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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 11, and 17-20 are currently amended.
Claims 4, 6-7, 9 and 15 are canceled.
Claim 21 is new.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10-14 and 16-21 are pending.
Response to Remarks
35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previous rejections. Accordingly, the previous rejections are withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. § 101, Statutory Subject Matter
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previous rejections based on failing to claim statutory subject matter. Accordingly, the previous rejections are withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. § 101, Abstract Idea Without Significantly More
Remark 1: Applicant contends there is no need for the external device's unlocking action and/or the device itself to be claimed.
Response to Remark 1: Examiner respectfully disagrees. The electronic device being unlocked is not within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the independent claims. For instance, in claim 1, the electronic device itself doesn’t constitute structure of the blockchain-implemented system. See MPEP 2103(I)(C). Accordingly, this contention is unpersuasive.
Remark 2: Applicant contends the claim are directed to a practical application because the claims enhance decentralization, security, and efficiency.
Response to Remark 2: Examiner respectfully disagrees. A computer using less energy or computation power to perform an abstract idea does not constitute an improvement in the functioning of computers, nor technology, nor a technical field. What applicant contends is an improvement is merely an improvement in an abstract idea itself. In other words, a general-purpose computer would be capable of performing these same operations. Accordingly, this contention is unpersuasive.
Remark 3: Applicant contends that the claims are similar to a USPTO subject matter eligibility Example.
Response to Remark 3: Examiner notes that subject matter eligibility is based on the 2019 subject matter eligibility guidelines, not comparisons to Examples.
Remark 4: Applicant contends that the ordered combination of the interpreter’s API integration, script translation, and signal transmission is unconventional, avoiding the complex infrastructure of bot-based systems. This inventive concept, supported by the specification’s novel wallet architecture, provides a technical solution that is not well-understood, routine, or conventional.
Response to Remark 4: Examiner respectfully disagrees. A conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Here, since no conclusion was made in Step 2A that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity, applicant’s argument is of no significance and thus unpersuasive. Accordingly, this contention is unpersuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10 and 21:
Step 1
Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10 and 21 are directed to a computer-implemented system (i.e., machine, and manufacture). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention, and thus must be further analyzed at Step 2A to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.03, subsection II).
Step 2A Prong One
In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Claim 1 recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea of executing at least one process of currency transfer and authentication unlocking based on trigger associated with a transaction. Specifically, but for the additional elements, the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The certain method of organizing human activity grouping is used to describe fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Fundamental economic principles or practices are relating to the economy and commerce, or recite hedging, insurance, and mitigating risks. Commercial or legal interactions recite agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people recite social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II. The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea are grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas because the limitations recite fundamental economic principles or practices, as they recite mitigating risk, and commercial or legal interactions, as they recite sales activities or behaviors. More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite the abstract idea while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
A blockchain-implemented system comprising:
a memory storing a digital wallet;
an interpreter associated with the digital wallet, wherein the interpreter is installed as a plug-in extension to the digital wallet or embedded within the digital wallet, and the interpreter interfaces with the digital wallet via an application programming interface; and
a processor interacting with the digital wallet and interpreter and executing at least one process in response to at least one trigger provided in a script associated with an output of a blockchain transaction on a blockchain, wherein:
the at least one trigger and the at least one process are selected or determined in accordance with a smart contract embedded within the script;
the processor translates, by the interpreter, codified instructions of the smart contract provided by the at least one trigger into executable logic; and
the at least one process executed by the processor, based on the executable logic translated from the codified instructions of the smart contract in response to the interfacing of the interpreter with the digital wallet, includes:
transferring, as a result of the output being spent, a token and/or portion of currency to a recipient on the blockchain; and
sending, by the interpreter, a signal comprising an authentication to an off-block destination configured to cause unlocking of an electronic device in response to receiving the signal.
Step 2A Prong Two
In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. Here, claim 1 as a whole, looking at the identified additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. First, the non-underlined additional elements merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)), and generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Additionally, regarding the specification and claims, there is no improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field present (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)), there is no applying or using the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition present (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)), there is no implementing the judicial exception with or using the judicial exception in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim present (MPEP § 2106.05(b)), there is no effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing present (MPEP § 2106.05(c)), and there is no applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment present, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05(e)). Thus, the claim as a whole is directed to a judicial exception and thus requires further analysis at Step 2B to determine if the claim as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the exception itself (See MPEP 2106.04, subsection II).
Step 2B
Step 2B determines whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the exception itself. Evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Here, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in claim 1, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements merely serve as a tool to perform an abstract idea and generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Dependent Claims
Claims 2-3, 5, 8, 10 and 21 have also been analyzed. The subject matter of claims 2-3, 5, 8, 10 also fails to recite patent eligible subject matter for the following reasons:
Claim 2 further recite the abstract idea of executing at least one process of currency transfer and authentication unlocking based on trigger associated with a transaction. In other words, the claim recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite the abstract idea(s) while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the digital wallet is a cryptocurrency wallet.
Claim 3 further recite the abstract idea of executing at least one process of currency transfer and authentication unlocking based on trigger associated with a transaction. In other words, the claim recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite the abstract idea(s) while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the at least one trigger comprises one or more codes, flags, instructions and/or parameters.
Claim 5 further recite the abstract idea of executing at least one process of currency transfer and authentication unlocking based on trigger associated with a transaction. In other words, the claim recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite the abstract idea(s) while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the at least one process is pre-determined and known to the processor and/or the digital wallet.
Claim 8 further recite the abstract idea of executing at least one process of currency transfer and authentication unlocking based on trigger associated with a transaction. In other words, the claim recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite the abstract idea(s) while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the at least one trigger is provided within or by metadata that is provided by the script.
Claim 10 further recite the abstract idea of executing at least one process of currency transfer and authentication unlocking based on trigger associated with a transaction. In other words, the claim recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite the abstract idea(s) while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the system further comprises a plurality of digital wallets and/or processors.
Claims 11-14 and 16:
Step 1
Claims 11-14 and 16 are directed to a computer-implemented method (i.e., process). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention, and thus must be further analyzed at Step 2A to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.03, subsection II).
Step 2A Prong One
In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Claim 11 recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea of executing at least one process of currency transfer and authentication unlocking based on trigger associated with a transaction. Specifically, but for the additional elements, the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The certain method of organizing human activity grouping is used to describe fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Fundamental economic principles or practices are relating to the economy and commerce, or recite hedging, insurance, and mitigating risks. Commercial or legal interactions recite agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people recite social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II. The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea are grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas because the limitations recite fundamental economic principles or practices, as they recite mitigating risk, and commercial or legal interactions, as they recite sales activities or behaviors. More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite the abstract idea while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
A method for interacting with a digital or cryptocurrency wallet, the method comprising:
storing a digital wallet in a memory;
associating an interpreter with the digital wallet, wherein the interpreter is installed as a plug-in extension to the digital wallet or embedded within the digital wallet, the interpreter interfacing with the digital wallet via an application programming interface;
executing, by a processor interacting with the digital wallet and the interpreter, at least one process in response to at least one trigger provided in a script associated with an output of a blockchain transaction on a blockchain, wherein:
the at least one trigger and the at least one process are selected or determined in accordance with a smart contract embedded within the script;
codified instructions of the smart contract are translated, by the interpreter, into executable logic based on the at least one trigger; and
executing, by the processor, the at least one process based on the executable logic translated from the codified instructions of the smart contract in response to the interfacing of the digital wallet with the interpreter, the at least one process including:
transferring, as a result of the output being spent, a token and/or portion of currency to a recipient on the blockchain; and
sending a signal comprising an authentication to an off-block destination configured to cause unlocking of an electronic device in response to receiving the signal.
Step 2A Prong Two
In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. Here, claim 11 as a whole, looking at the identified additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. First, the non-underlined additional elements merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)), and generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Additionally, regarding the specification and claims, there is no improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field present (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)), there is no applying or using the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition present (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)), there is no implementing the judicial exception with or using the judicial exception in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim present (MPEP § 2106.05(b)), there is no effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing present (MPEP § 2106.05(c)), and there is no applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment present, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05(e)). Thus, the claim as a whole is directed to a judicial exception and thus requires further analysis at Step 2B to determine if the claim as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the exception itself (See MPEP 2106.04, subsection II).
Step 2B
Step 2B determines whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the exception itself. Evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Here, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in claim 11, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements merely serve as a tool to perform an abstract idea and generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Dependent Claims
Claims 12-14 and 16 have also been analyzed. However, the subject matter of these claims also fails to recite patent eligible subject matter for the following reasons:
Claim 12 further recite the abstract idea of executing at least one process of currency transfer and authentication unlocking based on trigger associated with a transaction. In other words, the claim recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite the abstract idea(s) while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the at least one trigger comprises one or more codes, instructions, flags and/or parameters.
Claim 13 further recite the abstract idea of executing at least one process of currency transfer and authentication unlocking based on trigger associated with a transaction. In other words, the claim recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite the abstract idea(s) while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the at least one process is pre-determined and known to the processor and/or the digital or cryptocurrency wallet; and/or
the at least one trigger is provided within or by metadata that is provided within the script.
Claim 14 further recite the abstract idea of executing at least one process of currency transfer and authentication unlocking based on trigger associated with a transaction. In other words, the claim recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite the abstract idea(s) while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
downloading and/or installing the digital or cryptocurrency wallet; and/or
downloading and/or installing the processor.
Claim 16 further recite the abstract idea of executing at least one process of currency transfer and authentication unlocking based on trigger associated with a transaction, and transaction bookkeeping. In other words, the claim recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite the abstract idea(s) while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
submitting the blockchain transaction to a blockchain network to be written to a blockchain ledger.
Claim 17:
Step 1
Claims 17 is directed to a computer-implemented method (i.e., process). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention, and thus must be further analyzed at Step 2A to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.03, subsection II).
Step 2A Prong One
In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Claim 17 recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea of currency transfer and authentication unlocking. Specifically, but for the additional elements, the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The certain method of organizing human activity grouping is used to describe fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Fundamental economic principles or practices are relating to the economy and commerce, or recite hedging, insurance, and mitigating risks. Commercial or legal interactions recite agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people recite social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II. The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea are grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas because the limitations recite fundamental economic principles or practices, as they recite mitigating risk, and commercial or legal interactions, as they recite sales activities or behaviors. More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite the abstract idea while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
A blockchain-implemented method comprising:
recognizing, by an interpreter, one or more codified instructions of a smart contract provided by a script associated with an output of a blockchain transaction on a blockchain in response to at least one trigger in the script, the interpreter interfacing with the digital wallet via an application programming interface, and the interpreter being associated with a digital or cryptocurrency wallet, wherein the interpreter is installed as a plug-in extension to the digital or cryptocurrency wallet, is embedded in the digital or cryptocurrency wallet, or is operable with the digital or cryptocurrency wallet;
transferring, as a result of the output being spent, a token and/or portion of currency to a recipient on the blockchain based on the one or more recognized codified instructions; and
sending, by the interpreter, a signal comprising an authentication to an off-block destination configured to cause unlocking of an electronic device in response to receiving the signal;
Step 2A Prong Two
In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. Here, claim 17 as a whole, looking at the identified additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. First, the non-underlined additional elements merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)), and generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Additionally, regarding the specification and claims, there is no improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field present (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)), there is no applying or using the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition present (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)), there is no implementing the judicial exception with or using the judicial exception in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim present (MPEP § 2106.05(b)), there is no effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing present (MPEP § 2106.05(c)), and there is no applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment present, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05(e)). Thus, the claim as a whole is directed to a judicial exception and thus requires further analysis at Step 2B to determine if the claim as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the exception itself (See MPEP 2106.04, subsection II).
Step 2B
Step 2B determines whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the exception itself. Evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Here, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in claim 17, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements merely serve as a tool to perform an abstract idea and generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claim 18:
Step 1
Claims 18 is directed to a computer-implemented system (i.e., machine, and manufacture). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention, and thus must be further analyzed at Step 2A to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.03, subsection II).
Step 2A Prong One
In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Claim 18 recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea of currency transfer and authentication unlocking. Specifically, but for the additional elements, the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The certain method of organizing human activity grouping is used to describe fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Fundamental economic principles or practices are relating to the economy and commerce, or recite hedging, insurance, and mitigating risks. Commercial or legal interactions recite agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people recite social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II. The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea are grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas because the limitations recite fundamental economic principles or practices, as they recite mitigating risk, and commercial or legal interactions, as they recite sales activities or behaviors. More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite the abstract idea while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
A blockchain-implemented system comprising:
one or more processors;
a memory storing instructions executable by the one or more processors; and
an interpreter associated with a digital or cryptocurrency wallet, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the interpreter to:
recognize one or more codified instructions of a smart contract provided by a script associated with an output of a blockchain transaction on a blockchain in response to at least one trigger in the script, wherein the interpreter is to interface with the digital or cryptocurrency wallet via an application programming interface, wherein the interpreter is associated with the digital or cryptocurrency wallet and installed as a plug-in extension to the digital or cryptocurrency wallet or embedded in the digital or cryptocurrency wallet;
transfer, as a result of the output being spent, a token and/or portion of currency to a recipient on the blockchain based on the one or more codified instructions; and
send a signal comprising an authentication to an off-block destination configured to cause unlocking of an electronic device in response to receiving the signal.
Step 2A Prong Two
In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. Here, claim 18 as a whole, looking at the identified additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. First, the non-underlined additional elements merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)), and generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Additionally, regarding the specification and claims, there is no improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field present (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)), there is no applying or using the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition present (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)), there is no implementing the judicial exception with or using the judicial exception in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim present (MPEP § 2106.05(b)), there is no effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing present (MPEP § 2106.05(c)), and there is no applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment present, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05(e)). Thus, the claim as a whole is directed to a judicial exception and thus requires further analysis at Step 2B to determine if the claim as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the exception itself (See MPEP 2106.04, subsection II).
Step 2B
Step 2B determines whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the exception itself. Evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Here, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in claim 18, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements merely serve as a tool to perform an abstract idea and generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claim 19:
Step 1
Claims 19 is directed to a computer-implemented system (i.e., machine, and manufacture). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention, and thus must be further analyzed at Step 2A to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.03, subsection II).
Step 2A Prong One
In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Claim 19 recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea of executing at least one process of currency transfer and authentication unlocking based on trigger associated with a transaction. Specifically, but for the additional elements, the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The certain method of organizing human activity grouping is used to describe fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Fundamental economic principles or practices are relating to the economy and commerce, or recite hedging, insurance, and mitigating risks. Commercial or legal interactions recite agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people recite social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II. The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea are grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas because the limitations recite fundamental economic principles or practices, as they recite mitigating risk, and commercial or legal interactions, as they recite sales activities or behaviors. More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite the abstract idea while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
A system, comprising:
one or more processors; and
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
interact with a digital or cryptocurrency wallet and execute at least one process based on executable logic in response to at least one trigger associated with or provided in a script of a blockchain transaction on a blockchain, wherein the script is associated with an output of the blockchain transaction and comprises a smart contract and the executable logic is determined by translating using an interpreter codified instructions of the smart contract based on the at least one trigger, the interpreter interfacing with the digital or cryptocurrency wallet via an application programming interface;
transfer, as a result of the output being spent, a token and/or portion of currency to a recipient on the blockchain based on the executable logic; and
send a signal comprising an authentication to an off-block destination configured to cause unlocking of an electronic device in response to receiving the signal.
Step 2A Prong Two
In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. Here, claim 19 as a whole, looking at the identified additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. First, the non-underlined additional elements merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)), and generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Additionally, regarding the specification and claims, there is no improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field present (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)), there is no applying or using the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition present (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)), there is no implementing the judicial exception with or using the judicial exception in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim present (MPEP § 2106.05(b)), there is no effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing present (MPEP § 2106.05(c)), and there is no applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment present, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05(e)). Thus, the claim as a whole is directed to a judicial exception and thus requires further analysis at Step 2B to determine if the claim as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the exception itself (See MPEP 2106.04, subsection II).
Step 2B
Step 2B determines whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the exception itself. Evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Here, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in claim 19, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements merely serve as a tool to perform an abstract idea and generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claim 20:
Step 1
Claims 20 is directed to a computer-implemented system (i.e., machine, and manufacture). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention, and thus must be further analyzed at Step 2A to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.03, subsection II).
Step 2A Prong One
In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Claim 20 recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea of executing at least one process of currency transfer and authentication unlocking based on trigger associated with a transaction. Specifically, but for the additional elements, the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The certain method of organizing human activity grouping is used to describe fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Fundamental economic principles or practices are relating to the economy and commerce, or recite hedging, insurance, and mitigating risks. Commercial or legal interactions recite agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people recite social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II. The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea are grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas because the limitations recite fundamental economic principles or practices, as they recite mitigating risk, and commercial or legal interactions, as they recite sales activities or behaviors. More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite the abstract idea while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
A system, comprising:
one or more processors;
a memory storing a digital or cryptocurrency wallet; and
the memory storing instructions executable by the one or more processors to cause the one or more processors to:
interact with the digital or cryptocurrency wallet and execute at least one process based on executable logic in response to at least one trigger provided in a script associated with an output of a blockchain transaction, wherein the script comprises a smart contract and the executable logic is determined by translating using an interpreter codified instructions of the smart contract based on the at least one trigger, the interpreter interfacing with the digital or cryptocurrency wallet via an application programming interface, and the at least one process causing the one or more processors to:
transfer, as a result of the output being spent, a token and/or portion of currency to a recipient on the blockchain; and
send a signal comprising an authentication to an off-block destination configured to cause unlocking of an electronic device in response to receiving the signal.
Step 2A Prong Two
In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. Here, claim 20 as a whole, looking at the identified additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. First, the non-underlined additional elements merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)), and generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Additionally, regarding the specification and claims, there is no improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field present (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)), there is no applying or using the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition present (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)), there is no implementing the judicial exception with or using the judicial exception in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim present (MPEP § 2106.05(b)), there is no effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing present (MPEP § 2106.05(c)), and there is no applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment present, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05(e)). Thus, the claim as a whole is directed to a judicial exception and thus requires further analysis at Step 2B to determine if the claim as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the exception itself (See MPEP 2106.04, subsection II).
Step 2B
Step 2B determines whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the exception itself. Evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Here, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in claim 20, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements merely serve as a tool to perform an abstract idea and generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10-14 and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
New Matter Added to Claims
Claims 1, 11, and 17-20 recites “a signal comprising an authentication”. The Pre-Grant Publication discloses “In another example, a signal can be sent which causes a device or resource to be unlocked. Thus, the invention can serve as an authentication or security solution” (see para 0082). However, the PGPub is silent with respect to the signal itself comprising an authentication. Rather, para 0082 discloses that the invention as a whole may serve as an authentication solution. Therefore, new matter is added to the claims. New or amended claims which introduce elements or limitations that are not supported by the as-filed disclosure violate the written description requirement, and are thus rejected on the ground of a lack of written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. See MPEP 2163.01 and 2163.06.
Claims 2-3, 5, 8, 10, 12-14, 16 and 21 are also rejected per dependency upon a rejected claim.
Lack of Algorithm or Steps/Procedure for Performing a Computer Function
Claims 1, 11, and 17-20 recite “sending … a signal … to cause unlocking of an electronic device”. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. Here, Applicant’s specification merely restates the function (see Pre-Grant Publication para 0082 “In another example, a signal can be sent which causes a device or resource to be unlocked”), thus it does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. Thus, the disclosure of the application does not reasonably convey to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. Therefore, the claim fails written description and is thus rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. See MPEP 2161.01.
Claims 2-3, 5, 8, 10, 12-14, 16 and 21 are also rejected per dependency upon a rejected claim.
Claims Free of Art
The closest prior art of record is US 2017/0011460 A1 to Molinari et al. (hereinafter “Molinari”). Molinari teaches:
a memory storing a digital wallet; (paras 38, 42-44)
an interpreter (paras 25, 30, 44, 92, 95, 98) associated with the digital wallet (paras 38, 42-44), wherein the interpreter is installed as a plug-in extension to the digital wallet or embedded within the digital wallet, and the interpreter interfaces with the digital wallet via an application programming interface; and (paras 25, 30, 44, 92, 95, 98)
a processor (paras 25, 30, 44, 92, 95, 98) interacting with the digital wallet (paras 38, 42-44) and interpreter and executing at least one process (Abstract; paras 28, 92) in response to at least one trigger (paras 45-46, 92, 95, 99) provided in a script (paras 46, 92, 112) associated with an output of a blockchain transaction on a blockchain, wherein: (Abstract; paras 28, 92)
the at least one trigger and the at least one process are selected or determined in accordance with a smart contract embedded within the script; (paras 44-46, 49, 92-113)
the processor translates, by the interpreter, codified instructions of the smart contract (paras 44-46, 49, 92-113) provided by the at least one trigger (paras 45-46, 92, 95, 99) into executable logic; and (paras 25, 30, 44, 92, 95, 98)
the at least one process (Abstract; paras 28, 92) executed by the processor, based on the executable logic translated from the codified instructions (paras 25, 30, 44, 92, 95, 98) of the smart contract in response to the interfacing of the interpreter with the digital wallet, includes: (paras 44-46, 49, 92-113)
transferring, as a result of the output being spent, a token and/or portion of currency to a recipient on the blockchain; and (paras 46-47)
Therefore, the prior art does not teach, neither singly nor in combination the following:
sending, by the interpreter, a signal comprising an authentication to an off-block destination configured to cause unlocking of an electronic device in response to receiving the signal.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2017/0046689 A1 to Lohe et al. discloses: Transforming vote request, vote input inputs via SOCOACT components into vote UI, vote confirmation outputs. A crypto vote request associated with a poll may be obtained from a user. Voter authentication may be obtained and used to determine that the user is authorized to vote. An authentication token and a crypto vote user interface may be generated and provided to the user. A crypto vote input that specifies a conditional vote that includes a set of vote conditions may be obtained from the user. Each vote condition is associated with a vote outcome and an aggregated blockchain oracle. The conditional vote may be instantiated in a socially aggregated blockchain datastructure. A determination that a vote condition has been satisfied may be made and the associated vote outcome may be determined.
US 2017/0046698 A1 to Haldenby et al. discloses: Computerized systems and methods that generate secured blockchain-based ledger structures that facilitate event-based control of tracked assets. In one embodiment, an apparatus associated with a rules authority of the secured blockchain-based ledger may obtain data indicative of an initiated transfer of funds between parties, and may access and decrypt a set of restrictions imposed on the initiated transfer and a set of rules associated with the restrictions, which may hashed into the secured blockchain-based ledger using a confidentially-held master cryptographic key. The apparatus may determine that the initiated transfer violates at least one of the restrictions, and may perform operations consistent with at least one of the rules associated with the at least one violated restriction.
US 2017/0300898 A1 to Campero et al. discloses: Techniques that use devices with corresponding identity wallet applications that execute on an electronic processor device of the devices, and which identity wallets store identity information and encrypt the stored identity information. A distributed ledger system, and a broker system that interfaces to the wallet and the distributed ledger are used for various information exchange scenarios in which a requesting system and user devices, the distributed ledger system, the broker system and the requesting system are interconnected via an electronic network through respective network interface devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ari Shahabi whose telephone number is (571)272-2565. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00.
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, John W Hayes can be reached at 571-272-6708. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ARI SHAHABI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697