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 .
Status of Claims
This is the office action on the merits in response to the application filed on 06/24/2025. 2. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/24/2025 with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made.
The rejection of pending claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea
without significantly more, is withdrawn in view of MPEP 2106.04(d). See remarks on page 8-
10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
4. Claims 1-11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Treventhan et al. (WO 2019197926 A1), in view of Perez et al. (“Double-spending prevention for Bitcoin zero-confirmation transactions”), in view of Islam et al. (US 20200097953 A1), in view of Pauker et al. (US 20150294308 A1), and further in view of Lancashire et al. (US 10230530 B2).
5. Regarding claims 1, 14, and 15, Treventhan discloses a computer-implemented method (a computing device including: one or more processors; memory; and computer-executable instructions stored in the memory, a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing processor- executable instructions, for relaying double-spend attempt notifications in a blockchain network (Computing environment Section; Problem Section, The dynamics of a double spending attack in this context depends on the way that mining nodes deal with (i.e. prioritise and/or relay) conflicting transactions, which is independent of the network consensus rules and depends only on the client implementation that the miner is running. The client may operate on a‘first seen’ rule - that is the first valid transaction they receive is added to the mempool and subsequent transactions referring to the same outputs are simply ignored. In this case, during a double-spend attack different miners may have different transactions in their mempool depending on the way the two conflicting transactions are propagated around the network).
the method comprising: identifying the double-spend notification as invalid if the two transactions do not have at least one matching input and, as a result, not propagating the double-spend notification on the blockchain network to at least one other node, (Double-spend Attack Section, A double-spend attempt occurs if the customer broadcasts a second attack transaction Tx.sub.A at any point (either before or after the POS purchase) that spends the FR-P2PK output. If the retailer has yet to broadcast Tx.sub.R, then Tx.sub.A will be confirmed on the blockchain first. If Tx.sub.R and Tx.sub.A are broadcast at the same time, then the private key sk.sub.s can be calculated from the two signatures, and miners may front run their own transaction for inclusion in a block. If the attack transaction is broadcast after T x.sub.R is confirmed (due to a botched attack) the retailer can also claim the deposit (as well as receiving the purchase price). Either way, if the retailer observes a conflicting transaction either in the mempool or confirmed in the blockchain, before time T, they can calculate sk.sub.s from the Tx.sub.R and Tx.sub.A signature; and Zero-confirmation protection instant payment scheme, In a nutshell, the scheme relies on a‘spender’ or customer sending funds to a FR-P2PK output, as well as a‘deposit’ amount to a time-locked output, from the same transaction - in advance of wanting to perform an‘instant’ POS purchase. When a purchase is then made, the customer signs a transaction spending from the FR-P2PK output paying to a retailer address, and sends this signed transaction to the retailer along with a compensation key and corresponding validity proof for claiming the parallel time-locked output if the FR-P2PK key is revealed from a double spending attempt. If a double- spend attempt is made (even if it is successful), the retailer can then claim the time-locked output funds after the lock-time. If no double-spend attempt is made, the customer can re-claim the time-locked output.) Examiner interprets the term obtaining is analogous for the term broadcast at the same time in the cited prior art.
Treventhan does not explicitly disclose receiving a double-spend notification from a node in the blockchain network, the double-spend notification containing two transaction identifiers and being signed by a miner identifier.
However, Perez teaches receiving a double-spend notification from a node in the blockchain network, the double-spend notification containing two transaction identifiers and being signed by a miner identifier; (Page 453, Left column: Additionally, the authors proposed to modify the Bitcoin protocol rules so that nodes forward double-spending transactions instead of dropping them. By doing so, all nodes may be notified of double-spending attempts. However, such a mechanism eases denial-of-service attacks. Moreover, nodes receiving both transactions will not be able to distinguish between the original and the double-spending one. The approach of monitoring observers has been implemented by companies such as GAP600 [3] in order to provide risk evaluation for accepting zero-confirmation transactions. Nevertheless, the company does not provide details regarding the technique used to perform the analysis nor the evaluation. Regarding mitigation of double-spending attacks, Bamert et al. [4] proposed some other countermeasures that can reduce the merchant’s likelihood of being deceived by an attacker: requiring themerchant to be connected to a large random sample of nodes of the network and not accepting incoming connections. By applying such countermeasures, the merchant ensures that the attacker cannot send the transaction directly to him nor should be able to identify his neighbours. Other research studies have proven that this kind of attacks was actually possible, and not only was the attacker able to identify the merchant’s neighbours, but also to make the merchant connect only to nodes controlled by the attacker; Page 453, Right Column, As we have already stated, Bitcoin transactions are the tool for value transfer in the Bitcoin protocol. Bitcoin transfer is performed by using an unspent output of a previous transaction (UTXO) as the input of a new one. Therefore, Bitcoin transactions consume previous outputs and generate new ones. The input of a Bitcoin transaction is formed, mainly, by three fields. The two first ones, namely previous transaction id and previous output index, uniquely identify the UTXO that is being claimed by the input. The third field, identified as scriptSig, provides the conditions to be met by the transaction to be valid and the payment be correctly performed. Such conditions were defined in the transaction output that is going to be spent. Both conditions, the specification in the output and the fulfilment in the input, are codified using the Bitcoin scripting language [14], a stack-based language defined in the Bitcoin protocol. The output of a Bitcoin transaction includes two fields. The first one represents the value (in satoshis) that the output is holding.2 The second field, named scriptPubKey, defines the conditions to be fulfilled to spend output. Even though transactions within Bitcoin are, in most cases, bound to Bitcoin addresses (locking conditions) and redeemed providing digital signatures (unlocking conditions), the Bitcoin scripting language is flexible enough to allow the definition of many other scripts that encode different conditions under which the outputs may be spent, as we describe in the next section.; page 453, 3.1 The Bitcoin scripting language In order to spend a UTXO, the locking conditions specified by the script in its scriptPubkey field have to be met. The fulfilment of these conditions is provided by the values included in the scriptSig field of the input that spends the UTXO. To evaluate whether an input can spend a corresponding output, the code included in the scriptPubKey is appended to the values included in the scriptSig, and the complete set of instructions is executed. Only if the execution evaluates to true, the input is able to spend the UTXO. Notice that this general approach allows not only to spend UTXO based on digital signatures but also to create much richer constructions, the so-called smart contracts. 2 Notice inputs do not contain any value. The whole value of an output is consumed when it is used as an input of a new transaction. The difference between the amount claimed by the inputs and the ones specified in the new outputs is the fee collected by the miner.)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Perez to the known invention of Treventhan would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate transaction identifiers features into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the method to include receiving a double-spend notification from a node in the blockchain network, the double-spend notification containing two transaction identifiers and being signed by a miner identifier results in an improved invention because applying said technique ensures the network can easily detect and stop fraudulent transactions, thus improving the overall security of the invention.
Treventhan does not explicitly disclose determining whether the two transactions have at least one matching input and, identifying the double-spend notification as valid if the two transactions have at least one matching input and, as a result, transmitting the double- spend notification on the blockchain network to at least one other node.
However, Perez teaches determining whether the two transactions have at least one matching input and, identifying the double-spend notification as valid if the two transactions have at least one matching input and, as a result, transmitting the double- spend notification on the blockchain network to at least one other node, (Page 451, 1 Introduction: Bitcoin dealswith this double-spending problem by building an append-only ledger, the blockchain, that is replicated in every single Bitcoin full node. The blockchain is made of blocks that are stacked on top of each other. Blocks are made of entries, which contain some source (inputs) and destination (outputs). Entries in the blockchain are called transactions, and they are used to transfer Bitcoins between different users, typically identified by theirBitcoin addresses. Bitcoin transfer is performed by using an unspent output of a previous transaction (UTXO) as the input of a new one. Therefore, Bitcoin transactions consume previous outputs and generate new ones. Transactions are broadcast over the Bitcoin P2P network aiming to reach every single node. Nodes will validate the correctness of the received transactions and include the correct ones in their mempool. Such validation includes, among others checks, that the transaction does not claim any spent funds. Finally, every valid transaction should be eventually included in a new block. Hence, double spending is prevented once a transaction is part of the blockchain, since it has been proven that no previous transaction spends from the same outputs, and future transactions will be prevented to do so.1 However, transactions are not automatically included inblocks. In the time between transaction broadcasting and its inclusion, transactions are known as zero-confirmation transactions, and they are just stored in the mempool of the nodes that have received them. Therefore, during this time window, different transactions spending the same outputs can be spread through the Bitcoin P2P network. Having received a transaction spending an unspent output, the default behaviour of a node will be to store the transaction in his local mempool and drop any other incoming transactions trying to spend from the same source. However, different nodes could receive different transactions spending from the same source, and double spending could be attempted. For instance, suppose that two transactions (tx1 and tx2) that spend the same output from a previous transaction (tx0) are created by an attacker A. tx1 is used to pay for some goods to B, while tx2 is used to return the funds to the attacker. In this scenario, if A can make B believe that tx1 is the only transaction spending from tx0’s output, but tx2 finally becomes included in a block, the attack is successful. Figure 1 depicts the aforementioned example. Notice that only one of the double-spending transactions will be included in a block due to the double-spending protection that Bitcoin achieves by design. However, in case tx2 is included in a block, tx1 will be discarded and the doublespending attack will succeed.)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Perez to the known invention of Treventhan would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate double-spend features into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the method to include determining whether the two transactions have at least one matching input and, identifying the double-spend notification as valid if the two transactions have at least one matching input and, as a result, transmitting the double- spend notification on the blockchain network to at least one other node results in an improved invention because applying said technique ensures the network can easily detect and stop fraudulent transactions before they are confirmed by alerting the network, thus improving the overall security of the invention.
Treventhan as modified does not explicitly disclose obtaining transaction data for two transactions corresponding to the two transaction identifiers.
However, Islam teaches obtaining transaction data for two transactions corresponding to the two transaction identifiers, (Para. 0055, In some variations, the analysis modules preferably each include a set of algorithms (e.g., functions, calls, transformations, etc.) configured to receive information from the connected monitoring module(s) and transform the information into a risk-associated output, but can be otherwise configured; and Para. 0048, Examples of information (monitoring information) that can be read, generated, or output by the monitoring modules include: transaction information (e.g., transaction identifier, transaction values, transaction inputs, transaction outputs, destination addresses, transaction content, transaction timestamps, etc.)). Examiner interprets the term obtaining is analogous for the term receive in the cited prior art.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Islam to the known invention of Treventhan as modified would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate transaction identifiers features into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the method to include obtaining transaction data for two transactions corresponding to the two transaction identifiers of results in an improved invention because applying said technique will ensure that all transactions will have an unique identifier to monitoring and tracing for double-spend transactions, thus improving the overall performance of the invention.
Treventhan as modified does not explicitly disclose validating the miner identifier by tracing the miner identifier to a coinbase transaction recorded on a blockchain.
However, Pauker teaches validating the miner identifier by tracing the miner identifier to a coinbase transaction recorded on a blockchain, (Para. 0035, Transaction 120 may identify an input 124 (e.g., a source of funds) and a set of outputs (e.g., destinations). The inputs and outputs may, for example, be digital wallets in which currency is stored. The inputs may refer to an output of a previous transaction as a source of funding or may identify that transaction 120 is an originating transaction that creates new currency (sometimes referred to as a coinbase transaction).; and Para. 0014, FIG. 5 is an illustrative coinbase transaction in which a portion of a reward amount is assigned to a profit-sharing wallet in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention.; and Para. 0068,,The control circuitry may receive a coinbase transaction in which the user has assigned a portion of the block reward to a user wallet. If desired, the control circuitry may receive only information identifying the user wallet (e.g., a public key) and the reward need not be partially spent. In this scenario, the control circuitry may calculate the appropriate reward amounts to assign to the user wallet and to the profit-sharing wallet(s). If desired, additional information such as block height of the global ledger may be received by the control circuitry.)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Pauker to the known invention of Treventhan as modified would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate transaction identifiers features into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the method to include validating the miner identifier by tracing the miner identifier to a coinbase transaction recorded on a blockchain of results in an improved invention because applying said technique will ensure that all transactions will have an unique identifier to monitoring and tracing for double-spend transactions, thus improving the overall performance of the invention.
Treventhan as modified does not explicitly disclose containing publication of a miner public key and verifying a digital signature on the double-spend notification using the miner public key.
However, Lancashire teaches and containing publication of a miner public key and verifying a digital signature on the double-spend notification using the miner public key, (Column 6/line 45, The method might further comprise validating, with a second node among the plurality of nodes, the chain of signatures embedded in the transactions included in a block of a blockchain to confirm that the block itself is valid in accordance with a set of consensus rules of the blockchain. In some embodiments, each node among the plurality of nodes in the peer-to-peer blockchain network might be associated with a unique public/private key pair and a network address. In some cases, the unique public/private key pair might comprise a public key and a private key. In some instances, the network address of a node among the plurality of nodes might contain information derived from the unique public/private key pair of the node, and a cryptographic signature of the node might be generated by using the private key of the unique public/private key pair of the node to sign a network address of a subsequent node among the plurality of nodes to which the transaction is routed by the node.; and Column 8/line 61, In particular, to the extent any abstract concepts are present in the various embodiments, those concepts can be implemented as described herein by devices, software, systems, and methods that involve specific novel functionality (e.g., steps or operations), such as, embedding, by a first node among a plurality of nodes in a peer-to-peer blockchain network and into an unconfirmed transaction being propagated across said network for eventual inclusion in a block, a cryptographic signature and a network address that combines with other cryptographic signatures and network addresses that have been previously embedded in the unconfirmed transaction by one or more other nodes of the plurality of nodes in the blockchain network to create a chain of signatures that constitutes an independently-verifiable and unforgeable record of a routing path that the unconfirmed transaction takes as it propagates across the peer-to-peer blockchain network; validating, with a second node among the plurality of nodes, the chain of signatures embedded in the transactions included in a block of a blockchain to confirm that the block itself is valid in accordance with a set of consensus rules of the blockchain.)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Lancashire to the known invention of Treventhan as modified would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate transaction identifiers features into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the method to include containing publication of a miner public key and verifying a digital signature on the double-spend notification using the miner public key results in an improved invention because applying said technique will ensure that double-spending alerts are verified to prevent false alerts or any other fraudulent activity, thus improving the overall security of the invention.
6. Regarding claims 2 and 16, Treventhan as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein validating the miner identifier occurs prior to determining whether the two transactions have at least one matching input.
However, Islam teaches wherein validating the miner identifier occurs prior to determining whether the two transactions have at least one matching input, (Para. 0023, In some variations, operation of the system includes at least one of: with at least one monitoring module: determining a predetermined set of information (e.g., monitored source information, derivative information) from a respective monitored source; executing at least one analysis module to generate at least one of execution instructions and a risk probability; upon satisfaction of a predetermined condition (e.g., event probability or risk exceeding a probability or risk threshold), the analysis module can selectively execute a predetermined action (e.g., provide a notification, set operation parameters, halt sending of transaction information to a node of a cryptocurrency network, etc.) associated with the analysis module and/or event probability or risk range (example shown in FIG. 3). However, the system can be otherwise operated; and Para. 0048, Examples of information (monitoring information) that can be read, generated, or output by the monitoring modules include: transaction information (e.g., transaction identifier, transaction values, transaction inputs, transaction outputs, destination addresses, transaction content, transaction timestamps, etc.), block information (e.g., block timestamp, block contents, miner, parenthash, hash, block history, block size, etc.), confirmation information (e.g., confirmation number, confirmation rate, etc.), chain size, mempool size (number of pending transactions), mining pool capacity, percentage of a mining pool mined by a given entity, transaction fees (e.g., gas), transaction fee limit, number of transactions (e.g., for an entity, IP address, cryptocurrency address, public key, hash of a public key, etc.), total output volume, channel size, block difficulty, hashrate, transaction rate (e.g., transactions per second), uncle rate, mining rate (or time between blocks), node information (e.g., current node timestamps, number of active nodes, number of syncing nodes, number of mining nodes, number of peers, uptime, etc.),)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Islam to the known invention of Treventhan as modified would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate validation features into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the method to include wherein validating the miner identifier occurs prior to determining whether the two transactions have at least one matching input results in an improved invention because applying said technique will ensure that all transactions validated with trustworthy and reliable miners to prevent possible fraudulent transactions, such as double-spending based on previous behaviors and performances, thus improving the overall security of the invention.
7. Regarding claims 3 and 17, Treventhan discloses wherein the double-spend notification includes the miner identifier and the miner identifier includes a miner public key, and wherein validating the miner identifier includes tracing the miner identifier to a coinbase transaction containing publication of the miner public key and verifying a signature on the double-spend notification using the miner public key, (Detailed Description Section, Building on the concept of a one-time signature implemented within bitcoin script, this method involves a payer providing the payee with a special compensation key at the point-of-sale which can be used to claim a time-locked deposit output when combined with a‘revealed’ private key, if (and only if) a double-spend is perpetrated by the payee. The validity of this compensation key is guaranteed via a novel type of zero-knowledge -proof, which is highly efficient: the proof can be generated in ~ 5 milliseconds and can be verified in ~30 milliseconds. The use of this system in a retail setting would allow vendors to accept instant cryptocurrency payments off-line for high value items without aggregated risk of loss, and without the need to trust a third party service.)
8. Regarding claim 4 and 18, Treventhan as modified does not explicitly disclose further comprising determining that the double-spend notification is to be validated prior to obtaining the transaction data for the two transactions,
However, Islam teaches further comprising determining that the double-spend notification is to be validated prior to obtaining the transaction data for the two transactions, (Para. 0112, In some variations, S235 (double spend alert) includes scanning the blockchain following a reorganization to determine if any blockchain transactions, which have various forms (specifically UTXO and account format), were double spends, and generating an alert if any blockchain transactions were double spends.)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Islam to the known invention of Treventhan as modified would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate notification features into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the method to include determining that the double-spend notification is to be validated prior to obtaining the transaction data for the two transactions of results in an improved invention because applying said technique will mitigate the risk of fraudulent activity by checking or validating double-spending transactions first, thus improving the overall performance of the invention.
9. Regarding claims 5 and 19, Treventhan as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein determining that the double-spend notification is to be validated includes generating a random value and determining that the random value is below a validation threshold.
However, Islam teaches wherein determining that the double-spend notification is to be validated includes generating a random value and determining that the random value is below a validation threshold, (Para. 0034-0035, Fourth, the system can automatically dynamically respond to detected or anticipated failures, based on the failure: type, probability, degree, or other failure parameter. For example, the system can selectively identify cryptocurrency addresses when an attack probability associated with said cryptocurrency addresses exceeds a predetermined threshold, and interact with cryptocurrency management system components to ensure that the cryptocurrency management system is not vulnerable to malicious activity associated with the address (e.g., by selectively halting cryptocurrency management system interaction with the cryptocurrency address. In a second example, the system can selectively cease transactions with the network altogether (e.g., by pausing transaction transmission to the mining pool, by disconnecting the asset's node from the internet, etc.) when a change to a key section of the source code or a network partition is detected. Fifth, the system can determine operation parameters that minimize the risk of failure or attack. For example, the system can use historic data, collected for orphaned block detection and/or chain reorganization detection, to determine the threshold number of confirmations (e.g., threshold number of confirmed blocks) before a transaction can be considered “confirmed” and the associated funds can be released. In a first specific example, the number of confirmations can be a linear multiple of the previous confirmation threshold. However, the operation parameters can be otherwise determined.)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Islam to the known invention of Treventhan as modified would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate validation threshold features into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the method to include determining that the double-spend notification is to be validated includes generating a random value and determining that the random value is below a validation threshold of results in an improved invention because applying said technique will mitigate the risk of double-spending attacks by being able to identify unathorized users who exceeds the threshold value, thus improving the overall security of the invention.
10. Regarding claims 6 and 20, Treventhan discloses wherein transmitting the double-spend notification on the blockchain network further includes adding a signature to the double-spend notification before transmitting, (One-time-signature Section, If the customer then creates an attack transaction (paying all of the UTXO back to themselves) and broadcasts it, the two separate signatures will reveal the private key controlling the UTXO to anyone who observes both transactions. The double- spending customer then risks losing the entirety of the funds in the UTXO to a third party. In order for this disincentive mechanism to work, the customer must use the same ephemeral key ( k ) to generate both signatures. This can be enforced by getting the customer to commit to the r-value of the signature in advance (r depends only on k ) by creating a special type of transaction output: the so-called Fixed-r Pay-to-Public-Key (described below). The customer must set this up in advance: they must choose a k value (and securely store it, along with their private key) and pay sufficient funds into an output that requires a signature with an r value corresponding to the committed k.)
11. Regarding claim 7, Treventhan discloses wherein adding the signature includes determining that fewer than a maximum number of signatures have been added to the double-spend notification, (Bitcoin transaction information is recorded in blocks that are linked (by storing in the current block a hash of the immediate previous block) to form a chain of blocks (a blockchain). The system relies on an open network of nodes (referred to as miners, each node including processing hardware executing the bitcoin mining software/firmware), each node (miner) keeping a version of the blockchain and attempting to add blocks to the longest chain of the blockchain. The bitcoin system uses a proof-of-work (PoW) scheme such that for a block generated by a miner to be valid and hence accepted by other miners and added to the chain, the block must meet certain PoW requirements. More particularly, the miner must find a value (called a nonce) such that the hash (e.g. SHA-256 hash) of the block containing that nonce meets a certain numerical requirement. For example, the hash must be lower than or equal to a pre-defined value referred to as the difficulty target.)
12. Regarding claim 8, Treventhan as modified does not explicitly disclose further comprising generating and sending a repudiation notice if the two transactions do not have at least one matching input,
However, Islam teaches further comprising generating and sending a repudiation notice if the two transactions do not have at least one matching input, (Para. 0111-0112 In some variations, S234 (reorganization alert) includes generating an alert if a blockchain has a significant number of blocks replaced by new blocks (e.g., which can be indicative of a 51% attack).[0112] In some variations, S235 (double spend alert) includes scanning the blockchain following a reorganization to determine if any blockchain transactions, which have various forms (specifically UTXO and account format), were double spends, and generating an alert if any blockchain transactions were double spends.) Examiner interprets the term repudiation notice is analogous for the term alert in the cited prior art.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Islam to the known invention of Treventhan as modified would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate notifcation features into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the method to include generating and sending a repudiation notice if the two transactions do not have at least one matching input of results in an improved invention because applying said technique will ensure that all users are notified of any potential fraudulent transactions, such as double-spending, thus improving the overall performance of the invention.
13. Regarding claim 9, Treventhan discloses wherein the repudiation notice includes at least an identifier for the double-spend notification and wherein generating includes adding a current node signature, (possible outcomes of a double-spend attack of a FR-P2PK output are: 1. Initial retailer transaction confirmed first 2. Attack transaction confirmed first. 3. Miner transaction confirmed first. If miners are both‘honest’ and run a‘seen first’ client rule, 1 and 2 have similar likelihoods, depending on the timing of the attack and the network topology. If miners act according to economic incentives, or operate a RBF client rule, then the end result is always that a miner will claim the full FR-P2PK output, and the retailer has zero chance of compensation. If the retailer is not able to broadcast the transaction (and to verify that it has been received by the network) then the attack transaction will of course confirm first. The retailer can then obtain the private key from the signature they possess and signature on the blockchain).
14. Regarding claim 10, Treventhan wherein the current node signature is created based on a current node miner identifier, (Technical Solution Section, In essence, the‘complete scheme’ provides a method that enables one party (and one party only) to derive a valid private key (corresponding to a known public key) when a second private key (corresponding to a second known public key) is publically revealed. In order for this method to be secure and trustless, the first party must be provided with a unique piece of information (which we call a compensation key) along with a cryptographic proof that this piece of information will enable them to derive the valid private key when combined with the revealed private key.) Examiner interprets the terms current node and miner is analogous for the term one party and one party only in the cited prior art.
15. Regarding claim 11, Treventhan further comprising:
receiving a repudiation notification from another node, wherein the repudiation notification includes an identifier for the double-spend notification and is signed by a second miner identifier, (Double-spend attack Section, If the customer broadcasts a second attack transaction Tx.sub.A at any point (either before or after the POS purchase) that spends the FR-P2PK output. If the retailer has yet to broadcast Tx.sub.R, then Tx.sub.A will be confirmed on the blockchain first.If the retailer has yet to broadcast Tx.sub.R, then Tx.sub.A will be confirmed on the blockchain first. If Tx.sub.R and Tx.sub.A are broadcast at the same time, then the private key sk.sub.s can be calculated from the two signatures, and miners may front run their own transaction for inclusion in a block. Examiner states that Tx.sub.A is a second attack transaction.
16. Regarding claim 13, Treventhan discloses wherein obtaining the transaction data includes retrieving transaction date for one of the transactions from a mempool and requesting a copy of the other transaction from another node, (Problem Section, The dynamics of a double spending attack in this context depends on the way that mining nodes deal with (i.e. prioritise and/or relay) conflicting transactions, which is independent of the network consensus rules and depends only on the client implementation that the miner is running. The client may operate on a‘first seen’ rule - that is the first valid transaction they receive is added to the mempool and subsequent transactions referring to the same outputs are simply ignored. In this case, during a double-spend attack different miners may have different transactions in their mempool depending on the way the two conflicting transactions are propagated around the network. But all miners monitoring the network can still get the private key from the broadcast conflicting transaction and create their own transaction to be included in a block; and Point-of-sale transaction Section, The customer then makes purchase with a retailer, before the time T. Neither the customer or the retailer need to be on-line at the time of the purchase, but the retailer must have a recent copy of the UTXO set (that contains the set-up transaction) and be able to broadcast and have the POS transaction confirmed before the time T.)
17. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Treventhan et al. (WO 2019197926 A1), in view of Perez et al. (“Double-spending prevention for Bitcoin zero-confirmation transactions”), in view of Islam et al. (US 20200097953 A1), in view of Pauker et al. (US 20150294308 A1), in view of Lancashire et al. (US 10230530 B2), and further in view of Ortiz et al. (WO 2017136956 A1).
18. Regarding claim 12, Treventhan as modified does not explicitly disclose further comprising: obtaining reputation scores associated with the miner identifier and the second miner identifier and determining that the double-spend notification is to be validated by carrying out the obtaining and the determining whether the two transactions have at least one matching input based on reputation scores associated with the miner identifier and the second miner identifier.
However, Ortiz teaches further comprising: obtaining reputation scores associated with the miner identifier and the second miner identifier and determining that the double-spend notification is to be validated by carrying out the obtaining and the determining whether the two transactions have at least one matching input based on reputation scores associated with the miner identifier and the second miner identifier (Para. 00161-00162, Confirmations are utilized at steps 1.8-1.12 to determine whether the transaction is properly recorded on the distributed ledgers. To avoid double spending and race conditions, confirmations may be tracked such that a predefined or dynamically determined number of confirmations is required prior to an entity being comfortable that a transaction is recorded. This is an issue that arises in the context of decentralized control of the distributed ledgers, and confirmations may be obtained over a period of time whereby modifications to the underlying blockchain are able to propagate between nodes. For example, in some scenarios, 5 confirmations is required. In other confirmations, 3 confirmations may be required to enhance transaction processing speed, the reduced number of confirmations increasing a risk of double spending (which may be acceptable in some situations). This value may change based, for example, on a trust level associated with nodes and their associated computing power relative to the aggregate computing power available to all nodes. In some embodiments, the period of time and the number of confirmations is determined based on factors including value of transaction, a confidence score associated with a particular merchant or user profile / wallet, the number of nodes, the distribution of control related to the nodes, among others. Based on confirmed transactions, financial reward accounts, profiles, etc. are updated to reflect a new level of tokens (e.g., amount of virtual currency). Each additional confirmation decreases the risk of a double spending attach, and nodes for confirmation, in some embodiments, are selected to avoid undesired clustering. For example, nodes for querying confirmations may be selected randomly, or geographically / virtually separated to avoid correlation and "neighborhoods" of nodes. FIG. 8 is a diagram illustrative of two use cases 800 and 802 for payments and rewards, in single currency. In 800, a client undertakes a transaction whereby the client earns points while buying goods or services from a merchant).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Ortiz to the known invention of Treventhan as modified would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate scoring features into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the method to include reputation scores associated with the miner identifier and the second miner identifier and determining that the double-spend notification is to be validated by carrying out the obtaining and the determining whether the two transactions have at least one matching input based on reputation scores associated with the miner identifier and the second miner identifier of results in an improved invention because applying said technique will ensure that all transactions validated with trustworthy and reliable miners based on previous behaviors and performances, thus improving the overall performance of the invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Method for Adjusting Mining Difficulty of a cryptocurrency Blockchain System by Monitoring Malicous Forks and Implementing a Miners Blockchain (US 20190306190 A1) teaches a modified mining algorithm of the conventional bitcoin system adopts, during some periods of time, a lower difficulty for proof-of-work (PoW) than the default difficulty of the conventional bitcoin system, while implementing a malicious fork detection mechanism to monitor the bitcoin blockchain during periods of reduced difficulty. The malicious fork detection mechanism detects and removes malicious forks, the malicious forks being recognizes where every block on a forked branch was generated by the same miner. If a malicious fork is found, the mining difficulty is increased back to the default value for a period of time. The default difficulty corresponds to 2016 blocks every 14 days, while the reduced difficulty corresponds to 2016 blocks every 10 days. A miners' blockchain is implemented to allow the miners to reach consensus regarding the detection of malicious forks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Davida L. King whose telephone number is (571) 272-4724. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Neha Patel can be reached on (571) 270-1492. 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.
/D.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3699
/NEHA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3699