DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Acknowledgment
This action is in response to the amendment filed on February 25, 2026. Claims 1-31 are currently pending from which claims 24-31 are withdrawn by Applicant’s election. Claims 1-23 have been fully examined.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the 101 rejection, Applicant argues, on page 11 of the remarks, that the presence of additional elements means the claims do not recite an abstract idea. The examiner respectfully notes that whether a claim recites an abstract idea is a separate evaluation from whether there are additional elements in the claim. Applicant points to additional elements such as computing devices and concludes the claim therefore cannot recite an abstract idea. This is an incorrect analysis, as MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) highlights that:
“As the Federal Circuit has explained, ‘[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind.’”
Applicant has not shown that the abstract idea cannot be practically performed in the human mind.
Applicant further argues, on page 12 of the remarks, that according to Applicant’s Specification there is a need for a system that enforces legal or contractual restrictions associated with transaction. Applicant concludes that the claim elements address a problem because use of permanent records to store the data results in the data being unalterable. The examiner respectfully notes that permanent recording of data is an abstract idea by itself because, for example, in the real world documents containing data can be stored in a safe box and the data will remain unaltered. Using computers and distributed ledgers to permanently record data is merely a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Applicant further argues, on page 12 and with reference to paragraph [0017] of the Specification, that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claims as being directed toward improvements to the functioning of a computer or other technology or technical field (e.g., authentication systems) because claim 1 recites "stor[ing] the transaction authentication data as one or more permanent records on the blockchain corresponding to the distributed ledger by submitting the transaction authentication data to the distributed ledger as one or more curation data transactions, the transaction authentication data comprising at least one transaction eligibility criterion for each registered user and being stored as the one or more permanent records on the blockchain to ensure that the transaction authentication data or the at least one transaction eligibility criterion is unalterable by one or more entities."
The examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the quoted claim recitation merely recites storing data on a blockchain and further describes the stored data. In the claim recitation a “blockchain” is merely used as a tool to store the data that would otherwise have been stored in the form of paper documents in a file cabinet. Storing data on a blockchain does not improve the blockchain technology.
Applicant further argues that the additional elements of the claims such as a first and a second computing systems, a blockchain and performing logical operations is beyond what is well -understood routine and conventional and improve functioning of a computer or a technology.
The examiner respectfully notes that a claim that is beyond conventional can still be directed to an abstract idea. For example, with respect to the present claims, the claims recite performing logical operations on data to verify data authentication, however, authenticating data associated with a financial transaction does not recite an improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology.
With respect to claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the amendment replaces the previously recited generic placeholders of “a transaction rule compliance engine” and “a curation system” with “a first computing system” and “a second computing system” respectively. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a first and a second computing systems is any machine, apparatus, or collection of interconnected functional elements capable of receiving input, processing data, and producing an output according to logical or mathematical rules, as also described in FIG. 10 and paragraphs [0230]-[0234] of Applicant’s disclosure. Therefore, the amended claimed elements do not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
With respect to the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections associated with claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f), the amendment overcomes the rejections and the rejections are withdrawn.
With respect to the 103 rejections, the examiner respectfully notes that in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues, on page 17 of the remarks, that prior art of Mather describes performing encryption using a "Bitmask" or performing verification using "Boolean" operations, but fails to disclose any specific authentication processes to authenticate a transaction.
The examiner respectfully acknowledges that Applicant does not argue against the cited arts of Andrade and Fish and the arguments are solely with respect to the cited art of Mather. The examiner further notes that the cited art of Andrade teaches transaction data authentication. Andrade does not use the specific logical algorithm of bitwise Boolean operations on the bitmask sequences of transaction data; however, Mather teaches the specific method of bitwise operations. Therefore, incorporating the logical algorithm of Mather into the verification system of Andrade teaches the claimed features. The examiner further notes that Applicant’s arguments are moot in light of new grounds of rejection provided by the newly cited prior art of Thantry.
Claim Objections
With respect to claim 8, the amended claim recites “at least one or more transaction eligibility criterion.” The examiner notes that the term “at least one” is equivalent of “one or more.” However, combining the terms as “at least one or more” is grammatically erroneous. One of the terms “at least one” or “one or more” should be used.
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 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-23 are directed to a product (system). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Claims 1-23 are directed to the abstract idea of authenticating a transaction based on a set of rules, as explained in detail below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Analysis
In the following analysis, bolded text indicates abstract idea and the rest of the text indicates additional elements. Independent claim 1, recites:
a transaction authentication system for use with a distributed computing system, which comprises a distributed ledger stored as a blockchain and one or more token contracts,
a first computing system associated with a first set of computer instructions, for authenticating one or more requested transactions,
wherein the one or more requested transactions comprise a given transaction between a sender holder address and a receiver holder address,
wherein authentication of the given transaction is determined on the distributed computing system in accordance with a defined ruleset,
wherein the defined ruleset comprises at least one rule governing token ownership and allowed token transactions, and
wherein for each sender holder address of a set of sender holder addresses there is an associated sender and for each receiver holder address of a set of receiver holder addresses there is an associated receiver; and
a second computing system with memory storing a second set of computer instructions that, when executed, causes a computer processor to
receive registration information for a subset of users of the distributed computing system,
identify registered users and corresponding holder addresses,
generate transaction authentication data associated with holder addresses of registered users, and
store the transaction authentication data as one or more permanent records on the blockchain corresponding to the distributed ledger by submitting the transaction authentication data to the distributed ledger as one or more curation data transactions,
the transaction authentication data comprising at least one transaction eligibility criterion for each registered user and being stored as the one or more permanent records on the blockchain to ensure that the transaction authentication data or the at least one transaction eligibility criterion is unalterable by one or more entities,
wherein the first set of computer instructions, when executed using one or more virtual machines, causes one or more computing nodes to authenticate the given transaction by performing at least one bitwise logical operation between at least one attribute bitmask of a first registered user and at least one attribute bitmask of a second registered user to generate a first result intermediate, performing at least one logical operation on the at least one transaction eligibility criterion of at least one registered user to generate a second result intermediate, and performing at least one logical operation on the first result intermediate and the second result intermediate.
Specifically claim 1 recites authenticating a transaction based on a set of rules and applying bitwise operations. Therefore the claims recite a fundamental economic principle or practice grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas, and mathematical calculations/formulas grouped within the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106) because the claims involve a series of steps for authenticating a transaction based on a set of rules and using mathematical calculations/formulas. The claims also recite a mental process, because the current claim amendment reciting transaction eligibility criterion, which falls within the mental processes grouping of concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the additional elements of a distributed computing system, a distributed ledger, a first and a second computing systems, a computer processor, a blockchain, one or more computing nodes, merely use one or more computers as tool to perform the abstract idea. The use of a distributed computing system, a distributed ledger, a first and a second computing systems, a computer processor, a blockchain, one or more computing nodes, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than one or more computing devices performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements of a distributed computing system, a distributed ledger, a first and a second computing systems, a computer processor, a blockchain, one or more computing nodes amount to no more than using computing devices or processors to automate and/or implement the abstract idea.
As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, these additional elements perform the steps or functions that correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 2, recites:
wherein the first set of computer instructions is implemented on the distributed computing system as part of program code.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements of a distributed computing system, merely use one or more computers as tool to perform the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional element amount to no more than using computing devices or processors to automate and/or implement the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 3, recites:
wherein transactions are queryable by associated compliance contracts.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, there are no new additional elements for further consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B. Therefore claim 3 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 4, recites:
the first set of computer instructions is to be cryptographically verified by the one or more computing nodes using one or more cryptographic hashes to prevent alteration of the first set of computer instructions.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements of one or more computing nodes, merely use one or more computers as tool to perform the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional element amount to no more than using computing devices or processors to automate and/or implement the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 5, recites:
wherein the given transaction between the sender holder address and the receiver holder address is a subtransaction of a larger transaction having more than one sender holder address and/or more than one receiver holder address.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, there are no new additional elements for further consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B. Therefore claim 5 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 6, recites:
the first set of computer instructions further includes instructions that cause the one or more computing nodes, based on a result of one or more operations on the transaction authentication data, associated with each participant of the given transaction and stored on the distributed ledger, reject the given transaction or allow the given transaction.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements of one or more computing nodes, merely use one or more computers as tool to perform the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional element amount to no more than using computing devices or processors to automate and/or implement the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 7, recites:
the first set of computer instructions further includes instructions that cause the one or more computing nodes to, based on a rejection or allowance of the given transaction, record the rejection or allowance on the distributed ledger, which further describes the abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements of one or more computing nodes and a distributed ledger, merely use one or more computers as tool to perform the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional element amount to no more than using computing devices or processors to automate and/or implement the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 8, recites:
wherein the transaction authentication data comprises at least one or more transaction eligibility criterion for one or more registered users.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, there are no new additional elements for further consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B. Therefore claim 8 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 9, recites:
wherein the transaction authentication data for each registered user comprises at least one attribute bitmask for the registered user, wherein the attribute bitmask comprises a sequence of at least one bitmap integer that characterizes, for a given registered user, according to the defined ruleset, a set of at least one categories.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, there are no new additional elements for further consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B. Therefore claim 9 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 10, recites:
wherein the sequence of at least one bitmap integer comprises at least one binary attribute bit.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, there are no new additional elements for further consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B. Therefore claim 10 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 11, recites:
wherein the set of at least one categories characterized, for the given registered user, according to the defined ruleset, by the at least one attribute bitmask, comprises a single category to which the registered user is assigned, based on one or more binary attributes derived from registration information, again according to the defined ruleset.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, there are no new additional elements for further consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B. Therefore claim 11 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 12, recites:
wherein the set of at least one categories characterized, for the given registered user, according to the defined ruleset, by the at least one attribute bitmask, comprises a first subset of categories with which the registered user is permitted to transact, according to the defined ruleset.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, there are no new additional elements for further consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B. Therefore claim 11 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 13, recites:
wherein the set of at least one categories characterized, for the given registered user, according to the defined ruleset, by the at least one attribute bitmask, comprises a second subset of categories with which the registered user is not permitted to transact, according to the defined ruleset.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, there are no new additional elements for further consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B. Therefore claim 13 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 14, recites:
wherein the one or more computing nodes are part of the distributed computing system.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements of one or more computing nodes and a distributed ledger, merely use one or more computers as tool to perform the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional element amount to no more than using computing devices or processors to automate and/or implement the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 15, recites:
wherein the attribute bitmask of the first registered user represents a first category to which the first registered user is assigned, based on one or more binary attributes derived from registration information and according to the defined ruleset, and the attribute bitmask of the second registered user characterizes, according to the defined ruleset, a second subset of categories with which the second registered user is permitted, or alternatively not permitted, to transact.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, there are no new additional elements for further consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B. Therefore claim 15 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 16, recites:
wherein the bitwise logical operation is a bitwise AND operation.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, there are no new additional elements for further consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B. Therefore claim 16 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 17, recites:
wherein the bitwise AND operation has as operands at least one attribute bitmask of the first registered user and at least two attribute bitmasks of the second registered user.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, there are no new additional elements for further consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B. Therefore claim 17 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 18, recites:
wherein a first bitwise AND operation comprises at least one bitwise Boolean AND operation between a first attribute bitmask of the first registered user and a first attribute bitmask of the second registered user to generate a first results bitmask,
a second bitwise AND operation comprises at least one bitwise Boolean AND operation between a first attribute bitmask of the first registered user and a second attribute bitmask of the second registered user to generate a second results bitmask,
and performing at least one bitwise Boolean operation between the first results bitmask and the second results bitmask,
wherein the first attribute bitmask of the first registered user represents a first category to which the first registered user is assigned, based on one or more binary attributes derived from registration information and according to the defined ruleset,
wherein the first attribute bitmask of the second registered user characterizes, according to the defined ruleset, a first subset of categories with which the second registered user is permitted to transact, and
wherein the second attribute bitmask of the second registered user characterizes, according to the defined ruleset, a second subset of categories with which the second registered user is not permitted to transact.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, there are no new additional elements for further consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B. Therefore claim 18 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 19, recites:
wherein the transaction authentication data comprises at least a plurality of transaction eligibility criterion for a plurality of registered users.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, there are no new additional elements for further consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B. Therefore claim 19 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 20, recites:
wherein the first set of computer instructions further includes instructions that cause the one or more computing nodes to generate a digital result by further performing at least one bitwise logical operation on each sequence of binary attribute bits within each bitmap integer of a results bitmask to generate at least one result for each bitmap integer, and then performing at least one digital operation on at least one result for each bitmap integer.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements of one or more computing nodes, merely use one or more computers as tool to perform the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional element amount to no more than using computing devices or processors to automate and/or implement the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 21, recites:
wherein the second computing system is configured to
update transaction authentication data by generating new transaction authentication data and submitting a new curation data transaction to the distributed ledger.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements of a distributed ledger and the second computing system, merely use one or more computers as tool to perform the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional element amount to no more than using computing devices or processors to automate and/or implement the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 22, recites:
wherein the second computing system is configured to
update transaction authentication data in response to one or more user requests.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements of the second computing system, merely use one or more computers as tool to perform the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional element amount to no more than using computing devices or processors to automate and/or implement the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 23, recites:
wherein the second computing system is configured to
update transaction authentication data in response to changes to the defined ruleset.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements of the second computing system, merely use one or more computers as tool to perform the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional element amount to no more than using computing devices or processors to automate and/or implement the abstract idea.
Accordingly, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
With respect to claim 8, the claim recites “the transaction authentication data comprises at least one or more transaction eligibility criterion for one or more registered users.” Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and claim 1 recites “the transaction authentication data comprising at least one transaction eligibility criterion for each registered user.” Therefore, claim 8 does not specify a further limitation of the subject matter of claim 1 upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6-8 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrade (US Patent Publication No. 2018/0240107), in view of Fish (US Patent Publication No. 2015/0161603,) further in view of Thantry (US Patent Publication No. 2014/0281371)
With respect to claim 1, Andrade teaches:
a distributed computing system, which comprises a distributed ledger stored as a blockchain and one or more token contracts, (distributed ledger payment system comprises a blockchain and smart contracts: [0216], [0265], [0275]-[0277])
a transaction authentication system comprising: (transaction approval system: [0101]-[0102])
a first computing system associated with a first set of computer instructions, for authenticating one or more requested transactions, (a transaction verification method (set of instructions) performed by a computer program (first computing system) in a computational server functioning as a central approval server: [0077])
The examiner notes that the claim recitation “instructions for authentication…” indicates intended use of the instructions and therefore does not further limit the scope o9f the claim, because the function “authenticating” is not actually positively recited.
wherein the one or more requested transactions comprise a given transaction between a sender holder address and a receiver holder address, (user creates a transaction to send CBEM to a recipient: [0360])
wherein authentication of the given transaction is to be determined by the distributed computing system in accordance with a defined ruleset, (defined transaction rules: [0049]-[0051], [0115])
The examiner notes that the language that is not positively recited does not further limit the scope of the claim. The claim recitation “is to be determined” does not positively recite the “determining” function and therefore does not limit the scope of the claim. In addition, even if the “determining” is positively recited, the “determining” is performed by the “distributed computing system” which is not a component of the claimed “transaction authentication system,” and therefore does not gain patentable weight.
wherein the defined ruleset comprises at least one rule governing token ownership and allowed token transactions, (protecting ownership: [0044]-[0051], [0144]-[0147], [0272])
wherein for each sender holder address of a set of sender holder addresses there is an associated sender and for each receiver holder address of a set of receiver holder addresses there is an associated receiver; (currency address associated with a user: [0274], [0278])
The examiner notes that the claim recitation “wherein for each sender holder address …” indicates non-functional descriptive material and therefore the claim recitation does not further limit the scope of the claim.
a second computing system with memory storing a second set of computer instructions that, when executed, causes a computer processor, (central approval server (second computing system) verifies legal identity of registered users: [0030]-[0033], server includes memory and processors: [0347])
receive registration information for a subset of users of the distributed computing system, identify registered users and corresponding holder addresses, (central approval servers receive and verify credentials of registered users: [0191]-[0212], [0271])
store the transaction authentication data …on the blockchain corresponding to the distributed ledger by submitting the transaction authentication data to the distributed ledger as one or more curation data transactions, (transaction information recorded on the ledger: [0059]-[0064], [0083])
The examiner notes that the claim recitation “as one or more curation data…” and “as one or more permanent records…” indicate non-functional descriptive material because they merely give an alternate name to the transaction authentication data as a curation data or permanent record. Therefore the claim recitations do not further limit the scope of the claim.
the transaction authentication data comprising at least one transaction eligibility criterion for each registered user and being stored as the one or more permanent records on the blockchain to ensure that the transaction authentication data or the at least one transaction eligibility criterion is unalterable by one or more entities, (transaction criteria stored : [0087]-[0088], [0111]-[0114], [0291], distributed ledger is immutable (unalterable): [0275])
The examiner notes that the claim recitation “…being stored as …” indicates not positively recited language and therefore does not further limit the scope of the claim, because a “storing” function is not positively recited. In addition, “being stored as…” indicates non-functional descriptive material that merely describes data and therefore does not further limit the scope of the claim.
The examiner notes that the claim recitation “…to ensure that the transaction authentication data or the at least one transaction eligibility criterion is unalterable by one or more entities …” indicate intended use of the eligibility criterion and therefore does not further limit the scope of the claim.
wherein the first set of computer instructions, when executed using one or more virtual machines…(servers can be implemented as virtual environments or cloud environments (virtual machines): [0347]-[0348])
causes one or more computing nodes to authenticate the given transaction by performing at least one … logical operation… (incorporating transaction rules into the programming code (i.e., logical operations): [0049]-[0050], approval server verifies transaction criteria/conditions (i.e., authentication logic) [0084]-[0088], [0207], [0403]-[0405], smart contracts apply functions on the transactions: FIG. 5, [0342], [0349], [0360]-[0363], [0404], at least one node verifies transaction data: [0415])
The examiner notes that although the function “causes” is performed by a component of the claimed system, the function “authenticate” performed by “one or more computing nodes” does not gain patentable weight, because the “one or more computing nodes” are not components of the claimed system.
performing at least one logical operation on the at least one transaction eligibility criterion of at least one registered user to generate a second result intermediate, (incorporating transaction rules into the programming code (i.e., logical operations): [0049]-[0050], approval server verifies transaction criteria/conditions (i.e., authentication logic) [0084]-[0088], [0207], [0403]-[0405], smart contracts apply functions on the transactions: FIG. 5, [0342], [0349], [0360]-[0363], [0404], at least one node verifies transaction data: [0415])
Andrade does not explicitly teach:
generate transaction authentication data associated with holder addresses of registered users,
…performing at least one bitwise logical operation between at least one attribute bitmask of a first registered user and at least one attribute bitmask of a second registered user to generate a first result intermediate,
performing at least one logical operation on the first result intermediate and the second result intermediate.
However, Fish teaches:
generate transaction authentication data associated with holder addresses of registered users, (purchase transaction information is generated based on user data: [0021], [0068])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to incorporate the generating of transaction data based on user information, as taught by Fish into the transaction authentication system of Andrade in order to initiate transaction authorization/authentication. (Fish: Abstract, [0003])
Andrade and Fish do not explicitly teach; however, Thantry teach:
…performing at least one bitwise logical operation between at least one attribute bitmask … and at least one attribute bitmask … to generate a first result intermediate, (bit-parallel string matching algorithm used to match two bitmasks: FIG. 5a, 6c, [0041], [0045], [0048]-[0049], vector register D in FIG. 6a (first result intermediate): [0054]-[0055])
The examiner notes that the claim recitation “attribute bitmask of a first registered user” and “attribute bitmask of a second registered user,” indicate non-functional descriptive material that merely describe the data and does not further limit the scope of the claim.
performing at least one logical operation on the first result intermediate and the second result intermediate. (logical AND performed between vector register D and msb-mask (second result intermediate): [0054]-]0055])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to incorporate the technique for bitwise operation between bitmask strings, as taught by Thantry, in order to efficiently match data strings for finding data patterns. (Thantry : Abstract, [0004])
With respect to claim 2, Andrade, Fish and Thantry teach the limitations of claim 1.
Moreover, Andrade teaches:
wherein the first set of computer instructions is implemented on the distributed computing system as part of the program code. (a transaction verification method (set of instructions) performed by a computer program (first computing system) in a computational server functioning as a central approval server: [0077])
With respect to claim 3, Andrade, Fish and Thantry teach the limitations of claim 1.
Moreover, Andrade teaches:
wherein transactions are queryable by associated compliance contracts. (smart contracts apply functions such as hold on the transactions: FIG. 5, [0360]-[0363], [0404])
The examiner notes that the claim recitation “transactions are queryable…” indicates a characteristic of a transaction which is a non-functional descriptive material. On the other hand, being “queryable” indicates intended use of the transaction. Since the “querying” function is not positively recited, the claim languages does not further limit the scope of the claim and does not have patentable weight.
With respect to claim 4, Andrade, Fish and Thantry teach the limitations of claim 1.
Moreover, Andrade teaches:
wherein the first set of computer instructions is to be cryptographically verified by the one or more computing nodes using one or more cryptographic hashes to prevent alteration of the first set of computer instructions. ([0052]-[0064], [0092-[0096])
The examiner notes that the claim recitation “…is to be cryptographically verified …to prevent…” indicates intended use of the computer instructions and therefore does not further limit the scope of the claim, because the function “verifying” is not positively recited.
The examiner further notes that even if the function “cryptographically verified” is positively recited, it still does not gain patentable weight , because it is performed by the “one or more computing nodes” that are not components of the claimed system.
With respect to claim 6, Andrade, Fish and Thantry teach the limitations of claim 1.
Moreover, Andrade teaches:
the first set of computer instructions further includes instructions that cause the one or more computing nodes to, based on a result of one or more operations
The examiner notes that although the function “causes” is performed by a component of the claimed system, the function “reject or allow” performed by “one or more computing nodes” does not gain patentable weight, because the “one or more computing nodes” are not components of the claimed system.
With respect to claim 7, Andrade, Fish and Thantry teach the limitations of claim 6.
Moreover, Andrade teaches:
wherein the first set of computer instructions further includes instructions that cause the one or more computing nodes to, based on a rejection or allowance of the given transaction, record the rejection or allowance on the distributed ledger. (record transactions (allowed) and suspicious activities (rejected): [0115] , [0121], [0321], [0353])
The examiner notes that although the function “causes: is performed by a component of the claimed system, the function “record” performed by “one or more computing nodes” does not gain patentable weight, because the “one or more computing nodes” are not components of the claimed system.
With respect to claim 8, Andrade, Fish and Thantry teach the limitations of claim 6.
Moreover, Andrade teaches:
wherein the transaction authentication data comprises at least one or more transaction eligibility criterion for each registered user. (transaction criteria stored : [0087]-[0088], [0111]-[0114], [0291])
With respect to claim 21, Andrade, Fish and Thantry teach the limitations of claim 1.
Moreover, Andrade teaches:
update transaction authentication data by generating new transaction authentication data and submitting a new curation data transaction to the distributed ledger. (new transaction information is recorded on the ledger: [[0161]-[0179])
With respect to claim 22, Andrade, Fish and Thantry teach the limitations of claim 1.
Moreover, Andrade teaches:
update transaction authentication data in response to one or more user requests. (request for creation of a transaction: [0206]-[0210])
With respect to claim 23, Andrade, Fish and Thantry teach the limitations of claim 1.
Moreover, Andrade teaches:
update transaction authentication data in response to changes to the defined ruleset. (transaction requirements can be modified: [0214]-[0215], [0217], [0265], [0280], [0318])
Claims 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrade, in view of Fish and Thantry, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Mather (US Patent Publication No. 2016/0373440)
With respect to claim 9, Andrade, Fish and Thantry teach the limitations of claim 1.
Andrade, Fish and Thantry do not explicitly teach, however Mather teach:
wherein the transaction authentication data for each registered user comprises at least one attribute bitmask for the registered user, wherein the attribute bitmask comprises a sequence of at least one bitmap integer that characterizes, for a given registered user, according to the defined ruleset, a set of at least one categories. (using bitmask algorithms for data encryption and generating bitmap sequences of data for secure communication of data. ([0068], [0132], [0134])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to incorporate the bitmask encryption protocol as taught by Mather into the transaction authentication system of Andrade, Fish and Thantry in order to provide security of transaction data while authenticating the data. (Mather : Abstract, [0004])
The examiner notes that the claim recitation “wherein the transaction authentication data for each registered user comprises at least one attribute bitmask for the registered user,” describes data and therefore constitutes non-functional descriptive material. In addition, the claim recitation: “ wherein the attribute bitmask comprises a sequence of at least one bitmap integer that characterizes, for a given registered user, according to the defined ruleset, a set of at least one categories,” further describes the data and what the data “characterizes.” Therefore the claim recitation does not further limit the scope of the claim.
With respect to claim 10, Andrade, Fish, Thantry and Mather teach the limitations of claim 9.
Moreover, Mather teach:
wherein the sequence of at least one bitmap integer comprises at least one binary attribute bit. ([0069]-[0100])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to incorporate the bitmask encryption protocol as taught by Mather into the transaction authentication system of Andrade and Fish in order to provide security of transaction data while authenticating the data. (Mather : Abstract, [0004])
The examiner notes that the claim recitation describes data and therefore constitutes non-functional descriptive material. Therefore the claim recitation does not further limit the scope of the claim.
With respect to claim 11, Andrade, Fish, Thantry and Mather teach the limitations of claim 9.
Moreover, Andrade teach:
wherein the set of at least one categories characterized, for the given registered user, according to the defined ruleset comprises a single category to which the registered user is assigned… (each user has a legal identity (i.e., attribute) [0286]-[0291])
Andrade , Fish, Thantry and Mather do not explicitly teach
…is assigned, based on one or more binary attributes derived from registration information…
However, the function “assigning” is not positively recited and therefore does not further limit the scope of the claim.
With respect to claim 12, Andrade, Fish, Thantry and Mather teach the limitations of claim 9.
Moreover, Andrade teaches:
wherein the set of at least one categories characterized, for the given registered user, according to the defined ruleset, by the at least one attribute bitmask, comprises a first subset of categories with which the registered user is permitted to transact, according to the defined ruleset. (users that meet required criteria are permitted to transact: [0159], [0239], [0321])
The examiner notes that the claim recitation merely describes data and constitutes non-functional descriptive material which does not further limit the scope of the claim.
With respect to claim 13, Andrade, Fish, Thantry and Mather teach the limitations of claim 9.
Moreover, Andrade teaches:
wherein the set of at least one categories characterized, for the given registered user, according to the defined ruleset, by the at least one attribute bitmask, comprises a second subset of categories with which the registered user is not permitted to transact, according to the defined ruleset. (users that do not meet required criteria are not permitted to transact: [0159], [0239], [0321])
The examiner notes that the claim recitation merely describes data and constitutes non-functional descriptive material which does not further limit the scope of the claim.
With respect to claim 14, Andrade, Fish, Thantry and Mather teach the limitations of claim 9.
Moreover, Andrade teach:
wherein the one or more computing nodes are part of the distributed computing system. ([0161]-[0165], [0414]-[0415])
With respect to claim 15, Andrade, Fish, Thantry and Mather teach the limitations of claim 14.
Moreover, Andrade teaches:
…characterizes a first category to which the first registered user is assigned, based on one or more binary attributes derived from registration information and according to the defined ruleset… characterizes a second subset of categories with which the second registered user is permitted, or alternatively not permitted, to transact. (users that meet required criteria are permitted to transact and users that do not meet the criteria are not permitted to transact: [0159], [0239], [0321])
In addition, Thantry teaches:
… the attribute bitmask of the first registered user and the attribute bitmask of the second registered user … (bit-parallel string matching algorithm used to match two bitmasks: FIG. 5a, 6c, [0041], [0045], [0048]-[0049], vector register D in FIG. 6a (first result intermediate): [0054]-[0055])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to incorporate the technique for bitwise operation between bitmask strings, as taught by Thantry, in order to efficiently match data strings for finding data patterns. (Thantry : Abstract, [0004])
The examiner notes that the claim recitation “…characterizes a first category to which the first registered user is assigned, based on one or more binary attributes derived from registration information and according to the defined ruleset… characterizes a second subset of categories with which the second registered user is permitted, or alternatively not permitted, to transact,” merely describes data and constitutes non-functional descriptive material which does not further limit the scope of the claim.
With respect to claim 16, Andrade, Fish, Thantry and Mather teach the limitations of claim 14.
Moreover, Thantry teach:
wherein the bitwise logical operation is a bitwise AND operation. . (logical AND performed between vector register D and msb-mask (second result intermediate): [0054]-]0055])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to incorporate the technique for bitwise operation between bitmask strings, as taught by Thantry, in order to efficiently match data strings for finding data patterns. (Thantry : Abstract, [0004])
The examiner notes that the claim recitation merely describes data and therefore indicates non-functional descriptive material and does not further limit the scope of the claim.
With respect to claim 17, Andrade, Fish, Thantry and Mather teach the limitations of claim 16.
Moreover, Thantry teach:
wherein the bitwise AND operation has as operands at least one attribute bitmask of the first registered user and at least two attribute bitmasks of the second registered user. (AND operation has a result of an OR operation between two bitmasks as its second operand: FIG. 6e, [0055], [0062]-[0063])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to incorporate the technique for bitwise operation between bitmask strings, as taught by Thantry, in order to efficiently match data strings for finding data patterns. (Thantry : Abstract, [0004])
The examiner notes that the claim recitation merely describes operands of a bitwise AND operation that is data and constitutes non-functional descriptive material which does not further limit the scope of the claim.
With respect to claim 18, Andrade, Fish, Thantry and Mather teach the limitations of claim 17.
Moreover, Thantry teaches:
wherein a first bitwise AND operation comprises at least one bitwise Boolean AND operation between a first attribute bitmask of the first registered user and a first attribute bitmask of the second registered user to generate a first results bitmask, a second bitwise AND operation comprises at least one bitwise Boolean AND operation between a first attribute bitmask of the first registered user and a second attribute bitmask of the second registered user to generate a second results bitmask, and performing at least one bitwise Boolean operation between the first results bitmask and the second results bitmask. (logical AND performed between vector register D and msb-mask (second result intermediate): [0054]-]0055], AND operation has a result of an OR operation between two bitmasks as its second operand: FIG. 6e, [0055], [0062]-[0063])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to incorporate the technique for bitwise operation between bitmask strings, as taught by Thantry, in order to efficiently match data strings for finding data patterns. (Thantry : Abstract, [0004])
The examiner notes that the claim recitation: “wherein a first bitwise AND operation comprises at least one bitwise Boolean AND operation between a first attribute bitmask of the first registered user and a first attribute bitmask of the second registered user to generate a first results bitmask, a second bitwise AND operation comprises at least one bitwise Boolean AND operation between a first attribute bitmask of the first registered user and a second attribute bitmask of the second registered user to generate a second results bitmask, and performing at least one bitwise Boolean operation between the first results bitmask and the second results bitmask,” merely describes Boolean operations and their operands that are data and constitutes non-functional descriptive material which does not further limit the scope of the claim.
In addition, the claim recitations: “wherein the first attribute bitmask of the first registered user represents a first category to which the first registered user is assigned, based on one or more binary attributes derived from registration information and according to the defined ruleset, wherein the first attribute bitmask of the second registered user characterizes, according to the defined ruleset, a first subset of categories with which the second registered user is permitted to transact, and wherein the second attribute bitmask of the second registered user characterizes, according to the defined ruleset, a second subset of categories with which the second registered user is not permitted to transact,” merely describes data representation and therefore constitutes non-functional descriptive material which does not further limit the scope of the claim.
With respect to claim 19, Andrade, Fish, Thantry and Mather teach the limitations of claim 9.
Moreover, Andrade teaches:
wherein the transaction authentication data comprises at least a plurality of transaction eligibility criterion for a plurality of registered users. (transaction criteria stored : [0087]-[0088], [0111]-[0114], [0291], distributed ledger is immutable (unalterable): [0275])
With respect to claim 20, Andrade, Fish, Thantry and Mather teach the limitations of claim 9.
Moreover, Thantry teaches:
wherein the first set of computer instructions further includes instructions that cause the one or more computing nodes to generate a digital result by further performing at least one bitwise logical operation on each sequence of binary attribute bits within each bitmap integer of a results bitmask to generate at least one result for each bitmap integer, and then performing at least one digital operation on at least one result for each bitmap integer. (logical AND performed between vector register D and msb-mask (second result intermediate): [0054]-]0055], AND operation has a result of an OR operation between two bitmasks as its second operand: FIG. 6e, [0055], [0062]-[0063])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to incorporate the technique for bitwise operation between bitmask strings, as taught by Thantry, in order to efficiently match data strings for finding data patterns. (Thantry : Abstract, [0004])
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrade, in view of Fish and Thantry , as applied to claim 1 above, Further in view of Wu (US Patent Publication No. 2020/0294046.)
With respect to claim 5, Andrade, Fish and Thantry teach the limitations of claim 1.
Andrade, Fish and Thantry do not explicitly teach:
wherein the given transaction between the sender holder address and the receiver holder address is a subtransaction of a larger transaction having more than one sender holder address and/or more than one receiver holder address .
However, Wu teach:
wherein the given transaction between the sender holder address and the receiver holder address is a subtransaction of a larger transaction having more than one sender holder address and/or more than one receiver holder address. (0067])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to incorporate the processing of a transaction based on its pieces (subtransactions) into the transaction authentication system of Andrade, Fish and Thantry in order to improve the performance of the transaction system. (Wu : Abstract, [0007])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wagner (WO 2018174901 A1) teaches a multi-party authentication system using an authentication function utilizing bitwise operations.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SIMA ASGARI whose telephone number is (571)272-2037. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571)272-7575. 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.
/SIMA ASGARI/Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights