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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/17/21 has been entered.
Application Status
Claims 4 and 24 have been canceled.
Claim 31 has been added.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 21-23, and 25-31 are pending and have been examined.
Withdrawn Rejections
The 112(a) rejections of claims 4 and 5 are withdrawn in view of the amendments received. The aforementioned claims are cancelled by Applicant amendment.
Claim Rejections
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 21-23, and 25-301 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 for being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Objections (Allowable Subject Matter)
Claim 31 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Acknowledgement of Issues Raised by Applicant
Applicant’s arguments drawn to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections in view of claims 1-3, 5-10, 21-23, and 25-30 have been fully considered but are not deemed persuasive. See “Response to Arguments” section further below.
Applicant’s arguments drawn to the patent eligibility of claim 31 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the lack of a 35 U.S.C. § 101 applied to claim 31.
Response to Arguments
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 101 arguments
With respect to the 101 rejections, Examiner notes Applicant asserts the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 and Alice/Mayo analysis per the claims not reciting an abstract idea, being successfully integrated into a practical application, and amounting to significantly more. The Examiner respectfully disagrees (analysis continues below).
The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments drawn to step 2A Prong I of Alice/Mayo analysis2 for the following reasons:
Examiner respectfully maintains that the claim limitations above do not merely involve an exception, but rather include positively recited steps of mitigating liquidity risk by balancing financial assets between different stores of value. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(1), emphasis added: “Examiners should accordingly be careful to distinguish claims that recite an exception (which require further eligibility analysis) and claims that merely involve an exception (which are eligible and do not require further eligibility analysis”. In other words, Examiner respectfully maintains that the claims clearly recite fundamental economic practices of mitigating liquidity risk by balancing financial assets between different stores of value, not just mere involvement of the abstract idea. Regardless of Applicant’s asserted basis for eligibility drawn to the additional elements, Examiner fails to see how the positively recited limitations of “…detecting a lack of sufficient liquidity…” are not recitations of fundamental economic practice. The Examiner further fails to see as to how the claims are merely involving an exception, as the claims clearly recite claim limitations including steps of detecting a lack of sufficient liquidity. The Examiner does not contend that the computer components / additional elements are abstract. However, the mere inclusion of claim limitations drawn to computer components does not necessarily preclude the same aforementioned claims from being considered to recite an abstract idea under step 2A prong I of Alice/Mayo analysis – see Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., 792 F.3d 1363, 1366, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015): ("An abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer"). This fact is evident in light of the sequence of steps performed during the revised Alice/Mayo test – see MPEP §2106.04(II)(A) showing a visual summary of revised step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test.
Accordingly, the Examiner respectfully maintains the claims recite an abstract idea under step 2A prong I of Alice/Mayo analysis (Step 2A Prong I of Alice/Mayo Test: Yes, the claims recite an abstract idea).
The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments drawn to step 2A Prong II and step 2B of Alice/Mayo analysis3 for the following reasons:
In response to applicant’s argument on page 11 asserting a technical improvement, the examiner respectfully maintains that a digital wallet configured to manage fund availability an access blockchain networks (i.e., L1 and L2 blockchain networks) is merely descriptive of a generic lightning blockchain wallet (e.g., Zap wallet, muun wallet). The abstract liquidity risk mitigation techniques are merely limited to this particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
In response to applicant’s argument on page 11 pertaining to “…automatically without user intervention…”, Examiner fails to find argument persuasive for at least the following reasons:
Applicant’s claims fail to describe any particular technological details that realize this automation, the claims just state that it occurs at a high degree of generality – See MPEP §2106.05 (f)(1): “…claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words ‘apply it’”.
Merely automating the abstract liquidity processes to try to make the process faster or more efficient does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Customedia Techs. V. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“We have held that ‘claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer’ was insufficient to render the claims patent eligible as an improvement to computer functionality.”) (citation omitted); Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Commce’n Tech. Holdings Ltd., 955 F.3d 1317, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“Even assuming this collection of elements led to a more efficient way of controlling resource access, ‘our precedent is clear that merely adding computer functionality to increase the speed or efficiency of the process does not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea.’’’) (citation omitted); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (same).
With respect to applicant’s argument drawn to ¶26 of Applicant’s specification, merely displaying data is well-understood, routine and conventional activity for computers, as is merely adding numbers, as in the case of the “unified balance”. It is at least for these reasons that the arguments drawn to Core Wireless are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s argument drawn to ¶28 of Applicant’s specification, Examiner respectfully maintains the claims do not include sufficient details to explain as to how faster transaction execution and reduced power consumption occurs from a technological perspective. The purported solution appears to be rooted in the abstract idea itself (i.e., moving funds in support of liquidity). As reasoned in SAP Am., Inc. v.
InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2018): “[P]atent law does not protect such claims [,i.e., claims to an asserted advance in the realm of abstract ideas], without more, no matter how groundbreaking the advance.”).
With respect to applicant’s argument drawn to Multi-party computation (MPC), Examiner respectfully submits Applicant’s argument is not commensurate with claim scope, as the claims do not include any recitation of MPC, either expressly or implicitly.
Unlike McRo, Examiner respectfully fails to see as to how the instant claim limitations use “rules reflect[ing] a specific implementation not demonstrated as that which … [one of ordinary skill in the art] engaged in the search for [an automation process] would likely have utilized.” – the claims instead utilize a generic and non-descript layer-two digital wallet device which displays a unified balance, performs the abstract liquidity processes at a high degree of generality, absent of any particular technological details of how this is achieved, and performs a transaction via cryptographic keys (of which is customary to the technological environment the abstract idea is merely limited to). To further highlight the distinction in specificity between applicant’s claims and McRo, note the following claim limitations of McRo:
“a method for automatically animating lip synchronization and facial expression of three-dimensional characters comprising: obtaining a first set of rules that define output morph weight set stream as a function of phoneme sequence and time of said phoneme sequence; obtaining a timed data file of phonemes having a plurality of sub-sequences; generating an intermediate stream of output morph weight sets and a plurality of transition parameters between two adjacent morph weight sets by evaluating said plurality of sub-sequences against said first set of rules; generating a final stream of output morph weight sets at a … frame rate from said intermediate stream of output morph weight sets and said plurality of transition parameters; and applying said final stream of output morph weight sets to a sequence of animated characters to produce lip synchronization and facial expression control of said animated characters”,
relative to the following automation processes of the instant claims:
“…automatically detecting, based on the comparison, a lack of sufficient liquidity by the layer 1 network or the layer 2 network based on the first set of cryptographic tokens or the second set of cryptographic tokens;
automatically transferring, responsive to the automatically detected lack of sufficient liquidity detecting automatically and without user intervention, cryptographic tokens in support of sufficient liquidity between the layer 1 network and the layer 2 network; …”.
Accordingly, Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s contentions that McRo is particularly pertinent to the Alice/Mayo analysis of the instant claims, and respectfully submits that their claims do not have sufficient details to indicate improvements to a technical field, unlike the claimed subject matter discussed in McRo. See § 2106.04(d)(1).
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 1-3, 5-10, 21-23, and 25-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As an initial matter, the relevant test is the Alice/Mayo test4. The following analysis provided in this section results from the instant application’s claims being examined within the scope of the Alice/Mayo test framework.
With respect Step 1 of Alice/Mayo analysis, the claims are either directed to a method, device, or non-transitory computer program product, which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1 of Alice/Mayo Test: YES).
In light of step 2A Alice/Mayo analysis performed on the instant claims5, claims 1-3, 5-10, 21-23, and 25-31 have been determined to be directed to an abstract idea of mitigating liquidity risk. The rationales for the aforementioned determination are explained further below.
Prior to step 2A Prong I Alice/Mayo analysis, examiner notes they have identified method claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis under step 2A Prong I, as method claim 1 is analogous to device claim 21 and computer program product claim 29 under step 2A Prong I analysis. I.e., the step 2A Prong I Alice/Mayo rationales applied to claim 1 (below) are similarly applied to claims 21 and 29, mutatis mutandis.
When analyzed under prong I of revised step 2A, claims 1-3, 5-10, 21-23, and 25-30 each recite a method of organizing human activity,6 because independent claims 1, 21, and 29 each recite claim limitations drawn to:
“1. A method comprising:
displaying … a unified balance having a single value representative of a total value of …[total currency balance] available via a first set of … [currency] available via a … [first store of currency]; and a second set of … [currency] available via …[a second store of currency];
receiving a request to initiate a transfer of a portion of the total value of [total currency balance] … wherein the request is represented …
comparing the portion of the total value of … [currency] to the first set of … [currency] and the second set of … [currency];
… detecting, based on the comparison, a lack of sufficient liquidity by the … [first or second store of currency];
… transferring, responsive to the … detected lack of sufficient liquidity and without user intervention, … [currency] in support of sufficient liquidity between the … [first and second store of currency];
receiving … an indication of an interaction … to initiate the transfer of the portion;
verifying, … the request …;
executing, in response to the interaction, the transfer of the portion … .”
Under broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification7, the above claim limitations recite fundamental economic practices of mitigating liquidity risk by balancing financial assets between different stores of value, in light of a pending transaction. (Step 2A Prong I of Alice/Mayo Test: Yes, the claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception recited in independent claims 1, 21, and 29 is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong II of revised step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test8:
The additional elements “…displaying at a first edge device associated with one or more decentralized networks, an interactive user interface with a first interactive element that includes … [data]”, “…cryptographic tokens…”, “…layer 2 network of the one or more decentralized networks…”, “…wherein the layer 2 network is layered on top of a layer 1 network of the one or more decentralized networks, and where in the layer 2 network is associated with a first cryptographic key generated by the first edge device…”, “the layer 1 network, wherein the layer 1 network is associated with a second cryptographic key generated by a hardware key device;”, “[represented] by a second interactive element of the interactive user interface;”, “…automatically…”, “…by the layer 1 network or the layer 2 network…”, “…between the layer 1 network and the layer 2 network…”, “…a device comprising: a processing device; and a computer readable storage medium storing instructions that, responsive to execution by the processing device, causes the processing device to perform operations including:”, and “…One or more computer-readable storage media that are non-transitory that, responsive to execution by a processing device, causes the processing device to perform operations including…” amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05 (f), (h)), even when considering the additional elements both separately and as an ordered combination. Stating an abstract idea while adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) is insufficient to impart patent eligibility under Alice. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24 (2014): "… Stating an abstract idea "while adding the words ‘apply it’ " is not enough for patent eligibility. … Nor is limiting the use of an abstract idea " ‘to a particular technological environment.’ … Stating an abstract idea while adding the words "apply it with a computer" simply combines those two steps, with the same deficient result”.
The Applicant’s claims fail to provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) & 2106.05(a)).
The judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement under Alice/Mayo analysis, and an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not a technological solution to a technological problem (MPEP §§ 2106.05 (a), (a) II). See the following:
MPEP 2106.05(a) II: “… it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology … Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient.”
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015): “... our precedent is clear that merely adding computer functionality to increase the speed or efficiency of the process does not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea.”
Customedia Techs. V. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, (Fed. Cir. 2020): “We have held that ‘claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer’ was insufficient to render the claims patent eligible as an improvement to computer functionality”.
In light of the above rationales provided for step 2A Prong II analysis, the Examiner respectfully submits the focus of the claims is not on an improvement in computers as tools, but rather on an abstract idea that uses computers as tools. Considered both separately and as an ordered combination, the additional elements of the independent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as they do no more than represent computers performing functions that correspond to (,i.e., implement,) the acts of the abstract liquidity risk mitigation within a particular technological environment, and do not provide details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claims as reflecting an improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field. (Step 2A Prong II of Alice/Mayo Test: NO, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application). Accordingly, claims 1, 21, and 29 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea.
When analyzed under step 2B9, claims 1, 21, and 29 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 1, 21, and 29, each when viewed as a whole, do not include elements amounting to significantly more, as their additional elements, each viewed both individually and as an ordered combination, amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract liquidity risk mitigation concept within a particular technological environment – see MPEP §§ 2106.05 (f), (h) and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24 (2014). Even though claims 1, 21, and 29 utilize edge devices, decentralized networks, cryptographic tokens, and layer 1 and layer 2 networks, the manner by which the claims’ additional elements are used is indistinguishable from mere addition of general-purpose computers added post-hoc to the abstract idea recited. Nothing in the claims indicate specific steps undertaken by the computer elements that are beyond conventional functionality of generic layer two (e.g., lightning wallets) being used at a high degree of generality, excepting the abstract idea it is merely used as a tool for – the claimed blockchain implementation itself is wholly generic when viewed in light of the technological environment of layer-2 blockchain solutions. Accordingly, when considered both separately and as an ordered combination, none of the elements of the independent claims add significantly more to the abstract idea itself (i.e., an inventive concept), as merely employing computers as tools to automate and/or implement the abstract idea within a particular technological environment cannot provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself – see BSG Tech LLC vs. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018): “It has been clear since Alice that a Claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept”.
Hence, independent claims 1, 21, and 29 are not patent eligible.
With respect to the dependent claims, they have each been given the full Alice/Mayo analysis, including analyzing the additional elements both individually and as an ordered combination (if any). The dependent claims are also held patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because of the same reasoning as above, and because the claim limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims are integrated into a practical application or amount to significantly more. The rationales for the aforementioned determinations are explained further below.
With respect to dependent claims 2 and 22, the additional limitations, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not recite additional elements outside of the abstract idea that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim fails to establish that the previously mentioned additional elements are successfully integrated / amounting to significantly more, either alone or in combination, and the claims merely utilizes a generic “on-chain event” at a high degree of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea by adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) - See MPEP 2106.05(f), and the “on-chain” element of “on-chain liquidity” is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment – see MPEP 2106.05(h). Accordingly, in view of the claim failing to establish that the aforementioned additional elements are successfully integrated / amounting to significantly more, either alone or in combination, dependent claims 2 and 22 are not patent eligible subject matter.
With respect to dependent claims 3 and 23, the additional limitations, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not recite additional elements outside of the abstract idea that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims fail to establish that the previously mentioned additional elements are successfully integrated / amounting to significantly more, either alone or in combination, and the claim merely utilizes generic splicing at a high degree of generality, and merely in terms of results, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea by adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, in view of the claims failing to establish that the aforementioned additional elements are successfully integrated / amounting to significantly more, either alone or in combination, dependent claims 3, 4, 23, and 24 are not patent eligible subject matter.
With respect to dependent claims 5 and 25, the additional limitations, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not recite additional elements outside of the abstract idea that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims fail to establish that the previously mentioned additional elements are successfully integrated / amounting to significantly more, either alone or in combination, and the claims merely utilizes generic splicing at a high degree of generality, and merely in terms of results, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea by adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Similarly, the claim merely utilizes generic machine learning model at a high degree of generality (e.g., based on machine learning by a machine learning model), and merely in terms of desired results, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea by adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, in view of the claims failing to establish that the aforementioned additional elements are successfully integrated / amounting to significantly more, either alone or in combination, dependent claims 5 and 25 are not patent eligible subject matter.
With respect to dependent claims 6-9 and 26-28 the additional limitations, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not recite additional elements outside of the abstract idea that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims fail to establish that the previously mentioned additional elements are successfully integrated / amounting to significantly more, either alone or in combination, and the claims do not recite any further additional elements that could be indicative of the claims being successfully integrated / amounting to significantly more, either alone or in combination. Accordingly, in view of the claims failing to establish that the aforementioned additional elements are successfully integrated / amounting to significantly more, either alone or in combination, dependent claims 6-9 and 26-29 are not patent eligible subject matter.
With respect to dependent claims 10 and 30, the additional limitations, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not recite additional elements outside of the abstract idea that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims fail to establish that the previously mentioned additional elements are successfully integrated / amounting to significantly more, either alone or in combination, and the claims merely utilizes generic “requesting an attestation from a wallet hardware key device”, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea by adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, in view of the claims failing to establish that the aforementioned additional elements are successfully integrated / amounting to significantly more, either alone or in combination, dependent claims 10 and 30 are not patent eligible subject matter.
No Prior Art Rejection
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 21-23, and 25-31 overcome 35 U.S.C. 102/103 for the following reasons: Based on prior art search results, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the following claimed subject matter when viewed as an ordered combination, and does not teach:
A method comprising:
displaying, at a first edge device associated with one or more decentralized networks, an interactive user interface with a first interactive element that includes a unified balance having a single value representative of a total value of cryptographic tokens available via:
A first set of cryptographic tokens available via a layer 2 network of the one or more decentralized networks, wherein the layer 2 network is layered on top of a layer 1 network of the one or more decentralized networks, and wherein the layer 2 network is associated with a first cryptographic key generated by the first edge device; and
A second set of cryptographic tokens available via the layer 1 network, wherein the layer 1 network is associated with a second cryptographic key generated by a hardware key device;
receiving a request to initiate a transfer of a portion of the total value of cryptographic tokens to a second edge device associated with the one or more decentralized networks, wherein the request is represented by a second interactive element of the interactive user interface;
comparing the portion of the total value of cryptographic tokens to the first set of cryptographic tokens and the second set of cryptographic tokens;
automatically detecting, based on the comparison, a lack of sufficient liquidity by the layer 1 network or the layer 2 network;
automatically transferring, responsive to the automatically detected lack of sufficient liquidity and without user intervention, cryptographic tokens in support of sufficient liquidity between the layer 1 network and the layer 2 network;
receiving, at the first edge device, an indication of an interaction with the second interactive element to initiate the transfer of the portion;
verifying, with at least one of the first cryptographic key and the second cryptographic key, the request with the hardware key device associated with the one or more decentralized networks; and
executing, in response to the interaction, the transfer of the portion to the second edge device over the one or more decentralized networks.
The closest prior art of record includes:
Non-Patent Literature, “Why & How to Run a Bitcoin/Lightning Node w/ MyNode” (Curious Inventor – why & how), disclosing in video format:
A method comprising: displaying, at a first edge device associated with one or more decentralized networks (mobile phone depicted at 12:48, associated via one or more decentralized networks via Zap mobile wallet application), an interactive user interface (Zap mobile wallet application UI displayed on phone screen) with a first … element that includes a unified balance (See “Total Balance” of 383,609 satoshis at 12:48) having a single value representative of a total value (383,609 at 12:48) of cryptographic tokens (Satoshi’s (i.e., fractions of bitcoin), abbreviated “sat” or “sats”) available via:
a first set of cryptographic tokens available via a layer 2 network of the one or more decentralized networks (See Lightning balance of 72,425 satoshis at 12:48), wherein the layer 2 network is layered on top of a layer 1 network of the one or more decentralized networks, (Examiner notes one of ordinary skill in the art understands the lightning network as a layer 2 network layered on top of a layer 1 (decentralized) network (e.g., bitcoin network); see also ¶22 of Applicant specification confirming examples of “layer 2 decentralized networks” include the Lightning Network, of which is referred to in Curious Inventor’s disclosure) …
and a second set of cryptographic tokens available via the layer 1 network, (See “On-Chain:” balance of 311,184 satoshis at 12:48; note that 311,184 and 72,425 sum to 383,609 (i.e., the displayed “Total Balance” of 383,609))
PNG
media_image1.png
687
444
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the layer 1 network is associated with a second cryptographic key generated by a hardware key device; verifying, with at least one of the first cryptographic key and the second cryptographic key, the request with the hardware key device associated with the one or more decentralized networks; and
(11:57 – 12:10 see Trezor hardware wallet being used to digitally sign an on-chain10 transaction)
receiving a request to initiate a transfer of a portion of the total value of cryptographic tokens (e.g., 15,000 sats) to … [an address] associated with the one or more decentralized networks, wherein the request is represented by a second interactive element of the interactive user interface (see 12:50 – 13:13 showing payment request received by QR Code imaged by camera within Zap mobile wallet application. Examiner notes the receiving of the QR code image is understood to constitute receiving of the request to initiate a transfer of a portion of the total value of cryptographic tokens in view of flow depicted);
receiving, at the first edge device, an indication of an interaction with the second interactive element to initiate the transfer of the portion; (12:55 – 13:14, note pop-up appearing responsive to scanning QR code, of which includes a “send” button pressed by the mobile phone user to send / complete payment)
executing, in response to the interaction, the transfer of the portion to the … [address] over the one or more decentralized networks. (12:52 – 13:14; note the lightning balance as 630,151, and after completing transaction at 13:11, that balance updates to 615,151. I.e., the transfer of the portion is done over the L2 decentralized network)
However, Curious Inventor – why & how fails to expressly disclose:
automatically detecting, based on the comparison, a lack of sufficient liquidity by the layer 1 network or the layer 2 network;
automatically transferring, responsive to the automatically detected lack of sufficient liquidity and without user intervention, cryptographic tokens in support of sufficient liquidity between the layer 1 network and the layer 2 network;
the transfer of the portion is to a second edge device.
comparing the portion of the total value of cryptographic tokens to the first set of cryptographic tokens and the second set of cryptographic tokens;
and wherein the layer 2 network is associated with a first cryptographic key generated by the first edge device;
the element displaying the balance is an “interactive element”.
Non-Patent Literature, “Autoloop” (Autoloop), disclosing:
automatically transferring, responsive to the automatically detected lack of sufficient liquidity and without user intervention, cryptographic tokens in support of sufficient liquidity between the layer 1 network and the layer 2 network. (See pages 1/15, “loop out swaps”. Examiner notes Loop-outs are operations that move bitcoin from a lightning network channel to an on-chain wallet / address)
Similar to Autoloop, Non-Patent Literature, “Deep Reinforcement Learning-based Rebalancing Policies for Profit Maximization of Relay Nodes in Payment Channel Networks” (Padapis), also disclosing liquidity rebalancing between L1 and L2 fund – see Introduction section. Padapis generally performs this analysis via machine learning (i.e., the analysis is automated).
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20210357917 A1 (Dalton). Dalton discloses:
automatically detecting, based on the comparison, a lack of sufficient liquidity by the … [two different wallets]; (Abstract; ¶¶15-17; ¶¶1, 11, 17, 19, 20; ¶¶48-49, 52-53 in further view of Fig. 2C)
automatically transferring, responsive to the automatically detected lack of sufficient liquidity and without user intervention, cryptographic tokens in support of sufficient liquidity between the … [digital wallets]; (¶¶11, 15, 19, 20)
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20240289776 A1 (Bimolaksono), disclosing:
comparing the portion of the total value of cryptographic tokens to the [account balance] (¶48).
Examiner notes the disclosure of Curious Inventor in view of Bimolaksono renders obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art: comparing the portion of the total value of cryptographic tokens to the first set of cryptographic tokens and the second set of cryptographic tokens, as the balance of Curios Inventor – How & Why is constituted by two sets of cryptographic tokens.
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20240281795 A1 (Lindell). Lindell discloses or otherwise reasonably suggests:
wherein the layer 2 network is associated with a first cryptographic key generated by the first edge device; (See ¶¶17, 38 in further view of ¶32, ¶33, and ¶36. Examiner notes the aforementioned disclosure discloses MPC wallets compatible with custodial token platform 110, of which supports the transfer of both layer 1 and layer 2 tokens, and that the MPC wallet applications may utilize a secure enclave to generate keys and key shards for transactions)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 31 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
At the very least, the following ordered combination of claim limitations:
[receiving a request to initiate a transfer of a portion of the total value of cryptographic tokens to a second edge device associated with the one or more decentralized networks, …
verifying, with at least one of the first cryptographic key [generated by the first edge device … associated with a layer 2 network of the one or more decentralized networks] and the second cryptographic key [generated by a hardware key device … associated with a layer one network], the request with the hardware key device associated with the one or more decentralized networks;]11
wherein the hardware key device is associated with the first edge device and includes data for verifying the identity of a user associated with the first edge device with use of one or more biometric sensors associated with the hardware key device.
Amounts to applying or using the judicial exception in a manner that goes beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim amounts to more than a mere drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05 (e)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20200193420 A1 (Vogel). Vogel is pertinent to newly introduced claim 31, as it discloses a hardware key device used for verifying the identity of a user via one or more biometric sensors associated with the hardware key device – see at least abstract, ¶26, and ¶¶32, 37, 72.
Non-Patent Literature, “Dynamic Channel Deposit and Withdrawl12 for Lightning Network” (LITEX). Litex discloses splice-in and splice-out operations for rebalancing channels off-chain, where at least one on-chain transaction is required. See at least Introduction, section 3, and section 3.2. Based on prior art search, Examiner notes the terms “splice-in” and “splice-out” are understood to correspond to adding or removing funds to a payment channel (i.e., layer 2 network) via a single on-chain (i.e., layer 1) transaction without closing the channel, and is to address liquidity issues for the payment channels.
Non-Patent Literature, “why the Lightning Network channel can't Increase
Balance?” (Lightning/Bolts). Lightning/Bolts corresponds to a feature discussion for creating a feature which would allow for “you [to] make normal bitcoin payments straight from your lightning wallet”. The discussed implementation involved the above LITEX paper, with some changes that allowed for asynchronous splicing using one transaction, without needing to suspend a channel on the L2 network.
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20190251524 A1 (Sadrizadeh). At least ¶¶25, 26, 31, 41, 42 are pertinent for disclosing key generation on either hardware wallets or hot wallets (e.g., smartphones / digital wallets).
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20240257084 A1 (Kim). At least Fig. 1 and ¶¶31, 32, 50, 61 are relevant.
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20230298005 A1 (Saad). At least figs. 11-13 and corresponding disclosure are relevant per disclosing use cases where off and on-chain balances are converted for desired transactions (i.e., to remedy liquidity issues).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK A MALKOWSKI whose telephone number is (313)446-6624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00AM - 5:00PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Gart can be reached at (571) 272-3955. 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.
/M.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696
1 i.e., the subject matter claimed, excepting claim 31.
2 See pages 11-16 of Remarks
3 See pages 11-18 of Remarks
4 See MPEP § 2106 I.
5 See MPEP §§ 2106.04 I, II, (d) I.
6 See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) II
7 See MPEP § 2111.
9 See MPEP § 2106.05.
10 See 12:10: “On-chain Transactions”
11 The bracketed limitations are limitations of parent claim 1.
12 Examiner acknowledges “withdrawl” is a misspelling, but the paper is titled as such.