DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
The amendment filed on 06/22/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 45-46, 48-53 and 55-71 are pending.
Claims 45-46, 48-53 and 55-71 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 .
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Claim 45 is amended.
Claims 70-71 are newly added.
Regarding applicant’s arguments on Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. §101, the arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is the applicant’s position that the claims is not directed to abstract idea because “claim 45 solves a problem that does not occur in a money exchange in which two physical person exchange dollar bills. Therefore, the method claimed is directed towards solving a problem that specifically arises in the realm of computer-based money transfer.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
“money exchange in which two physical person exchange dollar bills.” is not the only form of financial transaction. Claim 45 recites transmitting coin from a first participant unit to a second participant unit which is financial transaction. This is a “commercial or legal interactions” within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. See pages 7-9 of this Office Action for detail analysis.
Additionally, the applicant argues that “the amended claim 45 as a whole thus provides the significant benefit of maintaining anonymity of a transaction while making the transaction retractable simultaneously. Thus, the amended claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application...” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as the use participant unit, coin register, payment system, cryptographic key, communication link and transaction register merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The processors and memories are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of financial transaction) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Therefore, the additional elements of the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Furthermore, the applicant argues that the claims are patent eligible because of In re Desjardins. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Desjardins recite how the machine learning model is trained to optimize performance on the machine learning task, which reflects the improvement: “adjust the first values of the plurality of parameters to optimize performance of the machine learning on the second machine task while protecting performance of the machine learning model on the first machine learning task.” Unlike the situation in Desjardins, the instant application does not optimize performance of machine learning model. Instead, the claims use a general purpose computer to perform generic computer functions, perform generic computer functions, i.e. “transmitting the electronic coin data set from the first participant unit to a second participant unit or modifying the electronic coin data set by the first participant unit, the electronic coin data set having been registered in a coin register of a payment system, the first participant unit including a first security element integrated therein, the first security element managing the electronic coin data set and transmitting the electronic coin data set from the first participant unit to the second participant unit or modifying the electronic coin data set by the first participant unit, wherein the electronic coin data set is transmitted by a protocol interface, by means of an application, as a file format, an ASCII string, text message, and/or as one or more APDU commands; generating by the first participant unit a transaction data set relating to said transmitting of the electronic coin data set to the second participant unit or relating to the modifying of the electronic coin data set by the first participant unit; encrypting in the first participant unit the generated transaction data set with a cryptographic key, the cryptographic key being composed of at least two cryptographic subkeys, of different remote instances; initiating by the first participant unit a communication link to a transaction register to send the encrypted transaction data set to the transaction register; and sending by the first participant unit the encrypted transaction data set to the transaction register, wherein the coin register and the transaction register are independent and separated from each other.”, It describes steps involved in a financial transaction rather than optimizing performance of machine learning model.
The applicant further argues that “the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception that the Office Action asserts. In particular, the concept of separating information about the quantity of money and information about the transaction of said money is not known from the prior art.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The additional elements of using participant unit, security element, coin register, payment system, cryptographic key, communication link and transaction register to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of financial transaction. “transmitting the electronic coin data set from the first [participant unit] to a second[ participant unit] or modifying the electronic coin data set by the first [participant unit], the electronic coin data set having been registered in a [coin register] of a [payment system], the first [participant unit] including a first security element integrated therein, the first security element managing the electronic coin data set and transmitting the electronic coin data set from the first [participant unit] to the second [participant unit] or modifying the electronic coin data set by the first participant unit, wherein the electronic coin data set is transmitted by a protocol interface, by means of an application, as a file format, an ASCII string, text message, and/or as one or more APDU commands; generating by the first participant unit a transaction data set relating to said transmitting of the electronic coin data set to the second participant unit or relating to the modifying of the electronic coin data set by the first participant unit; initiating by the first participant unit a communication link to a transaction register to send the encrypted transaction data set to the transaction register; and sending by the first [participant unit] the encrypted transaction data set to the transaction register, wherein the coin register and the transaction register are independent and separated from each other.” These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of asset transaction. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)).
With respect to novelty arguments on the separation of coin register and transaction register, examiner notes that judicial exceptions need not be old or long-prevalent, and that even newly discovered judicial exceptions are still exceptions, despite their novelty (See MPEP 2106.04 I).
With respect to the argument of the amended claim 45 “expressly describe further technical details,” and “these additional elements are believed to be further indicative that any judicial exception to which the claims may be considered to be directed to is indeed integrated into a practical application” the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The amended claim 45 recites “the first participant unit including a first security element integrated therein, the first security element managing the electronic coin data set and transmitting the electronic coin data set from the first participant unit to the second participant unit or modifying the electronic coin data set by the first participant unit, wherein the electronic coin data set is transmitted by a protocol interface, by means of an application, as a file format, an ASCII string, text message, and/or as one or more APDU commands.” The amendment describes the data transmitting between the first participant unit and the second participant unit by following a protocol interface with an application and the data are in a ASCII, text message or.... One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a data transmission must follow a protocol and the data must be in a format that in compliance with the protocol. The protocol usually is implemented in an application to facilitate the data transmission, such as web, ftp, iMessage, email, etc. Therefore, the amended claim 45 does not provide additional technical detail that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
The rejection is maintained.
Regarding applicant’s arguments on Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. §103, the arguments have been fully considered. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
It is the applicant’s position that “it is improper to propose modifying Ma or Ma as modified by Liu in view of Ramanathan, as such a modification would cause the system of Ma to be a blockchain system with a distributed ledge and equal nodes.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Ma discloses a system that utilizes blockchain for secure financial transaction (Ma, abs). it records all transactions (e.g., coin registering and transferring) on the ledger. Ramanathan discloses a secure financial transaction system that comprising a coin issuing trust entity that is independent from the general transaction ledger. (Ramanathan, abs, Fig. 9b item 604 and 800). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined system of Ma et al. and Liu et al. by separating coin register from transaction register in accordance with the teaching of Ramanathan et al.. This modification provides flexibility to the management of coin register and the transaction register. It allows these two registers be configured under different privacy and security policies.
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that all transactions can be written to a single or multiple ledgers. Whether to use a single or multiple ledgers, it is a business policy decision.
The applicant argues that the prior arts Ma, Liu and Ramanathan fail to disclose and suggest the amended claim 45. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Ma in view of Liu and in further view of Ramanathan teaches the amended claim 45. See pages 10-12 of this Office Action for detail.
Additionally, the applicant argues that rejections of all dependent claims should be withdrawn because the additional references Walbeck, Das and Hamel “fails to remedy the above-noted deficiencies of Ma, Liu, and Ramanathan.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As described above, Ma in view of Liu and in further view of Ramanathan teaches the independent claim 45, the additional references Walbeck, Das and Hamel teaches the dependent claims (see pages 16-21 of this Office Action for detail.)
Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
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 45-46, 47-53 and 55-71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Analysis
In the instant case, claims 45-46, 47-53 and 55-71 are directed to a method. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claim(s) recite(s) financial transaction. Specifically, the claim recites “transmitting the electronic coin data set from the first [participant unit] to a second[ participant unit] or modifying the electronic coin data set by the first [participant unit], the electronic coin data set having been registered in a [coin register] of a [payment system], the first [participant unit] including a first security element integrated therein, the first security element managing the electronic coin data set and transmitting the electronic coin data set from the first [participant unit] to the second [participant unit] or modifying the electronic coin data set by the first participant unit, wherein the electronic coin data set is transmitted by a protocol interface, by means of an application, as a file format, an ASCII string, text message, and/or as one or more APDU commands; generating by the first [participant unit] a transaction data set relating to said transmitting of the electronic coin data set to the second [participant unit] or relating to the modifying of the electronic coin data set by the first [participant unit]; initiating by the first [participant unit] a [communication link] to a [transaction register] to send the encrypted transaction data set to the [transaction register]; and sending by the first [participant unit] the encrypted transaction data set to the [transaction register], wherein the [coin register] and the [transaction register] are independent and separated from each other.”, which is “commercial or legal interactions” within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106) because the claims involve a series of steps for conducting financial transaction. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Additionally, the claims recite cryptographic operations “encrypting in the first [participant unit] the generated transaction data set with a [cryptographic key], the [cryptographic key] being composed of at least two cryptographic subkeys, of different remote instances;” which is the abstract idea of a mathematical concept. See MPEP 2106. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea, as it has been held that a combination of abstract ideas, in this case organizing human activity and a mathematical concept, is still an abstract idea. See FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as the use participant unit, coin register, payment system, cryptographic key, communication link and transaction register merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The processors and memories are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of financial transaction) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using participant unit, coin register, payment system, cryptographic key, communication link and transaction register steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 46 describes first security element. Dependent claims 48 and 52-53 describe encrypted transaction data set. Dependent claims 49-50 describes transaction data set. Dependent claim 51 describes first participant unit. Dependent claims 55-60 describes transmitting encrypted transaction data set. Dependent claim 61 describes encrypting and registering electronic coin data set. Dependent claim 62 describes preparing electronic coin data set. Dependent claim 63 describes cryptographic keys, Dependents claim 64-65 describe generating transaction data. Dependent claim 66 describe coin register and transaction register. Dependent claims 67-69 describe electronic coin data set. These claims further recite the abstract idea of organizing human activity and a mathematical concept. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as the use of participant unit, coin register, payment system, cryptographic key, communication link and transaction register merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims simply recite the concept of financial transaction. The claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they affect improvement in any other technology or technical field.
The use of a participant unit, coin register, payment system, cryptographic key, communication link and transaction register as tools to implement the abstract idea does not render the claim patent eligible because it does not provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 71 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Relative Term
Claim 71 recites “wherein decryption of the encrypted transaction data set is performed only upon an external request.” is relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The term external is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 45-46, 48-51, 55 and 64-71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Grant Publication US11080694B2 (“Ma et al.”) in view of US Grant Publication US11055709B2 (“Liu et al.”), and in further view of US Grant Publication US10262321B1 (“Ramanathan et al.”).
Regarding claim 45, Ma et al. discloses:
A method for managing a transaction data set in a first participant unit comprising an electronic coin data set, the method comprising the of steps: (Fig. 2; col 13 lines 46-60)
transmitting the electronic coin data set from the first participant unit to a second participant unit or modifying the electronic coin data set by the first participant unit, the electronic coin data set having been registered in a coin register of a payment system, (col 14 lines 64 – col 15 line 13) the first participant unit including a first security element integrated therein, the first security element managing the electronic coin data set and transmitting the electronic coin data set from the first participant unit to the second participant unit or modifying the electronic coin data set by the first participant unit, wherein the electronic coin data set is transmitted by a protocol interface, by means of an application, as a file format, an ASCII string, text message, and/or as one or more APDU commands; (col 13 lines 57-59; col 9 lines 34-38);
generating by the first participant unit a transaction data set relating to said transmitting of the electronic coin data set to the second participant unit or relating to the modifying of the electronic coin data set by the first participant unit; (col 10 lines 33-40, col 16 lines 60 –67, col 25 lines 50-60)
encrypting in the first participant unit the generated transaction data set with a cryptographic key, (col 25 lines 66 – col 26 lines 3)
initiating by the first participant unit a communication link to a transaction register to send the encrypted transaction data set to the transaction register; and (Fig. 2 step 207; col 17 lines 1 - 11)
sending by the first participant unit the encrypted transaction data set to the transaction register, (Fig. 2 step 207; col 17 lines 1 - 11)
Ma et al. does not explicitly disclose:
the cryptographic key being composed of at least two cryptographic subkeys, of different remote instances;
wherein the coin register and the transaction register are independent and separated from each other.
However, Liu et al. discloses:
the cryptographic key being composed of at least two cryptographic subkeys, of different remote instances respectively; (col 7 lines 62 – col 8 lines 13)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the System and Method for Information Protection of Ma et al. by including the cryptographic key being composed of at least two cryptographic subkeys of different remote instances in accordance with the teaching of Liu et al.. This modification improves the data security by safeguard the cryptographic key in diverse remote locations. Furthermore, the modification improves transaction security as it reduces the risk level of cryptographic key leakage since the cryptographic key can only be reconstructed by retrieving the threshold of subkeys the from diverse remote locations.
Ma et al. and Liu et al. do not explicitly disclose:
wherein the coin register and the transaction register are independent and separated from each other.
However, Ramanathan et al. discloses:
wherein the coin register and the transaction register are independent and separated from each other. (Fig. 9b item 604 and 800; col 11 lines 17- col 12 lines 3)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined system of Ma et al. and Liu et al. by separating coin register from transaction register in accordance with the teaching of Ramanathan et al.. This modification provides flexibility to the management of coin register and the transaction register. It allows these two registers be configured under different privacy and security policies.
Regarding claim 46, Ma et al. in view of Liu et al., and in further view of Ramanathan et al. discloses all limitations as described above. Ma et al. further discloses:
wherein the first security element is inserted ready for use in the first participant unit and the generating and encrypting is performed by the first security element. (col 13 lines 57-59; col 9 lines 34-38)
Regarding claim 48, Ma et al. in view of Liu et al., and in further view of Ramanathan et al. discloses all limitations as described above. Liu et al. further discloses:
wherein the encrypted transaction data set is sent to the transaction register in a cryptographically transport-secured manner.(Fig. 1 item 110; col 9 lines 6-10)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the System and Method for Information Protection of Ma et al. by including transmitting the encrypted transaction data set to the transaction register in a cryptographically transport-secured manner in accordance with the teaching of Liu et al.. This modification improves the data privacy and security in transit.
Regarding claim 49, Ma et al. in view of Liu et al., and in further view of Ramanathan et al. discloses all limitations as described above. Ma et al. further discloses:
wherein the transaction data set comprises at least:
an identifier or address of the first participant unit, and (col 25 lines 50-58; col 9 lines 39-42)
an identifier or address of a second participant unit, and (col 25 lines 50-58; col 9 lines 39-42)
a monetary amount of the electronic coin data set. (col 25 lines 50-58; col 9 lines 39-42)
Regarding claim 50, Ma et al. in view of Liu et al., and in further view of Ramanathan et al. discloses all limitations as described above. Ma et al. further discloses:
wherein the transaction data set further comprises:
a transaction number and/or
a masked electronic coin data set corresponding to the electronic coin data set to be transmitted or an electronic coin data set to be modified or to a modified electronic coin data set, instead of the monetary amount of the electronic coin data set, and/or (col 25 lines 50-65)
a transaction time.
Regarding claim 51, Ma et al. in view of Liu et al., and in further view of Ramanathan et al. discloses all limitations as described above. Liu et al. further discloses:
wherein the first participant unit appends a transaction time to the encrypted transaction data set. (col 13 lines 19-24)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the System and Method for Information Protection of Ma et al. by including appends a transaction time to the encrypted transaction data in accordance with the teaching of Liu et al.. This modification improves the transiency of the transaction.
Regarding claim 55, Ma et al. in view of Liu et al., and in further view of Ramanathan et al. discloses all limitations as described above. Ma et al. further discloses:
wherein the transmitting step of the electronic coin data set from the first participant unit to the second participant unit occurs immediately before or after the generating step or the encrypting step or the initiating step. (col 25 lines 50 - col 26 lines 7)
Regarding claim 64, Ma et al. in view of Liu et al., and in further view of Ramanathan et al. discloses all limitations as described above. Ma et al. further discloses:
wherein the method comprises the step of generating by the first participant unit the transaction data set relating to transmitting the electronic coin data set from the first participant unit to the second participant unit. (col 25 lines 50-60; col 9 lines 34-38; col 14 lines 64 – col 15 line 1)
Regarding claim 65, Ma et al. in view of Liu et al. discloses all limitations as described above. Ma et al. further discloses:
wherein the method comprises the step of generating by the first participant unit the transaction data set relating to the modifying of the electronic coin data set to be registered at the coin register. (col 10 lines 8-40)
Regarding claim 66, Ma et al. in view of Liu et al., and in further view of Ramanathan et al. discloses all limitations as described above. Ramanathan et al. further discloses:
wherein the coin register and the transaction register are spatially or physically separated from each other. (Fig. 9b item 604 and 800; col 11 lines 17- col 12 lines 3)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined system of Ma et al. and Liu et al. by separating coin register from transaction register in accordance with the teaching of Ramanathan et al.. This modification provides flexibility to the management of coin register and the transaction register. It allows these two registers be configured under different privacy and security policies.
Regarding claim 67, Ma et al. in view of Liu et al., and in further view of Ramanathan et al. discloses all limitations as described above. Ma et al. further discloses:
wherein the electronic coin data set is transmitted by the first participant unit directly to the second participant unit. (Fig. 2 step 202; col 16 lines 21-23)
Regarding claim 68, Ma et al. in view of Liu et al., and in further view of Ramanathan et al. discloses all limitations as described above. Ramanathan et al. further discloses:
the first participant unit outputting the electronic coin data set to the coin register. (Fig. 9b, 10a; col 14 lines 1-2)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined system of Ma et al. and Liu et al. by including the first participant unit outputting the electronic coin data set in accordance with the teaching of Ramanathan et al.. This modification enables the first participant unit obtaining the electronic coin data set.
Regarding claim 69, Ma et al. in view of Liu et al., and in further view of Ramanathan et al. discloses all limitations as described above. Ramanathan et al. further discloses:
the electronic coin data set having been output to the coin register by the second participant unit. (Fig. 1, 9b, 10a; col 14 lines 1-2)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined system of Ma et al. and Liu et al. by including the first participant unit outputting the electronic coin data set in accordance with the teaching of Ramanathan et al.. This modification enables the first participant unit obtaining the electronic coin data set.
Regarding claim 70, Ma et al. in view of Liu et al., and in further view of Ramanathan et al. discloses all limitations as described above. Ramanathan et al. further discloses:
wherein the encrypted transaction data set does not include the electronic coin data set. (Fig. 10a item 800; col 15 lines 18-21)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined system of Ma et al. and Liu et al. by separating coin register from transaction register in accordance with the teaching of Ramanathan et al.. This modification provides flexibility to the management of coin register and the transaction register. It allows these two registers be configured under different privacy and security policies.
Regarding claim 71, Ma et al. in view of Liu et al., and in further view of Ramanathan et al. discloses all limitations as described above. Liu et al. further discloses:
wherein decryption of the encrypted transaction data set is performed only upon an external request. (col 3 line 42-47)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the System and Method for Information Protection of Ma et al. by including decrypting transaction data upon a request in accordance with the teaching of Liu et al.. This modification allows the transaction data set be accessible.
Claims 52-53, 56-57 and 60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Grant Publication US11080694B2 (“Ma et al.”) in view of US Grant Publication US11055709B2 (“Liu et al.”), in further view of US Grant Publication US10262321B1 (“Ramanathan et al.”) and US7401120B2 (“Walbeck et al.”).
Regarding claim 52, Ma et al. in view of Liu et al., and in further view of Ramanathan et al. discloses all limitations as described above. Ma et al., Liu et al. and Ramanathan et al. do not explicitly disclose:
wherein the encrypted transaction data set is stored in the first participant unit if the communication link establishment to the transaction register or the sending of the encrypted transaction data set fails.
However, Walbeck et al. discloses:
wherein the encrypted transaction data set is stored in the first participant unit if the communication link establishment to the transaction register or the sending of the encrypted transaction data set fails. (col 44 lines 48-53)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined system of Ma et al., Liu et al. and Ramanathan et al. by including storing the transaction data on the sender device in the event of the data transmission failure in accordance with the teaching of Walbeck et al.. This modification allows the combined system to retry the data transmission. Hence, it improves the reliability of the data transmission.
Regarding claim 53, Ma et al. in view of Liu et al., and in further view of Ramanathan et al. discloses all limitations as described above. Ma et al., Liu et al. and Ramanathan et al. do not explicitly disclose:
wherein the encrypted transaction data set is sent from the first participant unit to the transaction register once the communication link establishment with the transaction register is successful.
However, Walbeck et al. discloses:
wherein the encrypted transaction data set is sent from the first participant unit to the transaction register once the communication link establishment with the transaction register is successful. (col 15 lines 19-25)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined system of Ma et al., Liu et al. and Ramanathan et al. by including transmitting the transaction data once the network connection is established in accordance with the teaching of Walbeck et al.. This modification ensures that the encrypted transaction data set be sent to the transaction register successfully. Hence, it improves the system reliability.
Regarding claim 56, Ma et al. in view of Liu et al., in further view of Ramanathan et al. discloses all limitations as described above. Ma et al., Liu et al. and Ramanathan et al. do not explicitly disclose:
wherein the transmitting step of the electronic coin data set from the first participant unit to the second participant unit is executed only after a checking step yields, that a check value for a number of transmissions to the second participant unit or to further participant units in case of failed communication link establishment to the transaction register or failed sending of the encrypted transaction data set to the transaction register is below or equal to a predefined threshold value.
However, Walbeck et al. discloses:
wherein the transmitting step of the electronic coin data set from the first participant unit to the second participant unit is executed only after a checking step yields, that a check value for a number of transmissions to the second participant unit or to further participant units in case of failed communication link establishment to the transaction register or failed sending of the encrypted transaction data set to the transaction register is below or equal to a predefined threshold value. (col 15 lines 19-25)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined system of Ma et al., Liu et al. and Ramanathan et al. by including a checking step and a check value for a number of transmissions to the second participant unit in accordance with the teaching of Walbeck et al.. This modification improves the reliability of the data delivery.
Regarding claim 57, Ma et al. in view of Liu et al., in further view of Ramanathan et al. discloses all limitations as described above. Ma et al., Liu et al. and Ramanathan et al. do not explicitly disclose:
wherein upon exceeding a predefined threshold value of a check value for a number of transmissions to the second participant unit or to further participant units in case of failed communication link establishment to the transaction register or failed sending the encrypted transaction data set to the transaction register, sending the encrypted transaction data set and/or a stored transaction data set to the transaction register must take place before transmitting the electronic coin data set.
However, Walbeck et al. discloses:
wherein upon exceeding a predefined threshold value of a check value for a number of transmissions to the second participant unit or to further participant units in case of failed communication link establishment to the transaction register or failed sending the encrypted transaction data set to the transaction register, sending the encrypted transaction data set and/or a stored transaction data set to the transaction register must take place before transmitting the electronic coin data set. (col 15 lines 26-40)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined system of Ma et al., Liu et al. and Ramanathan et al. by including transmitting data orderly after transmission timeout in accordance with the teaching of Walbeck et al.. This modification ensures that the second participant unit receives data in correct order.
Regarding claim 60, Ma et al. in view of Liu et al., in further view of Ramanathan et al. discloses all limitations as described above. Ma et al., Liu et al. and Ramanathan et al. do not explicitly disclose:
wherein in a transmission error event, the electronic coin data set is resent based on the transaction data set.
However, Walbeck et al. discloses:
wherein in a transmission error event, the electronic coin data set is resent based on the transaction data set. (col 15 lines 26-40)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined system of Ma et al., Liu et al. and Ramanathan et al. by including transmitting data orderly after transmission timeout in accordance with the teaching of Walbeck et al.. This modification ensures that the second participant unit receives data in correct order.
Claims 58-59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Grant Publication US11080694B2 (“Ma et al.”) in view of US Grant Publication US11055709B2 (“Liu et al.”), in further view of US Grant Publication US10262321B1 (“Ramanathan et al.”) and US Application Publication US20100162070A1 (“Das et al.”).
Regarding claim 58, Ma et al. in view of Liu et al., in further view of Ramanathan et al. discloses all limitations as described above. Ma et al., Liu et al. and Ramanathan et al. do not explicitly disclose:
wherein upon successful transmission of the electronic coin data set and failed communication link establishment to the transaction register or failed sending of the encrypted transaction data set to the transaction register, a check value is incremented in the first participant unit.
However, Das et al. discloses:
wherein upon successful transmission of the electronic coin data set and failed communication link establishment to the transaction register or failed sending of the encrypted transaction data set to the transaction register, a check value is incremented in the first participant unit. (Abs, ¶0009)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined system of Ma et al., Liu et al. and Ramanathan et al. by including increasing check value in response to previous performance in accordance with the teaching of Das et al.. This modification improves the system efficiency by optimizing the check value.
Regarding claim 59, Ma et al. in view of Liu et al., in further view of Ramanathan et al. and Das et al. discloses all limitations as described above. Das et al. further discloses:
wherein the check value is also used to determine whether the electronic coin data set is displayed by the first participant unit at the payment system, in particular a coin register or a monitoring register, and/or whether the electronic coin data set is returned to the central issuing instance. (Abs, ¶0009)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined system of Ma et al., Liu et al. and Ramanathan et al. by including increasing check value in response to previous performance in accordance with the teaching of Das et al.. This modification improves the system efficiency by optimizing the check value.
Claim 63 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Grant Publication US11080694B2 (“Ma et al.”) in view of US Grant Publication US11055709B2 (“Liu et al.”), in further view of US Grant Publication US10262321B1 (“Ramanathan et al.”) and US Application Publication US20210367778A1 (“Hamel et al.”).
Regarding claim 63, Ma et al. in view of Liu et al., and in further view of Ramanathan et al. discloses all limitations as described above. Ma et al., Liu et al. and Ramanathan et al. do not explicitly disclose:
wherein the cryptographic partial keys are each from:
a law enforcement authority instance;
a notary authority instance;
a ministry of justice authority instance;
a central issuing authority of the payment system; or
a commercial banking authority of the payment system.
However, Hamel et al. discloses:
wherein the cryptographic partial keys are each from:
a law enforcement authority instance;
a notary authority instance;
a ministry of justice authority instance;
a central issuing authority of the payment system; or (¶0018)
a commercial banking authority of the payment system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined system of Ma et al., Liu et al. and Ramanathan et al. by including storing cryptographic partial keys in an trusted authority in accordance with the teaching of Hamel et al.. This modification improves the security of cryptographic key access.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 61-62 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if the 101, set forth in this Office action, is overcome and if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The reason for allowance will be furnished upon allowance of the application.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Algebraic (trapdoor) one-way functions: Contractions and applications (“Catalano et al.”) discloses homomorphic one-way functions
US20190220859A1(“Weight et al.”) discloses a computing system includes at least one network interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor and configured to communicate with at least one vault system, each of the at least one vault system storing a respective one of N private keys or key components associated with a customer. The at least one processor is configured to generate, at the customer device, a sweeping transaction that transfers all funds from at least one input transaction address in a customer wallet to a new transaction address. The at least one processor is also configured to sign the sweeping transaction using at least M of N private keys or key components.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YINGYING ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)272-5308. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00am - 5:00pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John W Hayes can be reached on 571-272-6708. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YINGYING ZHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights