DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner Note
Examiner recommends scheduling an interview to help move prosecution in a positive direction and possible help expedite prosecution.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 11/11//2025 has been entered. No Claims have been amended. No Claims have/remained been canceled.. Claims 1-14 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s arguments, on page 5-12 of the remark filed on 11/11/2025, on the limitations of independent claim 1, : “wherein at least one parameter of the plurality of input parameters is a target output parameter; ii) true/false logic arranged to provide a result based on: a calculation performed on the plurality of input parameters provided by the unlocking script to provide an interim result; and a comparison of the target output parameter via the unlocking script against the interim result; and;”, arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 5 second to last paragraph that the cited references fail to teach each of the plurality of potential states of each of the at least one data source is represented by a signing key corresponding to a public key that represents a Boolean value indicative of the potential state and true/false logic arranged to provide a result. Applicant’s interpretation of the reference has been noted; however, examiner respectfully disagrees. Copeland teaches on Par. (0149-0150) a potential state of data source (tracking type and conditions associated with redeemed purchase) represented by signing key corresponding to public key (key value pairs) that represent a Boolean value (Boolean value indicating presence or absence of tracking type)) and on (Par. (0150) describing a plurality of potential states (tracking type corresponding to sensor with plurality of transaction records and purchases)).
Applicant further argues on pages 5-6 of the remarks filed on 11/11/2025 that the cited references fail to teach or disclose the features of wherein at least one parameter of the plurality of input parameters is a target output parameter; ii) true/false logic arranged to provide a result based on: a calculation performed on the plurality of input parameters provided by the unlocking script to provide an interim result; and a comparison of the target output parameter via the unlocking script against the interim result; and. Applicant’s interpretation of the reference has been noted; however, examiner respectfully disagrees. Antonopoulos teaches Page 135 paragraphs 3-5 and Page 136 first four paragraphs parameters in redeem script an target number to spend in order to meet conditions of redeem script. Antonopoulos further describes on Page 124 third paragraph and Page 127 first paragraph a calculation performed to unlock the script based on true or false logic and on Page 129 last two paragraphs describing an interim result or hash being returned in the condition of the true or false returns true. Antonopoulos discloses on Page 136 last two paragraphs a comparing of the redeem script with target output number and against the interim result of hash produced.
Applicant further argues on last two paragraphs of page 7 that Antonopoulos and Love are incompatible and have no reason to combine. Applicant’s interpretation of the reference has been noted; however, examiner respectfully disagrees. Antonopoulos and Love are analogous art because of the exchange of cryptographic keys and transactions performed between multiple devices in a system.
Applicant further argues on pages 8-9 that Copeland does not teach a comparison against a target output parameter as a part of transaction logic or true/false logic arranged to provide a result based on a calculation performed on the plurality of input parameters provided by the unlocking script to provide an interim result and a comparison of the target output parameter via the unlocking script against the interim result. Applicant’s interpretation of the reference has been noted; however, examiner respectfully disagrees. In the Non-Final Rejection mailed on 08/26/2025 it is stated that Antonopoulos teaches the aforementioned limitations stated above. Copeland teaches wherein each of the plurality of potential state of each of the at least one data source is represented by a signing key corresponding to a public key that represents a Boolean value indicative of the potential state; ii) true/false logic arranged to provide a result based on: attempting to spend the output more than once via the true/false logic of the redeem script, wherein the potential state of the at least one data source is associated with the Boolean value corresponding to a value associated with one or more conditions being detected by a sensor cited on Par. (0149-150), (0096) and (0106) respectively.
Applicant further argues on page 10 that Antonopoulos and Copeland are not technically compatible and that they would not be reasonable to combine as well as the four arts cited are not technically compatible. Applicant’s interpretation of the reference has been noted; however, examiner respectfully disagrees. Antonopoulos and Copeland are analogous because of transaction and recorded values with multiple devices in a system and the concept of redeeming purchase. All four cited reference address transaction purchases in a system and either sensor data or exchanging of keys. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in further view of Antonopoulos et al. (Mastering Bitcoin – Unlocking Digital Cryptocurrency (Retrieved from IDS)”, hereinafter referred to as “Antonopoulos”) Barreiro et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20170178416, hereinafter referred to as “Barreiro”) and Love et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20150207796, hereinafter referred to as “Love”) further in view of Copeland et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20150379554, hereinafter referred to as “Copeland”)
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Antonopoulos teaches a computer-implemented control method comprising the steps: providing a blockchain transaction comprising a redeem script for an output, wherein the redeem script comprises: (Page 135 third paragraph .”; redeem script associated with blockchain transaction)), (Page 12 second to last paragraph “”; providing a blockchain transaction (transmits transaction provided by))
I) a plurality of input parameters, wherein each input parameter is uniquely associated with a respective one of a plurality of potential states of at least one data source supplied to an unlocking script of a further transaction arranged to spend the output, (Page 135 paragraphs 3-5 “”; plurality of input parameters (redeem script with public key 1, 2 and Upchuck parameters); each input parameter uniquely associated with a potential state of at least one data source supplied to an unlocking script (input parameters associated with public key of data source, unlocking script contains redeem script); to spend the output (unlocking script when an output is spent),
and wherein one of the plurality of input parameters is a target output parameter; (Page 135 paragraphs 3-5 and Page 136 first four paragraphs “”; input parameters in redeem script with conditions on target output parameter or to spend or not))(Examiner notes: In the instant application on Page 3 last 4 lines the specification states that the target output parameter represents the desire to spend or not therefore it will be broadly and reasonably interpreted as such))
a calculation performed on the plurality of input parameters provided by the unlocking script to provide an interim result; and (Page 124 third paragraph and Page 127 first paragraph ”; calculation performed on input parameters (unlocking script calculates to provide a result based on input of True or false)), (Page 129 last two paragraphs “”; as to provide an interim result (hash values corresponding to unlocking script and returning/matching a condition of True))
a comparison of the target output parameter via the unlocking script against the interim result; and (Page 136 last two paragraphs ”; comparison of redeem script with target output parameters with unlocking script against the output of hash values))
each attempt supplying a different target output parameter, (Page 216 paragraphs 3-5 “”; attempting to spend the output more than once (double-spending)), (Page 216 second paragraph ”; each attempt supplying a different target output parameter (double-spending returns true to Mallory wallet and returns false to Carol wallet with two different outputs))
Antonopoulos does not explicitly teach wherein each of the plurality of potential states of each of the at least one data source is represented by a signing key corresponding to a public key that represents a Boolean value indicative of the potential state; ii) true/false logic arranged to provide a result based on: attempting to spend the output more than once via the true/false logic of the redeem script, wherein the potential state of the at least one data source is associated with the Boolean value corresponding to a value associated with one or more conditions being detected by a sensor, wherein the sensor generates and transmits the value to a computing resource and/or agent in response to one or more conditions being detected, and wherein the computing resource and/or agent determines and provides the input parameters based at least in part on the value associated with the one or more conditions being detected by the sensor, the plurality of input parameters comprising the signing keys respectively representative of the potential state of a respective one of the at least data source based on the one or more conditions detected by the sensor.
Wherein Barreiro teaches wherein the sensor generates and transmits the value to a computing resource and/or agent in response to one or more conditions being detected, and (Par. (0013): sensors in mobile computing devices generating and transmitting data corresponding to environmental conditions of the computing device that is determined) (Examiner note: in the instant application the specification defines on Page 5 last 4 lines and Page 11 lines 5-25 that condition detected by sensor corresponds to environmental conditions. Therefore it will be broadly and reasonably interpreted as such))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Antonopoulos to incorporate the teaching of Barreiro to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of authentication techniques based on the potential state of devices, with the motivation of detecting potential compromise or fraudulent activity on data sources and devices based on sensor to assure users that sensor data is not tampered or modified. This creates trust for users with data sources that authentic information is transmitted and identified and in return maintains the integrity of the system as a whole. (Barreiro Par. (0025))
Antonopoulos and Barreiro do not explicitly teach wherein each of the plurality potential states of each of the at least one data source is represented by a signing key corresponding to a public key that represents a Boolean value indicative of the potential state; ii) true/false logic arranged to provide a result based on: attempting to spend the output more than once via the true/false logic of the redeem script, wherein the potential state of the at least one data source is associated with the Boolean value corresponding to a value associated with one or more conditions being detected by a sensor, wherein the computing resource and/or agent determines and provides the input parameters based at least in part on the value associated with the one or more conditions being detected by the sensor, the plurality of input parameters comprising the signing key representative of the potential state of a respective one of the at least data source based on the one or more conditions detected by the sensor.
Wherein Love teaches wherein the computing resource and/or agent determines and provides the input parameters based at least in part on the value associated with the one or more conditions being detected by the sensor, (Par. (0038); determining calibration parameters for the sensor)
the plurality of input parameters comprising the signing keys respectively representative of the potential state of a respective one of the at least data source based on the one or more conditions detected by the sensor. (Par. (0146); calibration parameters with signed data and corresponding private key associated with each sensor)), (Par. (0160-0162); condition detected by sensor ( sensor corresponding to sensing elements compounds, electrodes, oxygen etc.) (Examiner note: in the instant application the specification defines on Page 5 last 4 lines and Page 11 lines 5-25 that condition detected by sensor corresponds to environmental conditions. Therefore it will be broadly and reasonably interpreted as such))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Antonopoulos and Barreiro to incorporate the teaching of Love to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of transaction exchanges on an network and sensor data being detected, with the motivation of utilizing sensor data to identify possible conditions such has environmental occurrences and signing the data with a key to create validity for the data exchanged and alert users in the network that authentic sensor readings are present without concerns of tampering, compromise or vulnerabilities based on false data and in return creates credibility for the sensor and devices involved. (Love Par. (0147))
Antonopoulos, Barreiro and Love do not explicitly teach wherein each of the plurality of potential states of each of the at least one data source is represented by a signing key corresponding to a public key that represents a Boolean value indicative of the potential state; ii) true/false logic arranged to provide a result based on: attempting to spend the output more than once via the true/false logic of the redeem script, wherein the potential state of the at least one data source is associated with the Boolean value corresponding to a value associated with one or more conditions being detected by a sensor,
Wherein Copeland teaches wherein each of the plurality of potential state of each of the at least one data source is represented by a signing key corresponding to a public key that represents a Boolean value indicative of the potential state; (Par. (0149-0150); potential state of data source (tracking type and conditions associated with redeemed purchase) represented by signing key corresponding to public key (key value pairs) that represent a Boolean value (Boolean value indicating presence or absence of tracking type)), (Par. (0150); potential state (tracking type corresponding to sensor with plurality of transaction records and purchases))
ii) true/false logic arranged to provide a result based on: (Par. (0096); Boolean value corresponding to false) Par. (0106); true or false logic )
attempting to spend the output more than once via the true/false logic of the redeem script, (Par. (0149-0150); redeeming based on Boolean value and consumer purchased amount)
wherein the potential state of the at least one data source is associated with the Boolean value corresponding to a value associated with one or more conditions being detected by a sensor, (Par. (0149-0150); potential state of data source (tracking type and conditions associated with redeemed purchase) represented by signing key corresponding to public key (key value pairs) that represent a Boolean value (Boolean value indicating presence or absence of tracking type)), (Par. (0150); potential state (tracking type corresponding to sensor with plurality of transaction records and purchases))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Antonopoulos, Barreiro and Love to incorporate the teaching of Copeland to utilize the above feature because of the analogous authorization of transactional purchases based on sensor data, with the motivation of implanting a Boolean and true/false logic corresponding to a potential state to create awareness and credibility to users that only script and values that return true are authentic purchases and relieves the constraints and issues consumers face when attempting to purchase goods. (Copeland Par. (0005-0008))
Regarding Dependent Claim 2, the combination of Antonopoulos, Barreiro, Love and Copeland teach the method of Claim 1, Antonopoulos further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the logic is arranged to implement the functionality of a logic gate. (Page 257 first table “OP_XOR 0x86 Disabled (Boolean XOR of top two items))”; functionality of logic gate –(XOR Boolean))
Regarding Dependent Claim 3, the combination of Antonopoulos, Barreiro, Love and Copeland teach the method of Claim 1, Antonopoulos further teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the logic gate is a NOT, AND, OR, NOR, XOR, IMPLY, NAND, NONIMPLY or XNOR gate. (Page 257 first table “OP_OR 0x85 Disabled (Boolean OR of top two items), OP_XOR 0x86 Disabled (Boolean XOR of top two items)”; XOR, OR gates))
Regarding Dependent Claim 4, the combination of Antonopoulos, Barreiro, Love and Copeland teach the method of Claim 1, Antonopoulos further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the state of the at least one data source is determined by a computing agent. (Page 233 first paragraph.”; computing agents (software agents))
Regarding Dependent Claim 5, the combination of Antonopoulos, Barreiro, Love and Copeland teach the method of Claim 1, Antonopoulos further teaches the method according to claim 4, wherein the computing agent is in communication with a control computing agent. (Page 10 last three paragraphs “”; a control computing agent (software agent associated with blockchain can control funds))
Regarding Dependent Claim 6, the combination of Antonopoulos, Barreiro, Love and Copeland teach the method of Claim 1, Antonopoulos further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the result is a Boolean result. (Page 125 fourth paragraph “”; Boolean result (true or False of Boolean))
Regarding Dependent Claim 7, the combination of Antonopoulos, Barreiro, Love and Copeland teach the method of Claim 1, Antonopoulos further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein there are at least two data sources. (Page 128 last three paragraphs .”; two data sources, different types of transaction))
Regarding Dependent Claim 8, the combination of Antonopoulos, Barreiro, Love and Copeland teach the method of Claim 1, Antonopoulos further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein there are two or more potential states for each data source.(Page 135 table 5-5 ”; two or more potential states with ..or by a public key (public key 2 , public key3 of two or more potential states))
Regarding Dependent Claim 9, the combination of Antonopoulos, Barreiro, Love and Copeland teach the method of Claim 1, Barreiro further teaches wherein the at least one data source comprises a sensor or a signal generation component. (Par. (0013): sensors in mobile computing devices generating and transmitting data corresponding to environmental conditions of the computing device that is determined) (Par. (0046); potential state of the at least one data source (fraudulent reporting of devices), determined by sensor (sensor data reported)), (Par. (0057); collect sensor data and verify device),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Antonopoulos, Love and Copeland to incorporate the teaching of Barreiro to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of authentication techniques based on the potential state of devices, with the motivation of detecting potential compromise or fraudulent activity on data sources and devices based on sensor to assure users that sensor data is not tampered or modified. This creates trust for users with data sources that authentic information is transmitted and identified and in return maintains the integrity of the system as a whole. (Barreiro Par. (0025))
Regarding Dependent Claim 10, the combination of Antonopoulos, Barreiro, Love and Copeland teach the method of Claim 1, Antonopoulos further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the logic is arranged to perform an equality check to compare the interim result with the target output parameter. (Page 135 fourth paragraph “”; equality check to compare the interim result ( Boolean result check if they are equal of transaction script with output))
Regarding Dependent Claim 11, the combination of Antonopoulos, Barreiro, Love and Copeland teach the method of Claim 1, Antonopoulos further teaches a computer-implemented system comprising: one or more processors; and memory including executable instructions that, upon execution by the one or more processors, cause the computer-implemented system to perform the method of claim 1. (Page 139 first and second paragraph ”; (computers) and a blockchain (bitcoin network)), (Page 122 last paragraph; stored in memory), (Page 209 first paragraph; processor (CPU))
Regarding Dependent Claim 12, the combination of Antonopoulos, Barreiro, Love and Copeland teach the method of Claim 1, Antonopoulos further teaches the computer-implemented system according to claim 11, wherein the executable instructions further include instructions that further cause the computer-implemented system: ((Page 139 first and second paragraph “”; computer-based resource (computers) and a blockchain (bitcoin network))
submit a transaction to a blockchain network; (Page 55 first paragraph “”; submit a transaction))
generate the transaction; (Page 131 last paragraph”; generate transaction))
digitally sign a locking script; (Page 132 last three paragraphs “sign locking script (locking script with multi signatures))
and/or generate a public/private cryptographic key.”; (Page 10 last paragraph “”; generate private key)), (Page 61 second paragraph .”; generated public and private key))
Regarding Dependent Claim 13, the combination of Antonopoulos, Barreiro, Love and Copeland teach the method of Claim 1, Antonopoulos further teaches the computer-implemented according to claim 11, wherein the result is used to control or influence an execution or operation of a process or apparatus. (Page 124 last two paragraphs “”; result is used to control (if the result is true the input is valid and authorization to spend is allowed))
Regarding Dependent Claim 14, the combination of Antonopoulos, Barreiro, Love and Copeland teach the method of Claim 1, Barreiro further teaches at least one sensor or signal generation component arranged and configured to provide an input to the one or more processors. (Par. (0013): sensors in mobile computing devices generating and transmitting data corresponding to environmental conditions of the computing device that is determined) (Par. (0046); potential state of the at least one data source (fraudulent reporting of devices), determined by sensor (sensor data reported)), (Par. (0057); collect sensor data and verify device),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Antonopoulos and Love to incorporate the teaching of Barreiro to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of authentication techniques based on the potential state of devices, with the motivation of detecting potential compromise or fraudulent activity on data sources and devices based on sensor to assure users that sensor data is not tampered or modified. This creates trust for users with data sources that authentic information is transmitted and identified and in return maintains the integrity of the system as a whole. (Barreiro Par. (0025))
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wright; Craig Steven (U.S Pub. No. 20190303887) UNIVERSAL TOKENISATION SYSTEM FOR BLOCKCHAIN-BASED CRYPTOCURRENCIES”. Considered this reference because it is associated with the same inventor and concept of cryptocurrency spending and the transfer or transaction/purchases in a network.
Savanah; Stephane (U.S Pub. No. 20190149337) “IMPLEMENTING LOGIC GATE FUNCTIONALITY USING A BLOCKCHAIN”. Considered this application because it relates to the same concept of logic gates used to unlock scripts of blockchain transaction
Savanah; Stephane (U.S Pub. No. 20190057362) “BLOCKCHAIN-BASED EXCHANGE WITH TOKENISATION”. Considered this application because it addressed the spending of bitcoin and the transfer of cryptocurrency associated with multiple scripts.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASSAN A HUSSEIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3554. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eleni Shiferaw can be reached on (571)272-3867. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-y.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/H.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2497
/BRYAN F WRIGHT/Examiner, Art Unit 2497