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 final office action in response to the applicant’s arguments/remarks filed on August 26, 2026.
Claims 1 and 7 have been amended; new claims 11-20 have been added. The invention of the newly added 16-20 is distinct from the invention of claims 1-10 and claims 11-15. The applicant is advised to check the Election/Restrictions section for details.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 16-20 are non-elected claims.
Claims 1-15 have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted on 08/26/2026, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
Claims 1-15, drawn to determining an internal flow of fund by determining problem data and utilizing solution data, classified in G06F 17/16.
Claims 16-20, drawn to reconstructing a hidden fund flow by generating a flow model comprising one or more aggregation nodes and one or more splitting nodes, classified in G06N 7/01.
Inventions I and II are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In the instant case, subcombination I has separate utilities, such as providing solution data by a quantum computer and generating result data indicative a likely connection between an input and an output. Subcombination III has separate utilities, such as generating a flow model comprising one or more aggregation nodes and one or more splitting nodes. See MPEP § 806.05(d).
Since the applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Group I (claims 1-15) are elected due to their similarity to the prior examined claims. Accordingly, group II (claims 16-20) are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to non-elected inventions. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03. The applicant is respectfully requested to cancel the non-elected claims in response to this office action.
Responses to Arguments/Remarks
35 U.S.C. 112:
The amended claim 1 has overcome the 112 rejection, and the 112 rejection is now withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. 101:
The applicant contends that the amended claim 1 is not directed merely to a mathematical conception in the abstract. The examiner would like to point out that the amended claim 1 is now directed to determining funds flow of transactions via a formulation, which could be a process related to fundamental economic principles or practices, such as mitigating risk of transactions with illegitimate funds. Additionally, utilizing a quadratic equation with constraints, solving it, and generating a probability matrix are related to mathematical relations, formulas or equations, and/or calculations. Therefore, the claim falls under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mathematical Concepts” groupings of abstract ideas in Step 2A Prong One (MPEP 2106.04(a)).
The applicant contends that the amended claim 1 integrates limitations into a practical application. The examiner respectfully disagrees. What the applicant contends is an improvement that is merely an improvement in the recited abstract idea rather than an improvement in the functioning of computers, in technology, or in a technical field. The additional element of a quadratic unconstrained binary optimization (QUBO) formulation merely recites the type of formulation. Additionally, quadratic unconstrained binary optimization (QUBO) is a known mathematical framework for tackling the optimization problems in finance and other areas, and it is being used in its ordinary capacity. Moreover, a general-purpose computer would be capable of performing these operations of a mere improvement in the abstract idea. Here, the additional elements, individually and in combination, are cited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computing components merely serving as tools to perform the abstract idea and/or generally linking the user of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The amended claim 1 as a whole, judging from the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The applicant contends that claim 1 recites significantly more than the alleged judicial exception. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Using a classical computer and a quantum computer to perform determining funds flow of transactions via a formulation amounts to no more than using computers to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The classical computer and the quantum computer perform the steps or functions of receiving transaction data, generating an input flow vector, generating an output flow vector, determining an objective optimization problem subject, determining a formulation, solving the formulation, and generating a probability matrix indicative of a probability of an input connecting with an output. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. As discussed by the examiner above, the improvement claimed by the applicant is merely an improvement in the recited abstract idea rather than an improvement in the functioning of computers, in technology, or in a technical field. The additional element of a quadratic unconstrained binary optimization (QUBO) formulation merely recites the type of formulation. Additionally, quadratic unconstrained binary optimization (QUBO) is a known mathematical framework for tackling the optimization problems in finance and other areas, and it is being used in its ordinary capacity. Moreover, a general-purpose computer would be capable of performing these operations of a mere improvement in the abstract idea. Here, the additional elements, individually and in combination, are cited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computing components merely serving as tools to automate/perform the abstract idea and/or generally linking the user of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the amended claim 1 merely recites determining funds flow of transactions via a formulation. Therefore, the additional claim elements, when considered individually and in combination, fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) 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 limitation(s) is/are:
an interface in claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The specification does not clearly describe what an interface is. Furthermore, the specification does not disclose any structure or structures that perform the claimed functions by the interface.
If the applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 11-15 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.
Claim 11 recites “an interface configured to receive blockchain transaction data comprising transactions representative of funds entering and exiting the cryptocurrency tumbler.”
The specification does not provide an adequate structure to perform the claimed functions listed above. The specification does not demonstrate that the applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described in sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor has possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 12-15 are rejected because they depend on the rejected claim 11.
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.
Claims 11-15 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant) regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites “an interface configured to receive blockchain transaction data comprising transactions representative of funds entering and exiting the cryptocurrency tumbler.”
The specification does not clearly describe what an interface is. Additionally, the specification does not disclose any structure or structures that perform the claimed functions by the interface. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one or ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform the claimed functions. Therefore, it is unclear which structure or structures perform the claimed functions.
The limitation, which recites an interface in claim 11, invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, 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. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structures perform the claimed functions. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, six paragraph;
(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 the 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, the 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.
Claims 12-15 are rejected because they depend on the rejected claim 11.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In this instance, claims 1-10 are directed to a method, and claims 11-15 are directed to a system comprising a classical computer and a quantum computer. Therefore, claims 1-15 fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 1 as a whole is directed to determining funds flow of transactions via a formulation. Determining funds flow of transactions could be a process related to fundamental economic principles or practices, such as mitigating risk of transactions with illegitimate funds. Additionally, utilizing a quadratic equation with constraints, solving it, and generating a probability matrix are related to mathematical relations, formulas or equations, and/or calculations. Therefore, the claim falls under the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mathematical Concepts” groupings of abstract ideas in Step 2A Prong One (MPEP 2106.04(a)). More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite an abstract idea while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
Claim 1 recites “[a]n internal flow determination method comprising the steps of: receiving, by a classical computer, blockchain transaction data comprising transactions representative of funds entering and exiting a cryptocurrency tumbler; generating, by the classical computer based on the blockchain transaction data, an input flow vector comprising a plurality of input entries, said input entries being indicative of a monetary amount entering a processing node comprising the cryptocurrency tumbler; generating, by the classical computer based on the blockchain transaction data, an output flow vector comprising a plurality of output entries, said output entries being indicative of a monetary amount exiting the processing node; determining, by the classical computer, an objective optimization problem subject to one or more constraints; wherein an objective of the objective optimization problem is to determine: an input flow matrix; and an output flow matrix; determining, by the classical computer, a quadratic unconstrained binary optimization (QUBO) formulation suitable for implementing the objective optimization problem; solving, by a quantum computer, the QUBO formulation, thereby providing a solution representative of the input flow matrix and the output flow matrix; and generating, by the classical computer, a probability matrix indicative of a probability that an internal flow of the processing node comprising the cryptocurrency tumbler connects an input entry of the input flow vector to an output entry of the output flow vector.”
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two (MPEP 2106.04(d)), the non-underlined additional elements of a classical computer and a quantum computer in claim 1 merely use computers as tools to perform the identified abstract idea. Specifically, the classical computer and the quantum computer perform the steps or functions of receiving transaction data, generating an input flow vector, generating an output flow vector, determining an objective optimization problem subject, determining a formulation, solving the formulation, and generating a probability matrix indicative of a probability of an input connecting with an output. The use of computers as tools to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than the computers performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional element of a quadratic unconstrained binary optimization (QUBO) formulation merely recites the type of formulation. Additionally, quadratic unconstrained binary optimization (QUBO) is a known mathematical framework for tackling the optimization problems in finance and other areas, and it is being used in its ordinary capacity. It is recited at a high level of generality. Furthermore, blockchain transactions merely recite the type of transactions. The additional elements of a processing node and a cryptocurrency tumbler are merely cited as the components that temporarily hold the funds. 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)); the claim does not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)); and the claim does not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful ways beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claim does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor does it effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 as a whole, judging from the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, claim 1 as a whole fails to recite a practical application of the abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under Step 2B (MPEP 2106.05), using a classical computer and a quantum computer to perform determining funds flow of transactions via a formulation amounts to no more than using computers to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the classical computer and the quantum computer perform the steps or functions of receiving transaction data, generating an input flow vector, generating an output flow vector, determining an objective optimization problem subject, determining a formulation, solving the formulation, and generating a probability matrix indicative of a probability of an input connecting with an output. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. The additional element of a quadratic unconstrained binary optimization (QUBO) formulation merely recites the type of formulation. Additionally, quadratic unconstrained binary optimization (QUBO) is a known mathematical framework for tackling the optimization problems in finance and other areas, and it is being used in its ordinary capacity. Furthermore, blockchain transactions merely recite the type of transactions. The additional elements of a processing node and a cryptocurrency tumbler are merely cited as the components that temporarily hold the funds. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely recites determining funds flow of transactions via a formulation. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does nothing more than employing the computer components as tools to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional claim elements, when considered individually and in combination, fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected as being directed toward patent-ineligible subject matter.
Claims 2-10 have also been considered for subject-matter eligibility. However, these claims fail to recite patent-eligible subject matter for the following reasons:
Claim 2 recites the probability matrix being obtained by multiplying the input flow matrix by a transpose of the output flow matrix, which falls under the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas and further limits the abstract idea noted in claim 1. No new additional elements are identified.
Claim 3 recites an additional element of wherein the probability matrix is an m by n matrix having entries indicative of a flow probability between an input fund and an output fund, wherein m is a vector length of the output flow vector, and wherein n is a vector length of the input flow vector. The additional element fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter as it simply describes the characteristics of the probability matrix. The additional element is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not offer significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional element merely recites additional instructions to implement the abstract idea.
Claim 4 recites an additional element of wherein the one or more constraints comprise: a left-stochastic constraint and an integer constraint. The additional element fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter as it simply describes the characteristics of the one or more constraints. The additional element is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not offer significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional element merely recites additional instructions to implement the abstract idea.
Claim 5 recites an additional element of wherein the left-stochastic constraint is configured to ensure that the input flow matrix and the output flow matrix are left-stochastic. The additional element fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter as it simply describes the characteristics of the left-stochastic constraint. The additional element is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not offer significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional element merely recites additional instructions to implement the abstract idea.
Claim 6 recites an additional element of wherein the integer constraint is configured to limit entries of the input flow matrix and entries of the output flow matrix to a group of integers modulo 2. The additional element fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter as it simply describes the characteristics of the integer constraint. The additional element is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not offer significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional element merely recites additional instructions to implement the abstract idea.
Claim 7 recites an additional element of wherein the one or more constraints further comprise: a synchronicity constraint and a biasing constraint. The additional element fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter as it simply describes the characteristics of the one or more constraints. The additional element is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not offer significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional element merely recites additional instructions to implement the abstract idea.
Claim 8 recites an additional element of wherein the synchronicity constraint is configured to ensure that a time value associated with entries of the input flow vector is earlier than a time value associated with entries of the output flow vector that are linked to the entries of the input flow vector. The additional element fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter as it simply describes the characteristics of the synchronicity constraint. The additional element is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not offer significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional element merely recites additional instructions to implement the abstract idea.
Claim 9 recites an additional element of wherein the biasing constraint is configured to bias the solution according to patterns determined by a machine learning algorithm. The additional element fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter as it simply describes the characteristics of the biasing constraint. The additional element is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not offer significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional element merely recites additional instructions to implement the abstract idea.
Claim 10 recites the formulation being solved, which falls under the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas and further limits the abstract idea noted in claim 1. The additional element of an adiabatic quantum computer is cited as a tool to perform/automate the abstract idea. The additional element of a quadratic unconstrained binary optimization (QUBO) formulation merely recites the type of formulation. Additionally, quadratic unconstrained binary optimization (QUBO) is a known mathematical framework for tackling the optimization problems in finance and other areas, and it is being used in its ordinary capacity. The additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 11 as a whole is directed to determining funds flow of transactions. Determining funds flow of transactions could be a process related to fundamental economic principles or practices, such as mitigating risk of transactions with illegitimate funds. Therefore, the claim falls under the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas in Step 2A Prong One (MPEP 2106.04(a)). More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite an abstract idea while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
Claim 11 recites “[a] computing system for discovering hidden fund flows through a cryptocurrency tumbler, comprising: an interface configured to receive blockchain transaction data comprising transactions representative of funds entering and exiting the cryptocurrency tumbler; a classical computer coupled to the interface; and a quantum computer coupled to the classical computer, wherein the classical computer is configured to: generate, based on the blockchain transaction data, input flow data representing a plurality of input funds entering the cryptocurrency tumbler and output flow data representing a plurality of output funds exiting the cryptocurrency tumbler; provide problem data representative of an internal routing of funds through the cryptocurrency tumbler to the quantum computer; receive, from the quantum computer, solution data representative of the internal routing of funds through the cryptocurrency tumbler; and generate, based on the solution data, connection-likelihood data indicating a likely connection between an input fund of the plurality of input funds and an output fund of the plurality of output funds.”
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two (MPEP 2106.04(d)), the non-underlined additional elements of an interface, a classical computer, and a quantum computer in claim 11 merely use computers as tools to perform the identified abstract idea. Specifically, the interface, the classical computer, and the quantum computer perform the steps or functions of receiving transaction data, generating an input flow data and output flow data, providing problem data, receiving solution data, and generating connection-likelihood data indicating a likely connection between an input and an output. The use of computers as tools to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than the computers performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. Furthermore, blockchain transactions merely recite the type of transactions. The additional element of a cryptocurrency tumbler is merely cited as a component that temporarily holds the funds. 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)); the claim does not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)); and the claim does not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful ways beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claim does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor does it effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 11 as a whole, judging from the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, claim 11 as a whole fails to recite a practical application of the abstract idea.
Claim 11 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under Step 2B (MPEP 2106.05), using an interface, a classical computer, and a quantum computer to perform determining funds flow of transactions amounts to no more than using computers to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the interface, the classical computer, and the quantum computer perform the steps or functions of receiving transaction data, generating an input flow data and output flow data, providing problem data, receiving solution data, and generating connection-likelihood data indicating a likely connection between an input and an output. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Furthermore, blockchain transactions merely recite the type of transactions. The additional element of a cryptocurrency tumbler is merely cited as a component that temporarily holds the funds. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely recites determining funds flow of transactions via a formulation. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does nothing more than employing the computer components as tools to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional claim elements, when considered individually and in combination, fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, claim 11 is rejected as being directed toward patent-ineligible subject matter.
Claims 12-15 have also been considered for subject-matter eligibility. However, these claims fail to recite patent-eligible subject matter for the following reasons:
Claim 12 recites additional elements of wherein the input flow data comprises an input flow vector, and wherein the output flow data comprises an output flow vector. The additional element fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter as it simply describes the characteristics of the input flow data and the output flow data. The additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements merely recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea.
Claim 13 recites an additional element of wherein the connection-likelihood data comprises a probability matrix having entries indicative of flow probabilities between respective input funds and respective output funds. The additional element fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter as it simply describes the characteristics of the connection-likelihood data. The additional element is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not offer significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional element merely recites additional instructions to implement the abstract idea.
Claim 14 recites an additional element of wherein the problem data comprises an input flow matrix and an output flow matrix representative of the internal routing of funds through the cryptocurrency tumbler. The additional element fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter as it simply describes the characteristics of the problem data. The additional element is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not offer significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional element merely recites additional instructions to implement the abstract idea.
Claim 15 recites an additional element of wherein the quantum computer comprises a quantum annealer or an adiabatic quantum computer. The additional element fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter as it simply describes the characteristics of the quantum computer. The additional element is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not offer significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional element merely recites additional instructions to implement the abstract idea.
Claims Free of Art
Claims 1-10 are free of art. The closest prior art of record is as follows:
Hong et al. (“A Practical De-mixing Algorithm for Bitcoin Mixing Services,” 2018) discloses an internal flow determination method comprising the steps of: receiving blockchain transaction data comprising transactions representative of funds entering and exiting a cryptocurrency tumbler; generating, based on the blockchain transaction data, an input flow vector comprising a plurality of input entries, said input entries being indicative of a monetary amount entering a processing node comprising the cryptocurrency tumbler; generating an output flow vector comprising a plurality of output entries, said output entries being indicative of a monetary amount existing the processing node (see Section 3.2 Mixing service parameter analysis, page 17; Fig. 3; and Section 3.3 De-mixing algorithm, pages 17-18); determining an problem subject; solving a computation, and generating a probability matrix indicative connection between an input of the input flow vector and an output of the output flow vector (see Fig. 3; Section 3.3 De-mixing algorithm, pages 17-18); and generate a probability matrix indicating a likely connection between an input entry of the input flow vector and an output entry of the output flow vector. (See Fig. 3; Section 3.3 De-mixing algorithm, pages 17-18.)
Zaribafiyan et al. (WO 2018119522 A1) discloses receiving a quadratic unconstrained binary optimization (QUBO) problem from a user; solving the QUBO problem by a hybrid computer comprising a classical computer and a non-classical computer (see Abstract; paragraphs [0003]-[0005]; Fig. 1; and paragraph [0028]). The non-classical computer may comprise a quantum computer (see paragraph [0005]).
The cited references, alone or in combination, fail to disclose the subject matter of claim 1 as a whole.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. (“A Practical De-mixing Algorithm for Bitcoin Mixing Services,” 2018) in view of Zaribafiyan et al. (WO 2018119522 A1).
Claim 11:
Hong discloses the following:
a system for discovering hidden fund flows through a cryptocurrency tumbler; receiving blockchain transaction data comprising transactions representative of funds entering and exiting the cryptocurrency tumbler; generate, based on the blockchain transaction data, input flow data representing a plurality of input funds entering the cryptocurrency tumbler and output flow data representing a plurality of output funds exiting the cryptocurrency tumbler. (See Section Mixing service, pages 16-17; Section 3.2 Mixing service parameter analysis, page 17; Fig. 3; and Section 3.3 De-mixing algorithm, pages 17-18.)
provide problem data representative of an internal routing of funds through the cryptocurrency tumbler to a […] (process); receive, from the […] (process), solution data representative of the internal routing of funds through the cryptocurrency tumbler. (See Fig. 3; Section 3.3 De-mixing algorithm, pages 17-18.)
generate, based on the solution data, connection-likelihood data indicating a likely connection between an input fund of the plurality of input funds and an output fund of the plurality of out. (See Fig. 3; Section 3.3 De-mixing algorithm, pages 17-18.)
Hong does not disclose the following:
a computing system comprising: an interface, a classical computer coupled to the interface, and a quantum computer coupled to the classical computer;
providing data to the quantum computer and receiving solution from the quantum computer.
However, Zaribafiyan, an analogous art of processing complex computation, discloses the following:
a computing system comprising: an interface, a classical computer coupled to the interface, and a quantum computer coupled to the classical computer. (See Abstract; paragraphs [0003]-[0005]; Fig. 1; and paragraph [0028].)
providing data to the quantum computer and receiving solution from the quantum computer. (See paragraphs [0003]-[0005]; Fig. 1; and paragraph [0028].)
Hong discloses a de-mixing process that may be time-consuming. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Zaribafiyan in the Hong system. Moreover, in order to improve the process of de-mixing the Hong system, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize quantum computing to solve complex problems, so that the speed of the de-mixing process can be improved.
Claim 12:
Hong in view of Zaribafiyan discloses the limitations shown above.
Hong discloses wherein the input flow data comprises an input flow vector, and wherein the output flow data comprises an output flow vector. (See Fig. 3; Section 3.3 De-mixing algorithm, pages 17-18.)
Claim 13:
Hong in view of Zaribafiyan discloses the limitations shown above.
Hong discloses wherein the connection-likelihood data comprises a probability matrix having entries indicative of flow probabilities between respective input funds and respective output funds. (See Fig. 3; Section 3.3 De-mixing algorithm, pages 17-18.)
Claim 14:
Hong in view of Zaribafiyan discloses the limitations shown above.
Hong discloses wherein the problem data comprises an input flow matrix and an output flow matrix representative of the internal routing of funds through the cryptocurrency tumbler. (See Fig. 3; Section 3.3 De-mixing algorithm, pages 17-18.)
Claim 15:
Hong in view of Zaribafiyan discloses the limitations shown above.
Zaribafiyan discloses wherein the quantum computer comprises a quantum annealer or an adiabatic quantum computer. (See paragraph [0026]; paragraph [0030].)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Zaribafiyan in the Hong system. Moreover, in order to improve the process of de-mixing the Hong system, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize different types of quantum computing device, so that the flexibility of the system can be improved.
Conclusion
The prior art, made of record and not relied upon, is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Feng et al. (US 20220067738 A1) discloses tracing money flow using artificial intelligence. The method comprises receiving blockchain transaction data from a blockchain ledger to a transaction database, receiving intelligence labels from a blockchain ecosystem intelligence database, selecting a blockchain transaction flow comprising blockchain transactions associated with a digital account source address, digital account intermediate addresses, a digital account destination address, and intermediate transactions, receiving input trace parameters, wherein the input trace parameters include at least one of an objective directional setting, a tracing constraint, and a transaction filter, the transaction filter based on the transaction timestamps and the digital assets transferred, applying the intelligence labels to the digital account source address, the digital account intermediate addresses, and the digital account destination address, applying an artificial intelligence graph search algorithm to the blockchain transaction flow based on the input trace parameters, and generating a report including tracing destination summary statistics of the auto-traced path. The machine learning model may be utilized to identify addresses associated with behaviors such as mixer, tumbler, and money laundering.
Lucas (“Ising Formulations of Many NP Problems”, 2014) discloses utilizing Ising formulations for many NP-complete and NP-hard problems, such as graph division and graph coloring. An NP-hard problem is an optimization problem. Ising formulations/glasses are part of quadratic unconstrained binary optimization (QUBO).
Toyota et al. (WO 2022244129 A1) discloses generating an encryption graph in which the transaction between the accounts is graphed and analyzing the encrypted graph to identify a financial fraud, such as money laundering. A quantum computer is used to analyze the encrypted graph.
Nan et al. (“Bitcoin Mixing Detection Using Deep Autoencoder,” 2018) discloses a feature-based method to identify mixing services. The method demonstrates that Bitcoin transaction graphs possess community properties and that a mixing service can be regarded as a cluster outlier. To better detect mixing service accounts from graphs, the method proposes Bitcoin Graph Intermediate Point Detection (BGID). Overall, BGID can be divided into four stages. First, a directed graph from the Bitcoin transaction history recorded in the blockchain is created. Second, the vector representation of a node in the transaction graph is determined. Next, the entire graph is divided into several parts denoting the communities. Finally, local outlier probabilities are used to find the node with mixing service transactions.
Ushijima-Mwesigwa et al. (“Multilevel Combinatorial Optimization across Quantum Architectures,” February 2021) discloses utilizing of multilevel frameworks for combinatorial optimization as a promising general paradigm for designing hybrid quantum-classical algorithms. This method is applied to two well-known combinatorial optimization problems, namely, the Graph Partitioning Problem and the Community Detection Problem. The hybrid multi-level solvers are developed with quantum local search on D-Wave’s quantum annealer and IBM’s gate-model-based quantum processor.
Rose (CN 101657827 A) discloses improving the accuracy and computation time of automatic image recognition by the implementation of a plurality of graphs and a quantum processor by solving a QUBO problem.
De Carvalho et al. (US 20210390159 A1) discloses solving cost optimization problems. A method includes receiving data representing a cost optimization problem in a network, wherein i) the network is represented as a graph of nodes and edges, and ii) each edge comprises an associated cost; mapping the data representing the cost optimization problem in a network to a quadratic unconstrained binary optimization (QUBO) formulation of the cost optimization problem, the QUBO formulation comprising multiple variables with values determined by states of respective qubits, wherein each qubit corresponds to a respective edge of the graph of nodes and edges; obtaining data representing a solution to the cost optimization problem from a quantum computing resource; and initiating an action based on the obtained data representing a solution to the cost optimization problem.
Glover et al. (“Quantum Bridge Analytics I: A Tutorial on Formulating and Using QUBO Models,” 2019) discloses reformulating important optimization problems as QUBO models through a series of explicit examples. Each step of generating such models is illustrated in detail by simple numerical examples, to highlight the convenience of using QUBO models in numerous settings. The article further describes recent innovations for solving QUBO models that offer a fertile avenue for integrating classical and quantum computing and for applying these models in machine learning.
Esfahani et al. (WO 2021126773 A1) discloses solving discrete quadratic models. Methods executed via a hybrid computing system obtain two candidate values for each variable; construct a Hamiltonian that uses a binary value to determine which candidate values each variable should take, and then build a binary quadratic model based on the Hamiltonian. Samples from the binary quadratic model are obtained via a quantum processor. The methods can be applied to solve resource scheduling optimization problems.
Caprolu et al. (“A Novel Framework for the Analysis of Unknown Transactions in Bitcoin: Theory, Model, and Experimental Results,” March 2021) discloses a novel approach based on sound graph theory for identifying transaction inputs and outputs. The solution implements two simple yet innovative features: It does not rely on BTC addresses and explores all the transactions stored in the blockchain. All the other existing solutions fail with respect to one or both of the cited features. In detail, the invention first introduces the concept of Unknown Transaction and provides a new framework to parse the Bitcoin blockchain by taking them into account. Then, the invention introduces a theoretical model to detect, study, and classify—for the first time in the literature—unknown transaction patterns in the user network.
Ramasamy et al. (US 20220108318 A1) discloses quantum computing based real-time verification system. A computing platform may receive one or more features of a transaction by a customer, and retrieve, from a plurality of data sources, one or more attributes that may impact the transaction. Then, the computing platform may identify a plurality of business rules applicable to the transaction. Then, the computing platform may transform, based on the one or more features of the transaction, the one or more attributes that may impact the transaction, and the plurality of business rules applicable to the transaction, the transaction to sequence of quantum bits. Subsequently, the computing platform may determine a risk score for the sequence of qyantum bits. Then, the computing platform may determine whether the transaction is valid and provide an alert to the transaction processing platform.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. The 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 CHUNLING DING whose telephone number is (571)270-3605. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 7:30 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, an 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 at 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.
/CHUNLING DING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
