ETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Amendment filed June 26, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending in this case. Claims 1, 9, 18, and 20 are currently amended.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 26, 2026, has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS, filed June 26, 2026, with respect to the 101 rejection of the claims, in their current version, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 101 rejection of the claims, in their current version, has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s further arguments with respect to claims 1 and 9, as currently amended, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 1-3, 9-11, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stelzner et al (US 2016/0065537) in view of Banwaitt et al (US 2022/0116785), Govindarajan et al (US 2019/0095907) and further in view of Wang et al (US 2021/0105133).
Regarding claims 1 and 9 –
Stelzner discloses a method for processing a transaction, comprising:
receiving, by a receiver of a first computing device from a provisioning entity computing device, a first computing device certificate, the first computing device certificate authorizing one or more transactions by the first computing device (par 35 “ security device, such as HSM 106, receives data with a first certificate chain from a first device. The first certificate chain includes information associated with at least one certificate in a chain of trust. At 410, the security device authenticates the first certificate chain. At 415, the security device adjusts the first certificate chain. At 420, the security device transmits the data with the adjusted first certificate chain to a second device. At 425, the second device maintains a second certificate chain. The second certificate chain includes information associated with at least one certificate in the chain of trust and the first certificate chain is different from the second certificate chain. At 430, the second device uses the adjusted first certificate chain to establish a trust relationship with the first device”.)
storing, by the first computing device, the first computing device certificate in a database of the first computing device; (par 32 “ device 102 is configured to store the full chain of trust”; claim12 “certificates stored on the security device”)
receiving, by the receiving device of the first computing device from the provisioning entity computing device, a second computing device certificate chain; (par 35 “ security device, such as HSM 106, receives data with a first certificate chain from a first device. The first certificate chain includes information associated with at least one certificate in a chain of trust. At 410, the security device authenticates the first certificate chain. At 415, the security device adjusts the first certificate chain. At 420, the security device transmits the data with the adjusted first certificate chain to a second device. At 425, the second device maintains a second certificate chain. The second certificate chain includes information associated with at least one certificate in the chain of trust and the first certificate chain is different from the second certificate chain. At 430, the second device uses the adjusted first certificate chain to establish a trust relationship with the first device”.)
receiving, by a receiver of the first computing device, a second computing device certificate authorizing one or more offline blockchain transactions by the second computing device; (par 35, claim8)
verifying the second computing device certificate using the second computing device certificate chain (par 35, claim8)
responsive to verifying the digital signature of the transfer data, storing, by the processor of the first computing device, the transfer data in a local data store of the first computing device; (claim13) and
updating, by the processor of the first computing device, data regarding the blockchain wallet, including updating a status of one or more unspent transaction outputs and an amount of available digital currency, (claim 13)
Note that the newly-added language “to prevent double spend of the associated digital currency” constitutes intended use and therefore does not carry patentable weight. MPEP 2103 I C
Wang discloses, as Stelzner does not specifically disclose, prior to initiating an offline blockchain transaction, digitally signing, by a processor of a first computing device, a local data store of the first computing device regarding a blockchain wallet's available digital currency; (par 31)
transmitting, by a transmitter of the first computing device, the digitally signed local data store to a provisioning entity computing device for auditing of the blockchain wallet's state by the provisioning entity computing device prior to issuance of a first computing device certificate. (par 31)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Stelzner with the signature of Wang in order to obtain greater4 transaction security through additional signature(s).
Govindrajan discloses, as Stelzner does not specifically, wherein the transaction is an offline blockchain transaction (par 1, 39, abs)
Govindarajan further discloses, as Stelzner does not, and in analogous art, the handshake message including at least a certificate and a recipient public key; (par 35)
generating, by the processor of the first computing device, a pay message, the pay message including transfer data, the transfer data including one or more data values for a proposed blockchain transaction; (par 44)
transmitting, by the transmitter of the first computing device, the generated pay message to the second computing device; (par 44)
receiving, by the receiver of the first computing device, an accept message from the second computing device, the accept message including at least a digital signature of the transfer data;(par 60, 31) and
verifying, by the processor of the first computing device, the digital signature of the transfer data using as least the recipient public key. (par 21, 24)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Stelzner, with the blockchain and offline transactions of Govindarajan for greater flexibility in where/when transactions can be performed and further with the digital signatures/tokens of Govindarajan in order to obtain greater transaction security through the use of additional encryption.
Banwaitt discloses, as Stelzner does not specifically disclose, and in analogous art, generating, by a processor of the first computing device, an initiate message; (par 11 also par 31)
transmitting, by a transmitter of the first computing device, the initiate message to a second computing device; (par 12, also par 31)
receiving, by a receiver of the first computing device, a handshake message from the second computing device; (par 16-17, 30, 31)
verifying, by the processor of the first computing device, the handshake message, wherein verifying the handshake message. (par 25-26 “a completed handshake may verify that two users or a group of users want to “connect” to each other on a social networking platform, connect to make a payment from one user to another, use an electronic ticket at an entrance to an event (i.e. to create a “connection” between the used ticket and the event entrance), etc. ).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art combine the certificates of Stelzner with the handshake and initiate messages of Banwaitt, in order to achieve greater transaction security, through the more precise authentication and identification of parties involved in the transaction.
Regarding claims 2 and 10 –
Govindarajan discloses the second computing device certificate and recipient public key in the handshake message are digitally signed, (par 24) and
verifying the handshake message further includes verifying the digital signature of the second computing device certificate and recipient public key in the handshake message using a second computing device certificate public key included in the second computing device certificate. (par 21, 24)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Stelzner and Banwaitt, with the digital signatures/tokens of Govindarajan in order to obtain greater transaction security through the use of additional encryption.
Regarding claims 3 and 11 -
Govindarajan discloses generating the pay message further includes:
generating, by the processor of the first computing device, a symmetric key using the recipient public key and a sender private key; (par 40, 51) and
encrypting, by the processor of the first computing device, the transfer data using the symmetric key, and (par 40, 51)
the pay message further includes a sender public key of a cryptographic key pair including the sender private key. (par 40, 51)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Stelzner and Banwaitt, with the digital signatures/tokens of Govindarajan in order to obtain greater transaction security through the use of additional encryption.
Regarding claims 18 and 20 -
Banwaitt discloses wherein prior to the transmitting the digitally signed local data store to the provisioning entity computing device, the method further comprises:
establishing, by the processor of the first computing device, a communication channel with the provisioning entity computing device; (par 11, 25)
generating, by the processor of the first computing device, a request for the first computing device certificate; (par 11 also par 31)
transmitting, by the transmitter of the first computing device, the request to the provisioning entity computing device. (par 16-17, 30, 31)
Govindarajan discloses, as Banwaitt does not, receiving, by the receiver of the first computing device, a verification request from the provisioning entity computing device; (par 21, 24) wherein the digitally signed local datastore is transmitted to the provisioning entity computing device in response to the verification request. (par 40, 51)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Banwaitt, with the digital signatures/tokens of Govindarajan and the certificates of Stelzner in order to obtain greater transaction security through the use of additional encryption.
Claims 4-8 and 12-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stelzner et al (US 2016/0065537) and Banwaitt et al (US 2022/0116785) in view of Govindarajan et al (US 2019/0095907), Wang et al (US 2021/0105133), and further in view of Hu et al (US 2016/0125403).
Stelzner in view of Wang, Banwaitt, and Govindarajan discloses as above.
Regarding claims 4 and 12 -
Hu discloses generating, by the processor of the first computing device, an accepted message; (abs, par 11) and
transmitting, by the transmitter of the first computing device, the generated accepted message to the second computing device. (abs, par 11)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Stelzner, Wang, and Banwaitt, with the digital signatures/tokens of Govindarajan in order to obtain greater transaction security through the use of additional encryption as well as with Hu for better tracking transactions.
Regarding claims 5 and 13 -
Hu discloses generating the accepted message further includes digitally signing the accept message using a sender private key, (par 33) and
the pay message further includes a sender public key of a cryptographic key pair including the sender private key. (par 33, 34)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Stelzner, Wang, and Banwaitt, with the digital signatures/tokens of Govindarajan in order to obtain greater transaction security through the use of additional encryption as well as with Hu for better tracking transactions.
Regarding claims 6 and 14 -
Hu discloses that generating the pay message further includes generating a reference value by hashing the recipient public key, (par 33, 34) and
the pay message further includes the reference value. (par 33, 34)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Stelzner, Wang, and Banwaitt, with the digital signatures/tokens of Govindarajan in order to obtain greater transaction security through the use of additional encryption as well as with Hu for better tracking transactions.
Regarding claims 7 and 15 -
Hu discloses that the accept message further includes a reference value, (par 33, 34) and the method further comprises:
generating, by the processor of the first computing device, a hash value by hashing a sender public key; (par 33, 34) and
verifying, by the processor of the first computing device, the reference value using the generated hash value. (par 33, 34)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Stelzner, Wang, and Banwaitt, with the digital signatures/tokens of Govindarajan in order to obtain greater transaction security through the use of additional encryption as well as with Hu for better tracking transactions.
Regarding claims 8 and 16 -
Hu discloses that the pay message further includes the sender public key. (par 34)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Stelzner, Wang, and Banwaitt, with the digital signatures/tokens of Govindarajan in order to obtain greater transaction security through the use of additional encryption as well as with Hu for better tracking transactions.
Regarding claims 17 and 19 –
Banwaitt discloses receiving, by the receiver of the first computing device, a subsequent handshake message from a third computing device after the first computing device has transmitted the pay message to the second computing device, the subsequent handshake message including at least a third computing device certificate and a third computing device public key; (par 16-17, 30, 31)
Hu discloses, as Banwaitt does not, generating, by the processor of the first computing device, a reference value by hashing the third computing device public key; (par 33, 34)
generating, by the processor of the first computing device, a reject message, the reject message including a reference value and a digital signature generated over the symmetric key, the digital signature generated using the sender private key; (par 33, 34)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Stelzner and Banwaitt, with the digital signatures/tokens of Govindarajan in order to obtain greater transaction security through the use of additional encryption as well as with Hu for better tracking transactions.
Govindarajan discloses, as Stelzner in view of Banwaitt does not, generating, by the processor of the first computing device, a symmetric key using the third computing device public key and a sender private key; (par 40, 51)
generating, by the processor of the first computing device, a reject message, the reject message including a reference value and a digital signature generated over the symmetric key, the digital signature generated using the sender private key. (par 40, 51)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Stelzner, Wang, and Banwaitt, with the digital signatures/tokens of Govindarajan in order to obtain greater transaction security through the use of additional encryption as well as with Hu for better tracking transactions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CRISTINA OWEN SHERR whose telephone number is (571)272-6711. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 - 5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John W Hayes can be reached at 571-272-6708. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Cristina Owen Sherr/Examiner, Art Unit 3697
/JOHN W HAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights