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 .
DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Acknowledgements
The Amendment of claims 1, 5, 14 and 18, filed on 01/12/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-5 and 14-27 are pending and hereby examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/12/2026 has been entered.
Examiner’s Response to Amendment/Remarks
Applicant’s amendment to claims 1, 5, 14 and 18filed on 03/05/2025 is acknowledged and the Applicant’s argument/remarks are not persuasive.
On page 9-10 of 13 of the response file on 01/12/2026, Applicant asserts that […Fay, Almeida Cavoto, and Kobayashi, individually or in any valid combination, fail to teach or disclose "a transaction mediating system transaction, uses user information to approve or deny the blockchain transaction according to predefined conditions, and, in response to received user input and approval of the blockchain transaction, outputs a set of generated machine instructions representing at least a part of the blockchain transaction for execution on the blockchain system to one or more of (1) the user information system, (2) the transaction machine instructions generator, (3) the signing module, and/or (4) the blockchain communications system"].
Examiner respectfully agrees, as Examiner is introducing a new prior, Crabtree et al., (US Pat. 10432660 B2) in combination with Fay in view of Cavoto and Kobayashi that teaches this newly amended limitation “uses user information to approve or deny the blockchain transaction according to predefined conditions and, in response to received user input and approval of the blockchain transaction” in col 25 line 66-col 26 line 3 “if the transaction is determined to be valid, forward the transaction for completion; and if the transaction is determined to be invalid, deny the transaction and generate an alert or a change to the cyber-physical graph”.
As regards the newly added limitation to the independent claims “wherein the transaction machine instructions generator further comprises a smart contract program code generator to generate program code defining a smart contract comprising codified rules governing token issuance, ownership, and transactions;” this limitation is taught by the present prior art Almeida Cavoto et al. (US 20190353685 A1) ¶¶ 0004, 0019,0025, 0043-0045 as previously disclosed.
Therefore, the 103 rejection is hereby maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 3
U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5 and 14-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fay et al. (US 20160292672 A1), in view of Almeida Cavoto et al. (US 20190353685 A1) and further in view of Koji Kobayashi (US 20020083011 A1) and Crabtree et al., (US Pat. 10432660 B2).
With respect to claims 1 and 14, Fay teaches a digital asset transaction and management system, for use in a networked computer environment, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, which when executed by a processor, cause a system to perform operations for executing a digital asset transaction {Fig. 5, ¶¶ 0007, 0115}, the system comprising:
a user information system (e.g., user device); comprising a user identity system configured to verify and/or operate on a wallet database in response to machine instructions received by the user information system, wherein the user identity system comprises a database of addresses associated with each user of a plurality of users, and wherein the wallet database comprises records of wallet addresses and token holdings {¶ 0007 “…Each digital wallet includes or is linked to a corresponding private key and an identifier that has been generated using the private key. Generally, the identifiers may be used as blockchain addresses for sending and/or receiving transactions”, ¶ 0022, “Digital wallet 104 stores blockchain wallet information for users of user device 1 and user device 2 (and other clients or users that user the functionality provided by exchange computer system 100)…”, ¶ 0028 “Exchange computer system 100 may be coupled to (or include) database 118. Database 118 may hold account information, audit information, mappings between blockchain transactions, colored coin mappings (e.g., a list of asset or type identifiers and the asset or type that those identifiers correspond to), and other data. In certain example embodiments, each asset may have or correspond to a private key. The private key may control the new creation of “new” instances of the asset on the blockchain (just like the private key of a client controls the creation of new blockchain addresses based on that private key)“, ¶¶ 0035 “…the digital wallet usually does not “hold” assets, but rather includes unique identifier(s) and one or more private key(s) are used to identify which trading party owns or is associated with a particular transaction that is part of the blockchain 116 (e.g., a blockchain transaction). The unique identifiers in the blockchain transaction may be used to link, identify, represent, or otherwise indicate which asset record (e.g., stored separately from blockchain 116 that is stored on blockchain computer system 214) belongs “in” which digital wallet, ¶ 0036 “...step 230 may instead involve the registration of previously-created wallet with the electronic exchange computing system 100. In such an embodiment, computing device A may receive user input from the user that indicates, for example, a walletID (e.g., a bitcoin address), a corresponding public key, and/or a corresponding private key; and at step 230, this information (i.e., the walletID, public key, private key, or other information) is transmitted by computing device A to the electronic exchange computing system 100 for storage in the digital wallet database 104”, and also ¶ 0037}.
a transaction machine instructions generator configured to generate machine instructions of blockchain transactions for execution on a blockchain system {¶ 0037 “Once the digital wallet is created (or otherwise registered) at step 232, the wallet information (or confirmation in the case of registration) may be transmitted to computing device A 120A for storage therewith. For example, the private, public, and/or generated blockchain addresses maybe transmitted to computing device A 120A. This data may be used later to generate and submit a transaction to blockchain computer system 214 and blockchain 116…”}.
a transaction mediating system (e.g., order handling and matching rules implementation) that receives user input comprising a transaction data structure representing a blockchain […] transaction and, in response to received user input and approval of the blockchain transaction, outputs a set of generated machine instructions representing at least a part of the blockchain transaction for execution on the blockchain system to one or more of
(1) the user information system,
(2) the transaction machine instructions generator,
(3) the signing module, and/or
(4) the blockchain communications system {¶ 0045 “In step 246, should the newly received order (or a current order in the order book) be identified to match another order stored in the order book (e.g., based upon order handling and matching rules implemented by the exchange computer system 100 for the asset(s) being traded for), then the exchange computer system 100 notifies (in steps 248 and 249) each trading party (e.g., a computer device associated with users that corresponds to the trading parties) that a match has been identified and a trade will/is going to take place. This information may then cause (e.g., by using application software installed on the corresponding device) the client computer system (or other computer system) to generate and submit a blockchain transaction to the blockchain based on the received information}, […].
wherein the transaction machine instructions generator is configured to send the set of generated machine instructions to at least one of
(1) the transaction mediating system {¶¶ 0045-0047} and/or
(2) the signing module, and wherein the signing module is configured to generate the system-signed message by signing
(a) machine instructions of blockchain transactions generated by the transaction machine instructions generator {¶¶ 0045-0047 “…the electronic exchange computer system 100 transmits additional information to each of computing device A 120B and computing device B 120B that may include, for example, pending trade information regarding the trade agreed to by the trading parties. The information that is transmitted to computing device A 120B and computing device B 120B may then cause the corresponding computing device to generate and submit a blockchain transaction based on the received information}, or
(b) user-signed machine instructions of blockchain transactions received from the transaction mediating system, and wherein the signing module only signs the transaction after confirming compliance with the predetermined external compliance rules.
Fay does not explicitly disclose
a signing module (e.g., endorsing peer) that generates a system-signed message digitally signed with at least one system digital signature associated with the digital asset transaction and management system from input machine instructions;
a blockchain communications system configured to receive the system-signed message from the signing module and transmit the system-signed message into the blockchain system;
“a transaction mediating system… uses user information to approve or deny the blockchain transaction according to predefined conditions and, in response to received user input and approval of the blockchain transaction”
(4) the blockchain communications system, wherein the transaction mediating system is configured to determine whether the blockchain transaction satisfies predetermined external compliance rules, including financial conditions, legal constraints, and/or regulatory requirements, and is to prevent submission of non-compliant transactions to the blockchain system;
wherein the transaction machine instructions generator is configured to generate machine instructions for execution on the blockchain system only after receiving a compliance approval signal from the transaction mediating system;
wherein the transaction machine instructions generator further comprises a smart contract program code generator to generate program code defining a smart contract
comprising codified rules governing token issuance, ownership, and transactions;
However, Almeida Cavoto discloses a signing module (e.g., endorsing peer) that generates a system-signed message digitally signed with at least one system digital signature associated with the digital asset transaction and management system from input machine instructions {¶¶ 0046-0047 “…FIG. 2B, the transaction flow may include a transaction proposal 291 sent by an application client node 260 to an endorsing peer node 281. The endorsing peer 281 may verify the client signature and execute a chaincode function to initiate the transaction. The output may include the chaincode results, a set of key/value versions that were read in the chaincode (read set), and the set of keys/values that were written in chaincode (write set). The proposal response 292 is sent back to the client 260 along with an endorsement signature, if approved”, and also ¶¶ 0048-0050}.
a blockchain communications system configured to receive the system-signed message from the signing module and transmit the system-signed message into the blockchain system {¶ 0047 “…FIG. 2B, the transaction flow may include a transaction proposal 291 sent by an application client node 260 to an endorsing peer node 281. The endorsing peer 281 may verify the client signature and execute a chaincode function to initiate the transaction. The output may include the chaincode results, a set of key/value versions that were read in the chaincode (read set), and the set of keys/values that were written in chaincode (write set). The proposal response 292 is sent back to the client 260 along with an endorsement signature, if approved…”, and also ¶¶ 0048-0049 “…the endorsing peer node 281 may verify (a) that the transaction proposal is well formed, (b) the transaction has not been submitted already in the past (replay-attack protection), (c) the signature is valid, and (d) that the submitter (client 260, in the example) is properly authorized to perform the proposed operation on that channel. The endorsing peer node 281 may take the transaction proposal inputs as arguments to the invoked chaincode function. The chaincode is then executed against a current state database to produce transaction results including a response value, read set, and write set…”}.
wherein the transaction machine instructions generator further comprises a smart contract program code generator to generate program code defining a smart contract
comprising codified rules governing token issuance, ownership, and transactions {see at least ¶ 0004 “…All transactions can be registered on the blockchain, thereby providing a secure, immutable record of the transfer. In addition, the transaction can be governed by a smart contract (self-executing contract) or similar record that specifies various aspects of the transaction, such as timing of the payment, conditions of payment, conditions of service, etc.”, and also ¶ 0019 “FIG. 6B illustrates an example smart contract configuration among contracting parties and a mediating server configured to enforce smart contract terms on a blockchain, according to example embodiments”, and ¶¶ 0025, 0043-0045}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Fay to include the elements of Almeida Cavoto. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have a protected transaction communications. Furthermore, Fay discloses a digital asset transaction. Almeida Cavoto is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of having signed transaction proposals/messages in the same or similar context. Because both a digital asset transaction, as well as having signed transaction proposals/messages are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Fay, as well as Almeida Cavoto would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Fay/Almeida Cavoto.
The combination of Fay in view of Almeda Cavoto does not explicitly disclose,
“a transaction mediating system… uses user information to approve or deny the blockchain transaction according to predefined conditions and, in response to received user input and approval of the blockchain transaction”
(4) the blockchain communications system, wherein the transaction mediating
system is configured to determine whether the blockchain transaction satisfies predetermined external compliance rules, including financial conditions, legal constraints, and/or regulatory requirements, and is to prevent submission of non-compliant transactions to the blockchain system; wherein the transaction machine instructions generator is configured to generate machine instructions for execution on the blockchain system only after receiving a compliance approval signal from the transaction mediating system;
However Kobayashi discloses (4) the blockchain communications system, wherein the transaction mediating system is configured to determine whether the blockchain transaction satisfies predetermined external compliance rules, including financial conditions, legal constraints, and/or regulatory requirements, and is to prevent submission of non-compliant transactions to the blockchain system; wherein the transaction machine instructions generator is configured to generate machine instructions for execution on the blockchain system only after receiving a compliance approval signal from the transaction mediating system ¶¶ 0026-0033, 0040-0048 “…the mediation processing system including the steps of obtaining transaction information sent from the pay side system, preparing transaction identification information without including personal information of the pay side system based on the transaction information, and sending the transaction identification information to the receiving side system, …the pay side system comprises at least the steps of inputting the transaction information, outputting the transaction permission confirmation information, and inputting a response to the transaction permission confirmation information”}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Fay in view of Almeida Cavoto to include the elements of Kobayashi. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have a protected transaction mediator. Furthermore, Fay discloses a digital asset transaction, and Almeida Cavoto discloses having signed transaction proposals/messages, Kobayashi is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of using a transaction mediator in a transaction, in the same or similar context. Because both a digital asset transaction and having signed transaction proposals/messages as well as using a transaction mediator in a transaction messages are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Fay in view of Almeida Cavoto as well as Kobayashi would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Fay/Almeida Cavoto/Kobayashi.
The combination of Fay in view of Almeda Cavoto in view of Kobayashi does not explicitly disclose:
“a transaction mediating system… uses user information to approve or deny the blockchain transaction according to predefined conditions and, in response to received user input and approval of the blockchain transaction”
However, Crabtree discloses “a transaction mediating system… uses user information to approve or deny the blockchain transaction according to predefined conditions and, in response to received user input and approval of the blockchain transaction” in col 25 line 57-col 26 line 3 “a transaction validator comprising at least a fifth plurality… receive inter-bank financial transaction requests… if the transaction is determined to be valid, forward the transaction for completion; and if the transaction is determined to be invalid, deny the transaction and generate an alert or a change to the cyber-physical graph”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Fay in view of Almeida Cavoto in view of Kobayashi to include the elements of Crabtree. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to analyze a transaction for approval. Furthermore, Fay discloses a digital asset transaction in a blockchain transaction, Almeida Cavoto discloses having signed transaction proposals/messages in a blockchain transaction, and Kobayashi discloses using a transaction mediator in a transaction messages. Crabtree is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of analyzing a transaction for approval, in the same or similar context. Because both a digital asset transaction in a blockchain transaction and having signed transaction proposals/messages in a blockchain transaction, and using a transaction mediator in a transaction messages, as well as analyzing a transaction for approval, are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Fay in view of Almeida Cavoto, in view of Kobayashi as well as Crabtree would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Fay/Almeida Cavoto/Kobayashi/Crabtree.
With respect to claim 2, the combination of Fay, in view of Almeida Cavoto, in view of Kobayashi, in view of Crabtree discloses all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 1, above.
Furthermore, Fay discloses wherein the transaction data structure represents a desired blockchain transaction {¶¶ 0037, 0047} or user-signed machine instructions of the desired blockchain transaction.
With respect to claims 3 and 16, the combination of Fay, in view of Almeida Cavoto, in view of Kobayashi, in view of Crabtree discloses all the subject matter as disclosed in claims 1 and 14, above, respectively.
Furthermore, Fay discloses, wherein the user information system further comprises a user financials system comprising a data structure including user financial information, and wherein the user financials system operates on user financial information in response to machine instructions received from the transaction mediating system { ¶¶ 0035 “…the digital wallet usually does not “hold” assets, but rather includes unique identifier(s) and one or more private key(s) are used to identify which trading party owns or is associated with a particular transaction that is part of the blockchain 116 (e.g., a blockchain transaction). The unique identifiers in the blockchain transaction may be used to link, identify, represent, or otherwise indicate which asset record (e.g., stored separately from blockchain 116 that is stored on blockchain computer system 214) belongs “in” which digital wallet, and also ¶ 0047}.
With respect to claims 4 and 17, the combination of Fay, in view of Almeida Cavoto, in view of Kobayashi, in view of Crabtree discloses all the subject matter as disclosed in claims 3 and 16, above, respectively.
Furthermore, Fay discloses wherein the user financial information comprises one or more of account contents {¶ 0007 “…The data transaction requests are received (via the transceiver) from remote computing devices. The data storage also stores digital wallets that are each associated with a different client account…”, ¶ 0028}, user demographics, user reputation, and/or user identity as represented in the transaction mediating system.
With respect to claims 5 and 18, the combination of Fay, in view of Almeida Cavoto, in view of Kobayashi, in view of Crabtree discloses all the subject matter as disclosed in claims 1 and 14, above, respectively.
Furthermore, Almeida Cavoto discloses, wherein machine instructions of a transaction for execution on the blockchain system include the program code defining the smart contract comprising codified rules governing token issuance, ownerships and transactions {¶ 0004 “…All transactions can be registered on the blockchain, thereby providing a secure, immutable record of the transfer. In addition, the transaction can be governed by a smart contract (self-executing contract) or similar record that specifies various aspects of the transaction, such as timing of the payment, conditions of payment, conditions of service, etc.”, and also ¶ 0019 “FIG. 6B illustrates an example smart contract configuration among contracting parties and a mediating server configured to enforce smart contract terms on a blockchain, according to example embodiments”, and ¶¶ 0025, 0043-0045}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Fay in view of Kobayashi in view of Crabtree to include the elements of Almeida Cavoto. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have a protected transaction communications. Furthermore, Fay discloses a digital asset transaction in a blockchain transaction, Almeida Cavoto discloses having a chaincode to control a protected transaction mediator among contracting parties and a mediating server, and Kobayashi discloses using a transaction mediator in a transaction messages. Crabtree is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of analyzing a transaction for approval, in the same or similar context. Because both a digital asset transaction in a blockchain transaction and having a chaincode to control a protected transaction mediator among contracting parties and a mediating server, and using a transaction mediator in a transaction messages, as well as analyzing a transaction for approval, are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Fay in view of Almeida Cavoto, in view of Kobayashi as well as Crabtree would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Fay/Almeida Cavoto/Kobayashi/Crabtree.
With respect to claim 15, the combination of Fay, in view of Almeida Cavoto, in view of Kobayashi, in view of Crabtree discloses all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 14, above.
Furthermore, Fay discloses, wherein the token holdings are associated with a
security interest or contract {¶ 0025 “In certain example embodiments, the transactions on the blockchain 116 may include so-called “colored-coins.” Colored coins are added on top of a traditional blockchain transaction and are used to identify additional digital data, which may in turn be associated with a tradable asset (e.g., a digital representation thereof). The mapping between a colored coin and additional information regarding the tradable asset may be stored in database 118 of exchange computer system 100. Tradable assets can include securities or other types of tradable goods or financial products…”}.
With respect to claim 19, the combination of Fay, in view of Almeida Cavoto, in view of Kobayashi, in view of Crabtree discloses all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 14, above.
Furthermore, Almeida Cavoto discloses wherein the operations further comprise: receiving cryptographically-signed machine instructions of the blockchain transaction {¶¶ 0047-0048 “…The SDK may serve as a shim to package the transaction proposal into a properly architected format (e.g., protocol buffer over a remote procedure call (RPC)) and take the client's cryptographic credentials to produce a unique signature for the transaction proposal”}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Fay in view of Kobayashi in view of Crabtree to include the elements of Almeida Cavoto. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have a protected transaction communications. Furthermore, Fay discloses a digital asset transaction in a blockchain transaction, Almeida Cavoto discloses having signed transaction proposals/messages in a blockchain transaction, and Kobayashi discloses using a transaction mediator in a transaction messages. Crabtree is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of analyzing a transaction for approval, in the same or similar context. Because both a digital asset transaction in a blockchain transaction, having signed transaction proposals/messages in a blockchain transaction, and using a transaction mediator in a transaction messages, as well as analyzing a transaction for approval, are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Fay in view of Almeida Cavoto, in view of Kobayashi as well as Crabtree would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Fay/Almeida Cavoto/Kobayashi/Crabtree.
With respect to claim 20, the combination of Fay, in view of Almeida Cavoto, in view of Kobayashi, in view of Crabtree discloses all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 14, above.
Furthermore, Fay discloses, wherein the operations further comprise: submitting,
to the blockchain system, multiplicatively signed machine instructions of the blockchain transaction {¶ 0076 “In certain example embodiments, exchange computer system 100 may implement a multi-signature feature which would allow the exchange computer system 100 to “break the trade” should either party fail to deliver. In particular, a generated blockchain transaction may require two different keys to show “ownership” of the outputs for the transactions…”, ¶ 0077}.
With respect to claim 21, the combination of Fay, in view of Almeida Cavoto, in view of Kobayashi, in view of Crabtree discloses all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 14, above.
Furthermore, Fay discloses wherein the operations further comprise: adding a user blockchain address to an on-chain address database or map {¶ 0037 “Once the digital wallet is created (or otherwise registered) at step 232, the wallet information (or confirmation in the case of registration) may be transmitted to computing device A 120A for storage therewith. For example, the private, public, and/or generated blockchain addresses maybe transmitted to computing device A 120A. This data may be used later to generate and submit a transaction to blockchain computer system 214 and blockchain 116…”}.
With respect to claim 22, the combination of Fay, in view of Almeida Cavoto, in view of Kobayashi, in view of Crabtree discloses all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 14, above.
Furthermore, Almeida Cavoto discloses wherein the operations further comprise: determining whether the blockchain transaction satisfies predetermined rules based on
a contract. {¶¶ 0004, 0019, 0043-0045}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Fay in view of Kobayashi in view of Crabtree to include the elements of Almeida Cavoto. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have a protected transaction communications. Furthermore, Fay discloses a digital asset transaction in a blockchain transaction, Almeida Cavoto discloses having a chaincode to control a protected transaction mediator among contracting parties and a mediating server, and Kobayashi discloses using a transaction mediator in a transaction messages. Crabtree is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of analyzing a transaction for approval, in the same or similar context. Because both a digital asset transaction in a blockchain transaction and having a chaincode to control a protected transaction mediator among contracting parties and a mediating server, and using a transaction mediator in a transaction messages, as well as analyzing a transaction for approval, are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Fay in view of Almeida Cavoto, in view of Kobayashi as well as Crabtree would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Fay/Almeida Cavoto/Kobayashi/Crabtree.
With respect to claim 23, the combination of Fay, in view of Almeida Cavoto, in view of Kobayashi, in view of Crabtree discloses all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 14, above.
Furthermore, Fay discloses wherein the blockchain transaction is associated with a distributed ledger of a blockchain network {¶¶ 0029 “…FIG. 2A includes a user device for trading party A 120A (sometimes referred to as computing device A), a user device for trading party B (sometimes referred to as computing device B), a blockchain computer system 214 that stored a distributed ledger or blockchain (e.g., blockchain 116), and exchange computer system 100. Blockchain computer system 214 may be a public blockchain system that includes many different individual computer systems that are operated by different entities that maintain a single blockchain}.
With respect to claim 24, the combination of Fay, in view of Almeida Cavoto, in view of Kobayashi, in view of Crabtree discloses all the subject matter as disclosed in
claim 1, above.
Furthermore, Fay discloses wherein the digital asset transaction and management system is to verify the user information {¶ 0007}.
With respect to claim 25, the combination of Fay, in view of Almeida Cavoto, in view of Kobayashi, in view of Crabtree discloses all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 1, above.
Furthermore, Almeida Cavoto discloses wherein the digital asset transaction and management system is to: receive, at the digital asset transaction and management system, cryptographically signed machine instructions of the blockchain transactions {¶ 0047}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Fay in view of Kobayashi in view of Crabtree to include the elements of Almeida Cavoto. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have a protected transaction communications. Furthermore, Fay discloses a digital asset transaction in a blockchain transaction, Almeida Cavoto discloses having signed transaction proposals/messages in a blockchain transaction, and Kobayashi discloses using a transaction mediator in a transaction messages. Crabtree is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of analyzing a transaction for approval, in the same or similar context. Because both a digital asset transaction in a blockchain transaction, having signed transaction proposals/messages in a blockchain transaction, and using a transaction mediator in a transaction messages, as well as analyzing a transaction for approval, are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Fay in view of Almeida Cavoto, in view of Kobayashi as well as Crabtree would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Fay/Almeida Cavoto/Kobayashi/Crabtree.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Fay to include the elements of Almeida Cavoto. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have a protected transaction communications. Furthermore, Fay discloses a digital asset transaction. Almeida Cavoto is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of having signed transaction proposals/messages in the same or similar context. Because both a digital asset transaction, as well as having signed transaction proposals/messages are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Fay, as well as Almeida Cavoto would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Fay/Almeida Cavoto.
With respect to claim 26, the combination of Fay, in view of Almeida Cavoto, in view of Kobayashi, in view of Crabtree discloses all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 25, above.
Furthermore, Almeida Cavoto discloses “wherein the digital asset transaction and management system is to: sign, with a digital signature associated with the digital asset system…” {¶¶ 0046-0047}, and
Fay further discloses “…the cryptographically signed machine instructions of the
blockchain transactions to form multiplicatively signed machine instructions of the blockchain transactions” {¶¶ 0076-0077}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Fay to include the elements of Almeida Cavoto. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have a protected transaction communications. Furthermore, Fay discloses a digital asset transaction. Almeida Cavoto is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of having signed transaction proposals/messages in the same or similar context. Because both a digital asset transaction, as well as having signed transaction proposals/messages are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Fay, as well as Almeida Cavoto would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Fay/Almeida Cavoto.
With respect to claim 27, the combination of Fay, in view of Almeida Cavoto, in view of Kobayashi, in view of Crabtree discloses all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 26, above.
Furthermore, Fay discloses wherein the digital asset transaction and management system is to: submit the multiplicatively signed machine instructions of the blockchain transaction {¶¶ 0076-0077}.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon:
1) (US 20190244207 A1) – Ehab Samuel, Systems, Methods and Machine-Readable Mediums for Blockchain Enforced Conditional Transfer of Cryptocurrency - relates to improved systems, methods and machine-readable mediums for verification, enforcement and/or performance of processes, for example, associated with smart contracts or through a smart contract to control and/or restrict the transfer of an asset, such as a cryptocurrency.
2) (US 20190347652 A1) – Sandra K Cary Johnson, METHODOLOGY AND SYSTEM FOR SELECTING NODES TO EXECUTE CHAINCODE IN A BLOCKCHAIN ENVIRONMENT WITH A MOBILE MONEY GATEWAY – relate generally to leveraging a blockchain network to facilitate the global remittance of funds. Participants in the blockchain include finance institutions, currency exchange service providers and an innovative mobile money gateway for mobile money transfers.
3) (US 20060054688 A1) – James M. Rose, Transaction Security System – relates to transactional security systems. More particularly, the present invention relates to security systems used to protect users against identity theft when conducting transactions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT IDIAKE whose telephone number is (571)272-1284. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 10:30AM to 7:30PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PATRICK MCATEE, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-1284. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form
/V.I./Examiner, Art Unit 3698 /PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698