DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This Office Action is in reply to Applicant’s amendment filed February 9, 2026.
Claims 23, 25, 33, 34, 36, 38, and 42 are currently amended.
Claims 23-42 are currently pending.
Claims 23-42 have been examined.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 12/29/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. The two foreign patent documents have not been considered.
Response to Amendment
In the February 9, 2026 Claim Amendments and with respect to claim 37, Applicants used the status identifier “Currently Amended” despite the claim containing no amendment. The claim amendments are therefore a Non-Compliant Amendment. See MPEP §714 II. F.
37 C.F.R. §1.121 as discussed in MPEP §714 II. C. sets forth the manner of making claim amendments. In particular, MPEP §714 II. C. (A) sets forth the correct use of status identifiers.
Because this application is not in condition for allowance, because the error noted above is considered an error that would not otherwise prevent the subsequent examination of this application, and to show a good faith effort by the Examiner to advance prosecution, the Claim Amendments are being examined.
However, Applicants are given actual notice that should any future amendment be non-compliant because the amendment does not (for any reason) comply with 37 C.F.R. §1.121 (as discussed in MPEP §714), the amendment will be considered a non-compliant amendment and the Examiner will issue a “Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment (37 CFR 1.121)” See USPTO Form PTOL-324.
Notwithstanding the issues above, the Claim Amendments are being examined and an office action on the merits is set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“DAG node.” should be “DAG nodes.”
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
a key generator module control that:
determines whether the associated identifier is stored in a cache memory of the key generator maintained in random-access memory (claims 23, 33, 34)
generates a unique key for the associated identifier if the associated identifier is not stored (claims 23, 33, 34)
binds the unique key to a static and dynamic address pair from a payee or receiver included in the payment transaction (claims 23, 33, 34)
encrypts the unique key using Argon2d cryptographic hashing configured to access a memory array in a data-dependent order to prevent GPU cracking attacks (claims 23, 33, 34)
further checks whether the associated identifier matches a previously known identifier in the cache memory of the key generator upon receiving a subsequent payment transaction (claims 24, 33, 35)
tags the subsequent payment transaction with the encrypted unique key previously generated if the associated identifier is found (claims 24, 33, 35)
determines whether the associated identifier is stored in the cache memory of the key generator (claims 23, 33, 34, 42)
generates the unique key for the associated identifier if not stored (claims 23, 33, 34, 42)
binds the unique key to the static and dynamic address pair from the payee or receiver (claims 23, 33, 34, 42)
encrypts the unique key using the Argon2d cryptographic hashing (claims 23, 33, 34, 42)
checks whether the associated identifier matches a previously known identifier in the cache memory of the key generator upon receiving a subsequent payment transaction (claim 24, 33, 35, 42)
the communications module
facilitates all transmissions between the key generator, the plurality of DAG nodes, and the master node over the local area network and the wide area network (claim 42)
A microprocessor is disclosed in the specification at paragraph [22]. However, the above functions are not coextensive with a microprocessor and the specification does not disclose any algorithm/structure for performing them.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 23-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 37
Claim 37 recites, in relevant part:
The payment processing validation system of claim 36, wherein the master node further synchronizes the relationships between the plurality of DAG nodes in real time to maintain consistency of the encrypted unique key across the cache memories of the plurality of DAG nodes and the cache memory of the master node.
The application as originally filed discloses synchronizing (at paragraph [47]), but does not specifically disclose it as being performed by the master node.
Regarding claim 38
Claim 38 recites, in relevant part:
The payment processing validation system of claim 37, wherein the master node further optimizes the Argon2d cryptographic hashing by executing the hashing on a randomly selected timeframe to enhance performance of encryption by the key generator module control.
The application as originally filed discloses optimizing, but does not specifically disclose it as being performed by the master node. Regarding claims 39-41
Claims 39-41 contain new matter by virtue of their dependency on claim 37.
Regarding claim 42
Claim 42 recites, in relevant part:
the master node […] receives the payment transaction and the encrypted unique key, distributes the computational tasks according to the directed acyclic graph structure
The application as originally filed only discloses distributing computational tasks as being performed by the system 400 (at paragraph [46]). There is no disclosure of such steps being performed specifically by the master node.
Regarding claims 23-42
Claims 23-42 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) but the specification fails to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. See “Claim Interpretation” section above regarding the claimed functions being interpreted under 112(f) and which require the specification to disclose an algorithm.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 23-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 23-42
Claim 23 recites, in relevant part:
- validating, by the master node, the payment transaction by achieving a consensus percentage with the plurality of DAG nodes, wherein the consensus percentage exceeds a predetermined threshold of two-thirds of a total number of keys stored in a cache memory of the master node maintained in its random-access memory;
This limitation is unclear because it is unclear how two-thirds of a total number of keys stored in a cache memory can be a percentage threshold. For examination purposes this limitation is interpreted as validating, by the master node, the payment transaction in response to determining at least two-thirds of a set of DAG nodes contain the unique key in their respective cache memories.
Claims 24-32 are dependent on claim 23 and are indefinite for the same reason. Claims 33 and 34 contain similar language and are rejected for the same reason. Claims 35-42 are dependent on claim 34 and are indefinite for the same reason.
Additionally, claims 23-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
See “Claim Interpretation” section above regarding the key generator module control and communications module functions in claims 23, 24, 33-35, and 42 for which the application does not disclose an algorithm.
For claims 23-42, Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Novel / Non-obvious Subject Matter
Claims 23-42 contain novel / non-obvious subject matter. The analysis was given in the 12/17/2025 non-final rejection.
Response to Arguments
35 USC § 112
Claims 37, 38, and 42 were previously rejected under 112(a). Claims 37, 38, and 42 have not been amended to remove the alleged new matter, and no argument has been presented addressing these rejections.
Claim 42 invokes 112(f), and was previously rejected under 112(a) and 112(b) because the specification does not provide an algorithm for “facilitating all transmissions…”. Applicant has not amended claim 42 to not invoke 112(f), nor has Applicant pointed to an algorithm in the specification or provided any argument addressing these rejections.
Claims 23, 33, and 34 were previously rejected under 112(b) because the step of “validating…” is indefinite. The step in claim 23 has not been amended, nor has Applicant provided any argument addressing this rejection. The similar step in claims 33 and 34 has been amended and Applicant asserts the amendment overcomes the rejection. For example, claim 33 has been amended as follows:
validating, by the master node, the payment transaction by achieving a consensus percentage with the plurality of DAG nodes, wherein the consensus percentage exceeds a predetermined threshold of two-thirds of a total number of keys stored in a cache memory of the master node maintained in its random-access memory if at least two-thirds of the plurality of DAG nodes contain the encrypted unique key in their respective cache memories;
This amendment merely makes the wherein clause conditional, without doing anything to address the indefiniteness of the step itself. The 112(b) for these claims is maintained. Additionally, Examiner notes the 112(b) rejection contains a suggested wording for this limitation.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT MICHAEL DIROMA whose telephone number is (571)272-6430. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12:30 pm - 8:30 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, Patrick McAtee can be reached on (571) 272-7575. 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.
/S.M.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698