selecting) dynamically based on the best crypto token exchange rate between crypto tokens of the source blockchain network and crypto tokens of the target blockchain network from crypto token exchange rates (e.g. exchange rates) offered by exchange nodes of the target blockchain network (Section [0042] and [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the inter-blockchain transaction system of Rangan/Cervenka/Wang the concept of selecting an exchange node based on the exchange rate as taught by Yang since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would add the concept of determining an exchange node based on the best exchange rate (as taught by Yang) to the transaction system of Rangan/Cervenka/Wang in order to provide the best value for the users and the results would be predictable.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rangan/Cervenka/Wang, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of US 20150170112 A1 (“DeCastro”).
Per claim 8, Rangan/Cervenka/Wang do not specifically disclose in which there is an inter-blockchain network exchange rate, other than one to one, between crypto tokens of the source blockchain network and crypto tokens of the target blockchain network, and in which the exchange node of the source blockchain network is configured to determine the inter-blockchain network exchange rate. However, DeCastro, in analogous art of blockchain transactions, discloses:
in which there is an inter-blockchain network exchange rate, other than one to one, between crypto tokens of the source blockchain network and crypto tokens of the target blockchain network, and in which the exchange node of the source blockchain network is configured to determine the inter-blockchain network exchange rate (e.g. selecting an optimal currency exchange rate) (Section [0038]). Note: the limitation “wherein there is an inter-blockchain network exchange rate, other than one to one, between crypto tokens of the source blockchain network and crypto tokens of the target blockchain network, and wherein the exchange node of the source blockchain network is configured to determine the inter-blockchain network exchange rate” does not distinguish over the prior art because it is describing the exchange rate and is not positively recited as a function of the inter-blockchain network transaction facilitating apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the inter-blockchain transaction system of Rangan/Cervenka/Wang the concept of not using a one-to-one exchange rate as taught by DeCastro since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Since both DeCastro and Cervenka disclose financial transactions, one of ordinary skill in the art would know that by adding an exchange rate to the transaction system of Rangan/Cervenka/Wang would render predictable results.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rangan/Cervenka/Wang/DeCastro, as applied to claim 8 above, in further view of US 20060136301 A1 (“Grovit”).
Per claim 9, Rangan/Cervenka/Wang/DeCastro do not specifically disclose in which the inter-blockchain network exchange rate is determined by querying a third party market maker. However, Grovit, in analogous art of transactions, discloses:
in which the inter-blockchain network exchange rate is determined by querying a third party market maker (e.g. currency conversion transaction processor) (Section [0005]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the inter-blockchain transaction system of Rangan/Cervenka/Wang/DeCastro the concept of querying a third party market maker for the exchange rate as taught by Grovit since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Since both DeCastro and Grovit disclose financial transactions, one of ordinary skill in the art would know that using a third party market maker (as taught by Grovit) to determine the exchange rate in the transaction system of Rangan/Cervenka/Wang/DeCastro would render predictable results.
Per claim 10, Rangan/Cervenka/Wang/DeCastro do not specifically disclose in which the inter-blockchain exchange request includes a converted crypto tokens amount to be provided to the second user of the target blockchain network, and in which the converted crypto tokens amount is calculated based on the determined inter-blockchain network exchange rate. However, Grovit, in analogous art of transactions, discloses:
in which the inter-blockchain exchange request includes a converted crypto tokens amount (e.g. currency conversion transaction data) to be provided to the second user (e.g. merchant) of the target blockchain network, and in which the converted crypto tokens amount is calculated based on the determined inter-blockchain network exchange rate (e.g. exchange rate data) (Section [0005]). Note: the limitation “in which the inter-blockchain exchange request includes a converted crypto tokens amount to be provided to the second user of the target blockchain network, and wherein the converted crypto tokens amount is calculated based on the determined inter-blockchain network exchange rate” does not distinguish over the prior art because it is describing the inter-blockchain exchange request and is not positively recited as a function being performed by the inter-blockchain network transaction facilitating apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the inter-blockchain transaction system of Rangan/Cervenka/Wang/DeCastro the concept of calculating an amount of the transaction based on an exchange rate as taught by Grovit since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Since both DeCastro and Grovit disclose financial transaction exchange rates, one of ordinary skill in the art would know that adding the determination of a transaction amount based on an exchange rate (as taught by Grovit) to the transaction system of Rangan/Cervenka/Wang/DeCastro would render predictable results.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rangan/Cervenka/Wang, as applied to claim 13 above, in further view of US 20170180134 A1 (“King”).
Per claim 15, Rangan/Cervenka/Wang do not specifically disclose in which the inter-blockchain network transaction is added to the target blockchain network’s blockchain in a modified form that includes a cryptographic signature of the exchange node of the target blockchain network. However, King, in analogous art of blockchain transactions, discloses:
in which the inter-blockchain network transaction is added to the target blockchain network’s blockchain in a modified form that includes a cryptographic signature (e.g. signed hash block) of the exchange node of the target blockchain network (Section [0060]-[0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the inter-blockchain transaction system of Rangan/Cervenka/Wang the concept of modifying the transaction request with a cryptographic signature as taught by King since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would add the concept of modifying the transaction request of Rangan/Cervenka/Wang with a cryptographic signature (as taught by King) in order to increase the security of the transaction system and the results would be predictable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to ZESHENG XIAO whose telephone number is 571-272-6627. The Examiner can normally be reached on 10:00am-4:30pm M-F. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571) 272-7575.
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.
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 http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair . Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
/Z.X./Examiner, Art Unit 3685
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698