DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 on October 24, 2025. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR § 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.114.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 October 24, 2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
This office action is prepared in response to claim amendments and Remarks submitted by Applicant on October 24, 2025 relating to U.S. Patent Application No. 17/681,701, filed on February 25, 2022. This application claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application 63/153,938, filed on February 25, 2021. Claims 4 and 6 have been amended. Claims 4 - 6 are pending and have been examined. This action is non-final.
Response to Arguments
The Remarks submitted by Applicant on August 23, 2024 have been fully considered and found to be persuasive.
With respect to the Section 101 rejection, Applicant asserts that amended Claim 4 is directed to an abstract idea whose elements are integrated into a practical application in that they provide a technical solution to the problem of providing a way for participants in a mixnet to trust that messages are routed securely and appropriately without the use of a central administrator by incentivizing participants in the network to perform the necessary cryptographic transformations and routing of those messages to the intended participants without revealing the outputs of those messages to participants in the network that are not the intended participants. (Remarks, p. 5). Applicant’s argument is persuasive. The claim recites a technical environment of an incentivized mixnet comprising a network of mix nodes arranged in a layered topology, wherein each mix node is assigned to a layer in the layered topology according to a set of public parameters for the mixnet and a routing policy for the mixnet, each mix node performing the task of an overlay router that transforms cryptographically and reorders messages such that message inputs cannot be correlated with message outputs, wherein each of these elements constitute meaningful limitations that are more than a general linking of the use of the abstract idea to the technological environment and thus are indicative of a practical application. The Section 101 rejection is withdrawn.
With respect to the Section 103 rejection, Applicant has amended independent Claim 4 and asserts that the cited references, Puiggali Allepuz and Gutierrez-Sheris, either alone or in combination, fail to disclose the limitations of in the amended claim, particularly, the use of an incentivized mixnet where the mix nodes are assigned according to public parameters and a routing policy... and a layered topology that is reconfigured at the end of an epoch. (Remarks, pp. 5-6). Applicant’s argument is persuasive. Further search has not identified art that discloses all of the limitations in the amended claims. The Section 103 rejection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Amended Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Amended Claim 6 recites in pertinent part “wherein reconfiguring the layered topology at the end of each epoch comprises the mix network selecting nodes based on their amount of NYM token for inclusion in the network, removing nodes with less token, randomizing the placement of nodes in each layer, or some combination thereof.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “NYM token” in the claim.
Conclusion
Claims 4 and 5 are allowable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE PROIOS whose telephone number is (571)272-4573. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Bennett M Sigmond can be reached at 303-297-4411. 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.
/GEORGE N. PROIOS/Examiner, Art Unit 3694
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694