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
Claims 1-13, as originally filed 09/06/2023, are pending and have been examined on the merits (claims 1 and 13 being independent). The applicant’s claim for benefit of foreign application KR10-2022-0113485 filed 09/07/2022 has been received and acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/06/2023 and 04/30/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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: a “contract concluding unit configured to”, an “account creating unit configured to”, an “account registering unit configured to”, and a “communication unit configured to” in claim 13.
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. If 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 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 1-12 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 1 recites the limitation “--second, and third terminals --" in line 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim 1.
Dependent claims (2-12) stand rejected also, under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) by virtue of their dependency on a rejected claim.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, (1) it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, (2a) it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so (2b), it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. (2014).
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. In the instant case, the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Step (1): In the instant case, the claims are directed towards to a method for providing a digital asset management service which contains the steps of concluding, creating, registering, processing, authenticating, seeking, selecting, and generating. The claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process. The claims do fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 1 is direct to a method and claim 13 is direct to a device, i.e. machines programmed to carrying out process steps, Step 1-yes.
Step (2A) Prong 1: A method for providing a digital asset management service is akin to the abstract idea subject matter grouping of: Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as fundamental economic principles or practices and commercial or legal interactions. As such, the claims include an abstract idea.
The specific limitations of the invention are (a) identified to encompass the abstract idea include: concluding… processing conclusion of a contract…, creating… a contract account…, registering… a party account…., executing… contract contents…, processing… a transaction…, creating… a new party account…, re-registering… newly created party…, authenticating… a successor…, seeking… compensation…, selecting… a mnemonic…, generating… a private key…, generating… a public key…, and creating… the party account…
As stated above, this abstract idea falls into the (b) subject matter grouping of: Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as fundamental economic principles or practices and commercial or legal interactions.
Step (2A) Prong 2: The instant claims do not integrate the exception into a practical application because additional elements: “digital asset management device”, “cryptographic keys”, “the first, second, and third terminals”, and “smart contract” amount to simply applying the abstract idea to a computer component. (e.g. “apply it”) do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception (i.e. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(h) or apply it with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The instant recited claims including additional elements (i.e., digital asset management device, cryptographic keys, the first, second, and third terminals, smart contract) do not improve the functioning of the computer or improve another technology or technical field nor do they recite meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations merely use a generic computing technology (Specification paragraphs [0072-0073]: blockchain platform 500, network 600, blockchain nodes 501, blockchain 510, digital distributed ledger, each block 511, smart contract) as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(h) or apply it with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea
Step (2B): 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 elements (Claims: e.g., digital asset management device, cryptographic keys, the first, second, and third terminals, smart contract) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exactly using generic computer component. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea over a generic computer network with a generic computer component.
The computer is merely a platform on which the abstract idea is implemented. Simply executing an abstract concept on a computer does not render a computer “specialized,” nor does it transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2012). There are no improvements to another technology or technical field, no improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing or any other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment as a result of performing the claimed method. Also, the addition of merely novel or non-routine components to the claimed idea does not necessarily turn an abstraction into something concrete (See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, _ F.3d_, 2014 WL 5904902, (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2014). Hence, the claims do not recite significantly more than an abstract idea. In conclusion, merely “linking/applying” the exception using generic computer components does not constitute ‘significantly more’ than the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05 (f) (h)). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Dependent claims 2-12 when analyzed as a whole and in an ordered combination are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below. The additional recited limitations in the dependent claims only refine the abstract idea.
For instance, in claim 2, the step of “… … automatically execute contract contents when a pre-defined contract requirement is met.” (i.e., executing a contract), in claims 3, the step of “… wherein the contract comprises a requirement of subscribing to insurance with digital assets as goods insured.” (i.e., having an insurance), in claim 4, the step of “… wherein the third party is at least one of an insurance company of the insurance,...” (i.e., third party being an insurance company), in claim 5, the step of “… wherein the cryptographic keys comprise a first cryptographic key generated by the first terminal, a second cryptographic key generated by the second terminal,...” (i.e., generating keys), in claim 6, the step of “… a transaction regarding the digital assets of the user is performed upon execution of a code defined in the smart contract” (i.e., processing a transaction), in claim 7, the step of “… processing a transaction regarding the digital assets based on multi-signature that utilizes a majority of cryptographic keys among the first cryptographic key,...” (i.e., processing a transaction), in claim 8, the step of “… processing a loss of the first cryptographic key.” (i.e., processing a loss…), in claim 9, the step of “… creating a new party account of the user based on a new first cryptographic key; and re-registering the newly created party account onto the contract account...” (i.e., creating an account), in claim 10, the step of “… authenticating a successor of the user's status from at least one of the second terminal ...” (i.e., authenticating a successor), in claim 11, the step of “… seeking compensation for the damage from the third party...” (i.e., seeking compensation), and in claim 12, the step of “… selecting a mnemonic from a dictionary; generating a private key ...” (i.e., generating keys) are all processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a fundamental economic practice but for the recitation of a generic computer component. Processing a transaction regarding the digital assets using a smart contract is a most fundamental commercial process.
This is an abstract concept with nothing more and is also considered mere instructions to apply an exception akin to a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd.; Gottschalk and Versata Dev. Group, Inc.; see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
In dependent claims 2-12, the step claimed are rejected under the same analysis and rationale as the independent claims 1 and 13 above. Merely claiming the same process using a smart contract to perform a transaction regarding the digital assets does not change the abstract idea without an inventive concept or significantly more. Clearly, the additional recited limitations in the dependent claims only refine the abstract idea further. Further refinement of an abstract idea does not convert an abstract idea into something concrete.
Therefore, claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 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 1-6 and 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright Craig Steven et al. (hereinafter Wright), KR 2018-0114939 A in view of Shi et al. (hereinafter Shi), US Publication Number 2020/0151167 A1.
Regarding claim 1:
Wright discloses the following:
A digital asset management method performed by a digital asset management device, the method comprising: (Wright: See abstract, “the invention provides a computer implemented system configured to control transmissions over a block chain, the computer system comprising: an asset comprising a plurality of individual cryptographic keys, each associated with an owner of the asset; A smart contract comprising a registry comprising a plurality of public cryptographic keys, at least one rule relating to automatic generation of one or more block chain transactions to enable transfer of the assets; And a computing agent configured to evaluate and /or execute at least one rule of the smart contract”)
concluding (reads on “Establish a contract signed with a digital signature.”), by a first terminal corresponding to the digital asset management device, processing conclusion of a contract regarding a digital asset management service between a user, a service provider of the digital asset management service, and a third party through online (reads on “peer-to-peer distributed networks such as blockchains”) connections; (Wright: See page 6, lines 1-23: “The present invention generally relates to computer implemented control, exchange and processing of assets. Particularly for the field of smart contracts, is suitable for use with peer-to-peer distributed networks such as blockchains. This may be a bit coin block chain or a replacement block chain platform. The invention is particularly beneficial in situations where ownership of an asset is divided among multiple entities, and / or where value is generated or generated from an asset…. Establish a contract signed with a digital signature. A smart contract can be designed to provide a self-executable, machine-readable solution that can include conditions and tests that can be evaluated to determine what action to take (for example, whether to pay to a particular party).”)
Wright does not explicitly disclose the following, however Shi further teaches:
creating a contract account based on the contract; and (Shi: See paragraph [0068] “the client 111 may transmit information (e.g., a request with relevant information for creating a blockchain account) to the server end 118 for the server end 118 to create a blockchain account.”)
registering (reads on “add the signed blockchain transaction to the blockchain”) a party account corresponding to the first terminal among party accounts, which are created based on cryptographic keys managed by the first, second, and third terminals, onto the contract account. (Shi: See paragraph [0081] “the KMS 313 may use a private key of a cryptographic key pair associated with the blockchain account to create a digital signature for the blockchain transaction and provide the digital signature to the blockchain service system 311. The blockchain service system 311 may then add the signed blockchain transaction to the blockchain associated with the blockchain system 330.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify providing a technical device for calculating, registering and/or distributing costs in proportion to the current ownership of the asset and a new technique for generating a cryptographic key of Wright to include transmitting information to the server end to create a blockchain account, as taught by Shi, in order to make a transaction in the blockchain. (See Shi, [0003-0004])
Regarding claim 2:
Wright discloses the following:
The digital asset management method of claim 1, wherein the contract is based on a smart contract designed to automatically execute contract contents when a pre-defined contract requirement is met. (Wright: See page 3, lines 26-27: “The computing agent may be configured to generate a block chain transaction upon detection of an event or trigger specified in the smart contract.”)
Regarding claim 3:
Wright does not explicitly disclose the following, however Shi further teaches:
The digital asset management method of claim 1, wherein the contract comprises a requirement of subscribing (reads on “a proof of property-loss insurance for up to one million dollars that has been purchased by the entity associated with the user-side system 340.”) to insurance with digital assets as goods insured. (Shi: See paragraph [0091] “The service-side system 310 may also have received a proof of property-loss insurance for up to one million dollars that has been purchased by the entity associated with the user-side system 340. The service-side system 310 may thereby grant the user-side system 340 permissions to issue digital assets corresponding to antiques with a value up to one million dollars. In the scenario of this example, the service-side system 310 may determine a type and an estimated value of the tangible asset associated with the request for creating the digital asset.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify providing a technical device for calculating, registering and/or distributing costs in proportion to the current ownership of the asset and a new technique for generating a cryptographic key of Wright to include transmitting information to the server end to create a blockchain account with an insurance for the digital asset, as taught by Shi, in order to secure a transaction in the blockchain. (See Shi, [0003-0004])
Regarding claim 4:
Wright does not explicitly disclose the following, however Shi further teaches:
The digital asset management method of claim 3, wherein the third party (reads on “institutions approved by related government regulatory entities) is at least one of an insurance company of the insurance, a reputable public institution, and a private institution. (Shi: See paragraph [0055] “The parties interacting with the asset management platform may be regulated using a role based permission system, in which certain privileged operations may be limited to corresponding permission holders. For example, the creator of digital assets may be limited to institutions approved by related government regulatory entities.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify providing a technical device for calculating, registering and/or distributing costs in proportion to the current ownership of the asset and a new technique for generating a cryptographic key of Wright to include transmitting information to the server end to create a blockchain account with an insurance for the digital asset, as taught by Shi, in order to secure a transaction in the blockchain. (See Shi, [0003-0004])
Regarding claim 5:
Wright discloses the following:
The digital asset management method according to claim 3, wherein the cryptographic keys (reads on “an asset comprising a plurality of individual cryptographic keys, each associated with an owner of the asset”) comprise a first cryptographic key generated by the first terminal, a second cryptographic key generated by the second terminal, and a third cryptographic key generated by the third terminal. (Wright: See page 3, lines 30-31: “The present invention provides a computer-implemented method for controlling transmission over a block chain, the method comprising: defining an asset comprising a plurality of individual cryptographic keys, each associated with an owner of the asset”)
Regarding claim 6:
Wright discloses the following:
The digital asset management method of claim 5, wherein when the contract requirement is met, a transaction regarding the digital assets of the user is performed upon execution of a code defined in the smart contract. (Wright: See page 3, lines 26-27: “The computing agent may be configured to generate a block chain transaction upon detection of an event or trigger specified in the smart contract.”)
Regarding claim 10:
Wright discloses the following:
The digital asset management method of claim 5, further comprising:
in an event of a succession of the user's status, authenticating a successor of the user's status from at least one of the second terminal and the third terminal in accordance with provisions of the smart contract. (Wright: See page 21, lines 23-32: “as in a peer-to-peer scenario, a second signature message SM2 may be generated at the second node 7 and sent to the first node 3, Allowing the node 3 to authenticate the second node 7.”)
Regarding claim 13:
Wright discloses the following:
A multi-signature-based digital asset management device comprising:
a contract concluding unit configured to process (reads on “Establish a contract signed with a digital signature.”) a contract regarding a digital asset management service between a user, a service provider of the digital asset management service, and a third party by accessing a second terminal of the service terminal and a third terminal of the third party online (reads on “peer-to-peer distributed networks such as blockchains”); (Wright: See page 6, lines 1-23: “The present invention generally relates to computer implemented control, exchange and processing of assets. Particularly for the field of smart contracts, is suitable for use with peer-to-peer distributed networks such as blockchains. This may be a bit coin block chain or a replacement block chain platform. The invention is particularly beneficial in situations where ownership of an asset is divided among multiple entities, and / or where value is generated or generated from an asset…. Establish a contract signed with a digital signature. A smart contract can be designed to provide a self-executable, machine-readable solution that can include conditions and tests that can be evaluated to determine what action to take (for example, whether to pay to a particular party).”)
a communication unit configured to perform communication with the second terminal and the third terminal. (Wright: See page 20, lines 37-40: “a system 1 comprising a first node 3 in communication with a second node 7 via a communication network 5. The first node 3 has an associated first processing device 23 and the second node 5 has an associated second processing device 1. The first and second nodes 3 and 7 are connected to a computer, Devices, computer servers, and the like. In one example, the first node 3 may be a client and the second node 7 may be a server. The server may be a server of a digital wallet provider.”)
Wright does not explicitly disclose the following, however Shi further teaches:
an account creating unit configured to create a contract account; (Shi: See paragraph [0068] “the client 111 may transmit information (e.g., a request with relevant information for creating a blockchain account) to the server end 118 for the server end 118 to create a blockchain account.”)
an account registering unit configured to register a party account, created based on a cryptographic key managed by the user, onto the contract account; and (Shi: See paragraph [0081] “the KMS 313 may use a private key of a cryptographic key pair associated with the blockchain account to create a digital signature for the blockchain transaction and provide the digital signature to the blockchain service system 311. The blockchain service system 311 may then add the signed blockchain transaction to the blockchain associated with the blockchain system 330.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify providing a technical device for calculating, registering and/or distributing costs in proportion to the current ownership of the asset and a new technique for generating a cryptographic key of Wright to include transmitting information to the server end to create a blockchain account, as taught by Shi, in order to make a transaction in the blockchain. (See Shi, [0003-0004])
Claims 7-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright in view of Shi in further view of Park Soo Yong et al. (hereinafter Park), KR 2021-0059525 A.
Regarding claim 7:
Wright and Shi do not explicitly disclose the following, however Park further teaches:
The digital asset management method of claim 6, further comprising: in response to the first cryptographic key being managed by the first terminal, processing a transaction regarding the digital assets based on multi-signature that utilizes a majority of cryptographic keys among the first cryptographic key, the second cryptographic key, and the third cryptographic key. (Park: See page 3, lines 1-15: “The multi-signature server 20 is a server that receives and holds private keys for nodes constituting a blockchain network and performs multi-signatures, and is a second individual among the three private keys initially generated from the user terminal 10. The key is provided, held, and multi-signatures are made, which can be a server of a company that manages a blockchain network, a server of a general company, or a server of a bitcoin exchange. In general, the multi-signature server may be an exchange server, and possesses a second private key in order to generate a transaction based on multi-signature.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify providing a technical device for calculating, registering and/or distributing costs in proportion to the current ownership of the asset and a new technique for generating a cryptographic key of Wright to include processing a privates key to generate a transaction based on multi-signature, as taught by Park, in order to secure a transaction. (See Park, page 3)
Regarding claim 8:
Wright and Shi do not explicitly disclose the following, however Park further teaches:
The digital asset management method of claim 5, further comprising: in response to the first cryptographic key being lost, processing a loss of the first cryptographic key. (Park: See page 6, lines 13-21: “The system according to the present invention can safely recover the private key when each user loses or damages their private key in the blockchain network. In the past, in the case of loss of a private key that only the user should own, there is no separate recovery method to find the assets stored in the blockchain, but by applying PKI-based symmetric key encryption through identity verification and authentication according to the present invention, Even if the private key is lost, it can be recovered.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify providing a technical device for calculating, registering and/or distributing costs in proportion to the current ownership of the asset and a new technique for generating a cryptographic key of Wright to include processing a privates key to generate a transaction based on multi-signature, as taught by Park, in order to recover the private key. (See Park, page 6)
Regarding claim 9:
Wright does not explicitly disclose the following, however Shi further teaches:
The digital asset management method of claim 8, wherein the processing of the loss of the first cryptographic key comprises:
creating a new party account of the user based on a new first cryptographic key; and (Shi: See paragraph [0081] “the KMS 313 may use a private key of a cryptographic key pair associated with the blockchain account to create a digital signature for the blockchain transaction and provide the digital signature to the blockchain service system 311. The blockchain service system 311 may then add the signed blockchain transaction to the blockchain associated with the blockchain system 330.”)
re-registering the newly created party account onto the contract account through authentication of the second terminal and the third terminal. (Shi: See paragraph [0070-0071] “Upon receiving the new block, the other blockchain nodes may perform verifications. If a consensus is reached that the new block is valid, the new block is respectively packed to the local copies of the blockchain maintained by the blockchain nodes.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify providing a technical device for calculating, registering and/or distributing costs in proportion to the current ownership of the asset and a new technique for generating a cryptographic key of Wright to include transmitting information to the server end to create a blockchain account, as taught by Shi, in order to make a transaction in the blockchain. (See Shi, [0003-0004])
Regarding claim 11:
Wright does not explicitly disclose the following, however Shi further teaches:
The digital asset management method of claim 8, further comprising: in response to the user incurring damage caused to the digital assets that are the goods insured (reads on “a proof of property-loss insurance for up to one million dollars that has been purchased by the entity”), seeking compensation for the damage from the third party through the third terminal. (Shi: See paragraph [0091] “The service-side system 310 may also have received a proof of property-loss insurance for up to one million dollars that has been purchased by the entity associated with the user-side system 340. The service-side system 310 may thereby grant the user-side system 340 permissions to issue digital assets corresponding to antiques with a value up to one million dollars. In the scenario of this example, the service-side system 310 may determine a type and an estimated value of the tangible asset associated with the request for creating the digital asset.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify providing a technical device for calculating, registering and/or distributing costs in proportion to the current ownership of the asset and a new technique for generating a cryptographic key of Wright to include transmitting information to the server end to create a blockchain account with an insurance for the digital asset, as taught by Shi, in order to secure a transaction in the blockchain. (See Shi, [0003-0004])
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright in view of Shi in further view of JEOUNG KI OOK et al. (hereinafter JEOUNG), KR 10-2377987 B1.
Regarding claim 12:
Wright and Shi do not explicitly disclose the following, however JEOUNG further teaches:
The digital asset management method of claim 1, wherein the creating of the party account comprises:
selecting a mnemonic from a dictionary; (JEOUNG: See page 8, liens 31-45: “The electronic wallet module 220 allows digitalized cryptocurrency to be stored and used. Such electronic wallet module 220 may display cryptocurrency deposit and withdrawal information. The electronic wallet module 220 allows stored cryptocurrency to be deposited and withdrawn when a plurality of mnemonics, such as a reference key (A) set by the user, is input. For example, the key generation module 210 is 'T', 'R', 'S', 'T', 'V', 'E', 'R', 'S',' as shown in Figure 4. When letters are entered in the order 'E', a reference key (A) can be created in the order in which they were entered. At this time, the generated reference key (A) can be an important key formed by the user, and is used as a reference value for whether or not the encryption key (B) to be decrypted can be decrypted later.”)
generating a private key among the cryptographic keys by using the mnemonic; (JEOUNG: See page 8, liens 31-45: “the key generation module 210 is a computing device that generates the reference key (A). This key generation module 210 includes a reference key generator 211, and when a plurality of characters (C) are received through the reference key generator 211, the order of the received characters is generated as a reference key (A).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify providing a technical device for calculating, registering and/or distributing costs in proportion to the current ownership of the asset and a new technique for generating a cryptographic key of Wright to include generating the reference key with a plurality of mnemonics, as taught by JEOUNG, in order to make it easier to recall. (See JEOUNG, page 8)
Wright discloses the following:
generating a public key among the cryptographic keys by using a private key; and (Wright: See page 28, lines 12-14: “A private or public key pair can be created by inserting a new message at any point in the chain or tree. The message itself may be arbitrary, or it may carry some meaning or function (e.g., it may relate to a 'real' bank account number, etc.). It may be desirable that such new messages for forming a new private / public key pair remain secure.”)
creating the party account by using the public key. (Wright: See page 18, lines 26-27: “Waiting for your earnings to be paid to your related account. In this example, a prize of £ 20,400 will be paid at 80 BTC and the public key hash address of the racehorse”)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record but not relied upon herein but pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure is listed in the enclosed PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONG S PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-8349. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 PM, EST.
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, Bennett M. Sigmond can be reached on (303)297-4411. 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.
/YONGSIK PARK/Examiner, Art Unit 3694
September 13, 2025
/GREGORY S CUNNINGHAM II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694