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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Status of the Application
Applicant's submission filed on October 29, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 24, 26-27, 29, 31, 33-34, 36, 38-39, 41, 43, and 45 were amended. Claims 24-45 remain pending and are provided to be examined upon their merits.
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 24-45 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 24-45 are directed to the abstract idea of: Claim 24 -: 24, an implemented method for checking whether a proposed transaction complies with one or more rules, the implemented method comprising acts of: receiving a commitment for at least one committed value, wherein the commitment is generated based on the at least one committed value using a commitment scheme; checking an attestation for the commitment, comprising using a key associated with a trusted entity to check whether the attestation for the commitment is signed by the trusted entity; using the commitment to perform a zero-knowledge proof for at least one statement about the at least one committed value, wherein: the at least one statement comprising a statement that the at least one committed value is in a set of values; the set of values comprises a set of jurisdictions; and performing the zero-knowledge proof comprises applying a function to the commitment; and determining, based on a result of checking the attestation for the commitment and a result of performing the zero-knowledge proof, whether the proposed transaction complies with the one or more rules. (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 25 -: 25, the implemented method of claim 24, further comprising an act of: performing at least one action in accordance with the one or more rules, the at least one action comprising: rejecting or authorizing the proposed transaction; triggering an identification verification requirement; triggering a reporting requirement; and/or triggering a recordkeeping requirement. Claim 26 -: 26, the implemented method of claim 24, wherein: the at least one committed value comprises a first committed value; the implemented method further comprises acts of: receiving a commitment for a second committed value; checking an attestation for the commitment for the second committed value, comprising checking whether the attestation for the commitment for the second committed value is signed by the trusted entity; and using the commitment for the second committed value to perform a zero-knowledge proof for a statement about the second committed value, the statement about the second committed value comprising a statement that the second committed value is in a selected range of values; and determining whether the proposed transaction complies with the one or more rules is further based on a result of checking the attestation for the commitment for the second committed value and a result of performing the zero-knowledge proof for the statement about the second committed value. Claim 27 -: 27, the implemented method of claim 26, wherein: the statement that the second committed value is in a selected range of values comprises a statement that the second committed value is above or below a selected threshold. Claim 28 -: 28, the implemented method of claim 26, wherein: the second committed value comprises a date of birth, an age, an account balance, a salary, a credit score, and/or an available credit. Claim 29 -: 29, the implemented method of claim 24, wherein: the commitment for the at least one committed value is generated based on the at least one committed value and a random value. Claim 30 -: 30, the implemented method of claim 24, wherein: the proposed transaction comprises opening an account, making a purchase, accessing data, and/or transferring one or more assets. Claim 31 -: 31, the implemented method of claim 24, wherein: the zero-knowledge proof comprises a non-interactive zero-knowledge proof. Claim 32 -: 32, the implemented method of claim 24, further comprising acts of: accessing a setup; and checking whether the setup is signed by an entity responsible for enforcing the one or more rules. Claim 33 -: 33, the implemented method of claim 24, wherein: the trusted entity signs the attestation for the commitment for the at least one committed value in response to successfully verifying one or more attribute values of a user. Claim 34 -: 34, the implemented method of claim 33, wherein: the trusted entity verifies the one or more attribute values of the user at least in part by: examining one or more physical documents; taking one or more measurements from the user; and/or checking one or more referenced attestation issued by another trusted entity. Claim 35 -: 35, the implemented method of claim 24, wherein the set of jurisdictions includes a set of whitelisted jurisdictions. (mathematical relationships, fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 36 -: 36, comprising: at least one; and at least one readable storage having stored thereon instructions which, when executed, program the at least one to perform a method, the method comprising acts of: receiving a commitment... checking an attestation... using the commitment... the at least one statement... the set of values comprises... performing the zero-knowledge... [id. at 24], determining, based on a result of checking the attestation for the commitment and a result of performing the zero-knowledge proof, whether a proposed transaction complies with one or more rules. (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 37 -: 37, claim 36, wherein the method further comprises an act of: performing at least... rejecting or authorizing... triggering an identification... triggering a reporting... triggering a recordkeeping... [id. at 25], Claim 38 -: 38, claim 36, wherein: the at least one committed... [id. at 26], the method further comprises acts of: receiving a commitment... checking an attestation... using the commitment... determining whether... [id. at 26], Claim 39 -: 39, claim 38, wherein: the statement that... [id. at 27], Claim 40 -: 40, claim 38, wherein: the second committed... [id. at 28], Claim 41 -: 41, claim 36, wherein: the commitment is generated based on the at least one committed value and a random value. Claim 42 -: 42, claim 36, wherein: the proposed transaction... [id. at 30], Claim 43 -: 43, claim 36, wherein: the zero-knowledge... [id. at 31], Claim 44 -: 44, claim 36, wherein the method further comprises acts of: accessing a setup;... checking whether the... [id. at 32], (mathematical relationships, fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 45 -: 45, at least one readable storage having stored thereon instructions which, when executed, program at least one to perform a method, the method comprising acts of: receiving a commitment... checking an attestation... using the commitment... the at least one statement... the set of values comprises... performing the zero-knowledge... [id. at 24], determining, based... [id. at 36], (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) . The identified limitation(s) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance: a) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
These limitation excerpts, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the grouping(s) of abstract ideas of: Certain methods of organizing human activity – since: systems and methods for performing a compliance check on a proposed transfer of one or more digital assets between a user and a counterparty, such as one or more attribute values of the counterparty may be received, the one or more attribute values comprises a first attribute value indicating a status of a distributed ledger address of the counterparty, one or more corresponding attribute attestations may be accessed from a distributed ledger, and may be checked against the one or more attribute values, and it may be checked whether each attribute attestation includes a cryptographic proof of the corresponding attribute value, and/or whether the cryptographic proof is electronically signed by a trusted entity, and/or, it may be determined, based on the first attribute value indicating the status of the distributed ledger address of the counterparty, whether one or more compliance requirements are triggered as recited in the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as fundamental economic principles or practices, (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions, (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Mental processes – since: the above-underlined as recited in the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Mathematical concepts – since: the above-underlined as recited in the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as mathematical relationships, Therefore, the limitations fall within the above-identified grouping(s) of abstract ideas.
While independent claims 24, 36, and 45 do not explicitly recite verbatim this identified abstract idea, the concept of this identified abstract idea is described by the steps of independent claim 24 and is described by the steps of independent claim 36 and is described by the steps of independent claim 45.
Claim 24: Materially with respect to the analysis under Step 2A of the Office's § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, independent claim 24 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of "computer-", "cryptographic", "data structure ", "public key", and "electronically". However, independent claim 24 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application because "computer-", "cryptographic", "data structure ", "public key", and "electronically" of independent claim 24 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality that perform functions ("a computer-implemented method for checking … method comprising acts of", "receiving a cryptographic commitment for … a cryptographic commitment scheme", "checking an attestation data structure … by the trusted entity", "using the cryptographic commitment to … one committed value, wherein", "the at least one statement … a set of values", "the set of values comprises … set of jurisdictions; and", "performing the cryptographic zero-knowledge proof … the cryptographic commitment; and" and "determining, based on a result … one or more rules") that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself [Step 2A Prong I] (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or that recite generic computer and/or field of use functions that are recited at a high-level of generality and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, [Step 2A Prong II] adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- see MPEP 2106.05(f) (all or portions of the noted step(s)), and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use -- see MPEP 2106.05(h) (all or portions of the noted step(s)). Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and the additional elements do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, independent claim 24 is ineligible.
Claim 36: Particularly with respect to the analysis under Step 2A of the Office's § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, independent claim 36 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of "system", "processor", "computer-", "medium", "cryptographic", "data structure ", "public key", and "electronically". However, independent claim 36 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application because "system", "processor", "computer-", "medium", "cryptographic", "data structure ", "public key", and "electronically" of independent claim 36 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality that perform functions ("a system comprising", "at least one processor; and", "at least one computer-readable storage … method comprising acts of", "receiving a cryptographic commitment for … a cryptographic commitment scheme", "checking an attestation data structure … by the trusted entity", "using the cryptographic commitment to … one committed value, wherein", "the at least one statement … a set of values", "the set of values comprises … set of jurisdictions; and", "performing the cryptographic zero-knowledge proof … the cryptographic commitment; and" and "determining, based on a result … one or more rules") that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or that recite generic computer and/or field of use functions that are recited at a high-level of generality that include only steps narrowing the abstract idea [Step 2A Prong I] (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, [Step 2A Prong II] adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- see MPEP 2106.05(f) (all or portions of the noted step(s)), and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception -- see MPEP 2106.05(g) (all or portions of the "at least one computer-readable storage … method comprising acts of" step(s)), and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use -- see MPEP 2106.05(h) (all or portions of the noted step(s)). Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and the additional elements do not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and the additional elements do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional method steps comprise or include: reciting additional elements in implementing the abstract idea that do not constitute significantly more than the abstract idea because they comprise or include well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (e.g. all or portion(s) of the "at least one computer-readable storage … method comprising acts of", (insignificant extra-solution activity) steps), see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, and/or that are otherwise not significant toward constituting any inventive concept beyond the abstract idea. (E.g. The above-italicized grounds of rejection apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) For example regarding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, the cited rationale have recognized the following computer function as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when it is claimed or as insignificant extra-solution activity: electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. at 2359, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (updating an activity log), and storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, independent claim 36 is ineligible.
Claim 45: Materially regarding the analysis under Step 2A of the Office's § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, independent claim 45 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of "computer-", "medium", "processor", "cryptographic", "data structure ", "public key", and "electronically". However, independent claim 45 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application because "computer-", "medium", "processor", "cryptographic", "data structure ", "public key", and "electronically" of independent claim 45 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality that perform functions ("a At least one computer-readable … method comprising acts of", "receiving a cryptographic commitment for … a cryptographic commitment scheme", "checking an attestation data structure … by the trusted entity", "using the cryptographic commitment to … one committed value, wherein", "the at least one statement … a set of values", "the set of values comprises … set of jurisdictions; and", "performing the cryptographic zero-knowledge proof … the cryptographic commitment; and" and "determining, based on a result … one or more rules") that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or that recite generic computer and/or field of use functions that are recited at a high-level of generality that include only steps narrowing the abstract idea [Step 2A Prong I] (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, [Step 2A Prong II] adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- see MPEP 2106.05(f) (all or portions of the noted step(s)), and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception -- see MPEP 2106.05(g) (all or portions of the "a At least one computer-readable … method comprising acts of" step(s)), and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use -- see MPEP 2106.05(h) (all or portions of the noted step(s)). Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 36 also applies hereto. Additionally, the additional method steps comprise or include: reciting additional elements in implementing the abstract idea that do not constitute significantly more than the abstract idea because they comprise or include well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (e.g. all or portion(s) of the "a At least one computer-readable … method comprising acts of", (insignificant extra-solution activity) steps), see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, and/or that are otherwise not significant toward constituting any inventive concept beyond the abstract idea. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) See discussion above regarding Claim 36 for pertinent previously cited rationale finding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, independent claim 45 is ineligible.
Independent Claims: Nothing in independent claims 24, 36, and 45 improves another technology or technical field, improves the functioning of any claimed computer device itself, applies the abstract idea with any particular machine, solves any computer problem with a computer solution, or includes any element that may otherwise be considered to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
None of the dependent claims 25-35 and 37-44 when separately considered with each dependent claim's corresponding parent claim overcomes the above analysis because none presents any method step not directed to the abstract idea that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception or any physical structure that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 30 and 42: Dependent claims 30 and 42 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, "digital" of dependent claims 30 and 42 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality. No additional element introduced in these claims taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 34: Dependent claim 34 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, "biometric", and "data structures" of dependent claim 34 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality. No additional element introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 25 and 37: Dependent claims 25 and 37 add an additional method step of "performing at least one action in accordance with the one or more rules, the at least one action comprising", "rejecting or authorizing the proposed transaction", "triggering an identification verification requirement", "triggering a reporting requirement; and/or", "triggering a recordkeeping requirement". However, the additional method step of dependent claim 25 and 37 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 24 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 24 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claims 25 and 37 are ineligible.
Claim 26: Dependent claim 26 adds an additional method step of "the at least one committed value comprises a first committed value", "the computer-implemented method further comprises acts of", "receiving a cryptographic commitment for a second committed value", "checking an attestation data structure for the cryptographic commitment for the second committed value, comprising checking whether … cryptographic commitment for the second committed value is electronically signed by the trusted entity; and", "using the cryptographic commitment for the second committed value to perform a cryptographic zero-knowledge proof for a … a statement that the second committed value is in a selected range of values; and", "determining whether the proposed transaction complies with the one or more rules is further based on a … result of performing the cryptographic zero-knowledge proof for the statement about the second committed value". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 26 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 24 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 24 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 26 is ineligible.
Claims 27 and 39: Dependent claims 27 and 39 add an additional method step of "the statement that the second committed value is in a selected range of values comprises a statement that the second committed value is above or below a selected threshold". However, the additional method step of dependent claim 27 and 39 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 24 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 24 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claims 27 and 39 are ineligible.
Claims 28 and 40: Dependent claims 28 and 40 add an additional method step of "the second committed value comprises a date of birth, an age, an account balance, a salary, a credit score, and/or an available credit". However, the additional method step of dependent claim 28 and 40 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 24 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 24 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claims 28 and 40 are ineligible.
Claim 29: Dependent claim 29 adds additional method steps of "the cryptographic commitment for the at least one committed value is generated based on the at least one committed value and a random value". However, the additional method steps of dependent claims 29 are directed to the abstract idea noted above and do not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method steps merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrow the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 24 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 24 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 29 is ineligible.
Claims 30 and 42: Dependent claims 30 and 42 add an additional method step of "the proposed transaction comprises opening an account, making a purchase, accessing data, and/or transferring one or more digital assets". However, the additional method step of dependent claim 30 and 42 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 24 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 24 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claims 30 and 42 are ineligible.
Claims 31 and 43: Dependent claims 31 and 43 add an additional method step of "the cryptographic zero-knowledge proof comprises a non-interactive cryptographic zero-knowledge proof". However, the additional method step of dependent claim 31 and 43 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 24 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 24 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claims 31 and 43 are ineligible.
Claims 32 and 44: Dependent claims 32 and 44 add an additional method step of "accessing a cryptographic setup; and", "checking whether the cryptographic setup is electronically signed by an entity responsible for enforcing the one or more rules". However, the additional method step of dependent claim 32 and 44 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 24 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 24 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claims 32 and 44 are ineligible.
Claim 33: Dependent claim 33 adds an additional method step of "the trusted entity signs the attestation data structure for the cryptographic commitment for the at least one committed value in response to successfully verifying one or more attribute values of a user". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 33 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 24 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 24 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 33 is ineligible.
Claim 34: Dependent claim 34 adds an additional method step of "the trusted entity verifies the one or more attribute values of the user at least in part by", "examining one or more physical documents", "taking one or more biometric measurements from the user; and/or", "checking one or more referenced attestation data structures issued by another trusted entity". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 34 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 24 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 24 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 34 is ineligible.
Claim 35: Dependent claim 35 adds an additional method step of "the computer-implemented method of claim 24, wherein the set of jurisdictions includes a set of whitelisted jurisdictions". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 35 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 24 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 24 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 35 is ineligible.
Claim 38: Dependent claim 38 adds an additional method step of "the at least one committed value comprises a first committed value", "the method further comprises acts of", "receiving a cryptographic commitment for a second committed value", "checking an attestation data structure for the cryptographic commitment for the second committed value, comprising checking whether … cryptographic commitment for the second committed value is electronically signed by the trusted entity; and", "using the cryptographic commitment for the second committed value to perform a cryptographic zero-knowledge proof for a … a statement that the second committed value is in a selected range of values; and", "determining whether the proposed transaction complies with the one or more rules is further based on a … result of performing the cryptographic zero-knowledge proof for the statement about the second committed value". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 38 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 24 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 24 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 38 is ineligible.
Claim 41: Dependent claim 41 adds additional method steps of "the cryptographic commitment is generated based on the at least one committed value and a random value". However, the additional method steps of dependent claims 41 are directed to the abstract idea noted above and do not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method steps merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrow the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 24 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 24 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 41 is ineligible.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
§101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes
Response to Arguments
Regarding eligibility rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the Applicant's arguments submitted October 29, 2025 (hereinafter "REMARKS") in response to the Official Correspondence mailed July 31, 2025 (hereinafter "Final Correspondence") have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Further to the July 31, 2025 Final Correspondence, the reiterated grounds of rejection are fully set forth above under the 35 U.S.C. § 101 heading as applied to the herein examined current claims.
• The Applicant argued:
"Amended claim 24 recites, inter alia, [amended claim language]. Support for these amendments is found at least at page 8, line 27 to page 9, line 4, page 29, lines 12-15, page 46, lines 10-11, page 47, lines 5-8, page 48, lines 5-9, and page 50, lines 13-28 of the Specification as originally filed. Amended claim 24 is directed to patent eligible subject matter.
"Even if the concepts of jurisdictions and compliance with rules could be considered abstract, which the Applicant does not concede, Applicant submits that the claims do not recite such abstract ideas. Rather the claims merely involve the concepts of jurisdictions and compliance with rules. [T]he claims recite technical details for a process to determine whether an electronic transaction complies with one or more rules. [C]laim 24 recites [amended claim language]. [T]he claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
"Although Applicant does not concede that the Office's interpretation of previously- pending claim 24 is proper, claim 24 has been amended herein to recite further technical implementation details and elements for a method of determining whether a proposed electronic transaction complies with one or more rules. [] Applicant submits that amended claim 24 is not directed to an abstract idea. [E]ven if the Office maintains that amended claim 24 is directed to an abstract idea, amended claim 24 includes additional elements that sufficiently limit the use of any such alleged abstract idea in a meaningful way to the practical application of determining whether a proposed transaction complies with one or more rules based on a result of checking an attestation data structure for a cryptographic commitment and a result of performing a cryptographic zero- knowledge proof.
"[C]laim 24 recites [amended claim language].
"[A]mended claim 24 is directed to patent eligible subject matter[].
"[I]ndependent claims 36 and 45 recite similar features to those of amended claim 24 and are directed to patent eligible subject matter for at least the same reasons.
"Each of the rejected dependent claims depends from one of the independent claims discussed above. They are thus patentable for at least the same reasons discussed above, in addition to reasons related to their own recitations. [] "
(REMARKS [as abridged], pp. 10-13).
Respectively nonetheless, the above-quoted arguments submitted October 29, 2025 at REMARKS pp. 10-13 regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Considerably, the Office respectfully disagrees with the Applicant's above-quoted factual allegations and legal conclusion. '[T]he "invention" is what is claimed'. Zoltek Corp. v. United States, 672 F.3d 1309, 1318, 102 USPQ2d 1001, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Contrary to the Applicant's above-quoted assertions, the Applicant's alleged invention as delineated by the currently pending claims appears to be deeply rooted in the abstract idea. The Applicant's claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field, rather "the focus of the claims is not on [] an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools." Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Contrary to Applicants assertions, all elements within the Applicant's claims were duly considered given their proper weight and attributed with their proper interpretation and applied within the proper tests of the proper factual and legal analyses. In response to Applicant's argument that the claimed subject matter provides any improvement to any technology or technical field, the alleged improvement(s) in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. Example(s) that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality: ii. Accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016); iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48; iii. Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential); Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include: i. A commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); See Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2358: 'Stating an abstract idea "while adding the words 'apply it'" is not enough for patent eligibility. Mayo, supra, at ___, 132 S. Ct. 1289, 182 L. Ed. 2d 321, 325. Nor is limiting the use of an abstract idea "'to a particular technological environment.'" Bilski, supra, at 610-611, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 177 L. Ed. 2d 792.' Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011). For Step 2B, relying on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine and conventional, the claims in the present application are ineligible under Step 2B. For example, the courts have recognized the following computer functions to be well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner: performing repetitive calculations, receiving, processing, and storing data, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, electronic recordkeeping, automating mental tasks, and receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data. Courts have held computer-implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking). The Applicant is encouraged to please see and refer to the current rejection based upon the currently pending claims under the 35 U.S.C. § 101 heading above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
USPGPub No. US 20160330034 A1 by BACK; Adam et al. discloses TRANSFERRING LEDGER ASSETS BETWEEN BLOCKCHAINS VIA PEGGED SIDECHAINS.
USPGPub No. US 20160358165 A1 by MAXWELL; Gregory discloses CRYPTOGRAPHICALLY CONCEALING AMOUNTS TRANSACTED ON A LEDGER WHILE PRESERVING A NETWORK'S ABILITY TO VERIFY THE TRANSACTION.
USPGPub No. US 20180068280 A1 by Micali; Silvio et al. discloses VERIFYING ELECTRONIC TRANSACTIONS.
USPGPub No. US 20170011460 A1 by Molinari; Vincent et al. discloses SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR TRADING, CLEARING AND SETTLING SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS USING BLOCKCHAIN TECHNOLOGY.
USPGPub No. US 20170222814 A1 by Oberhauser; Alex et al. discloses SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MANAGING DIGITAL IDENTITIES.
USPGPub No. US 20150310426 A1 by Samid; Gideon discloses Bit Currency: Transactional Trust Tools.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SLADE E. SMITH whose telephone number is 571- 272-8645. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Tuesday from 7:30 AM to 5:00 PM.
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, Matthew S. Gart can be reached on 571-272-3955. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Sincerely,
/SLADE E SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696 01/13/2026