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 .
Acknowledgments
This Action is in response to the amendment filed on April 1, 2026. Claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, 14, 16-19, and 21-22 are currently pending and have been fully examined. Claims 4, 6, 13, 15 and 20 have been cancelled by Applicant.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the claim objections, the amendment overcomes the issues and the objections are withdrawn.
With respect to the rejections under 35 USC § 112 Applicant’s amendments overcome the rejections, and the rejections are withdrawn.
With respect to the rejections under 35 USC § 101, Applicant argues, on page 12 of the remarks, that “the invention provides an improvement in computer-related technology as well as an improvement to at least the field of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDC) by extending an unspent-transaction-output-(UTXO)- based privacy-preserving token system.” The examiner respectfully notes that Applicant’s argument is unclear because no definition for the phrase “extending an unspent-transaction-output-(UTXO)- based privacy-preserving token system,” is provided in the claims or in the Specification. In addition, Applicant states: “…the invention enables small value transactions to be performed in a fully peer-to-peer fashion while only large value transactions are subjected to on-chain validation by defining a limit for cash issuance and digital cash token deposits while preserving user privacy by hiding commitments and zero-knowledge proofs at time of issuance and deposit.” The examiner respectfully notes that neither of the features named by Applicant are claimed. For example, the claims do not have any features as “small value transactions,” “peer-to-peer transaction” “defining a limit” “preserving privacy by hiding commitments.”
Applicant further argues, with reference to paragraph [0014] of the Specification, that the concept proposed may allow to set a maximum up to which non-traceable transactions of digital cash may be made. The examiner notes that the concept referred to by Applicant is an abstract idea by itself, because setting a maximum for a non-traceable transactions is a “fundamental economic principle or practice” and “a commercial or legal interaction,” grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Applicant further argues, with reference to paragraph [0020] of the Specification, that the amended claim 1 reflects an improvement which is limiting a predefined maximum number of digital tokens. Again, the examiner notes that the improvement referred to by Applicant as “limiting a predefined maximum number of digital tokens,” is a “fundamental economic principle or practice” and “a commercial or legal interaction,” grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Applicant further argues, on page 13, with reference to paragraphs [0014] - [0018], [0023], [0084], [0086], and [0106] of Specification, as evidence of improvement to technology or a technical field. However, the referred paragraphs mainly describe central bank procedures for limiting digital cash issuance, hiding commitments at the time of issuance or deposit, and limiting amount of cash issued during a predefined time period (epoch). Paragraph [0106] describes system components that perform the claimed features. The examiner respectfully notes that the improvements described in referred paragraphs mainly describe banking procedures, and claims describe applying the procedures on a distributed ledger environment, which is a tool for applying the abstract idea.
Applicant further argues, on page 14 of the remarks, that “the independent claims clearly reflect the improvements of the disclosed invention with respect to small value transactions being performed in a fully peer-to-peer fashion while only large value transactions are subjected to on-chain validation by defining a limit for cash issuance and digital token deposits.” The examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the claims do not recite any such features. The examiner further notes that even if claims recited features about small value transactions being performed in a fully peer-to-peer fashion and large value transactions being subjected to on-chain validation, the claims would have still been directed to the abstract idea of issuing cash tokens while preventing the number of issued token to exceed a predefined amount, without reciting significantly more.
With respect to the 103 rejections, Applicant argues, on pages 14-15 of the remarks, that Agrawal and Androulaki do not teach the amendment to independent claims reciting: “registering, by a central instance system, a user-identifier, wherein the user-identifier is registered by determining a hiding commitment of a digital cash credential in a underlying ledger system based on a private key relating to the user-identifier and based on a system unique serial number of the digital cash credential, wherein the hiding commitment of the digital cash credential is comprised of an issued field and a deposited field in a current epoch, wherein the issued field is set to Zero and the deposited field is set to Zero.” The examiner notes that the claim amendment includes subject matter of the currently cancelled claim 4, which was previously rejected as being taught by the previously cited prior art of El Khiyaoui.
Applicant further argues, on page 15 of remarks, that Agrawal fails to teach: “storing, in the underlying ledger system, a sum number of the issued digital cash tokens issued during an actual epoch, wherein the sum number of the issued digital cash tokens are related to the user-identifier.” The examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Agrawal, similar to claimed feature, at least in [0029], [0031], [0033], [0051], [0082], [0085]-[0086], and [0093] teaches that every transaction of a user is stored on a blockchain (i.e., ledger system, account balance is stored, amounts of generated tokens are stored, transaction per epoch are stored, a transaction initiated in an epoch (i.e., issued during an epoch) is recorded (stored.) In addition, Agrawal in [0082] and [0085] teaches that the token amounts are related to a public key of a user which is an identifier of the user.
Applicant further states, on page 16, that Applicant's invention limits the number of tokens issued during the actual epoch to enable the small value transactions to be performed in a fully peer-to-peer manner which is not disclosed or taught by either Androulaki or Agrawal. The examiner respectfully notes that Applicant’s claims do not recite any features related to enabling the small value transactions to be performed in a fully peer-to-peer manner. However, even if the enabling was recited in the claim, it would have been an intended use of the claimed features, unless it is clarified that how limiting number of tokens leads to a full peer-to-peer transaction. In addition, the term “fully peer-to-peer manner” is not defined neither in the Specification nor in the claims. In addition, the examiner notes that Agrawal, at least in [0040] [0067]-[0068] and [0096] teaches a nonce that is a counter that increments with every transaction in each epoch and sets a limit to the number of transactions in the epoch, thereby preventing further transactions by a user in an epoch. The nonce is reset at the beginning of each epoch.
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, 7-12, 14, 16-19 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because 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.
Claims 1-3, 5 and 7-9 are directed to a method (process), claims 10-12, 14 and 16-18 are directed to a system (product) and claims 19 and 21-22 are directed to a computer program product (product.) Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, 14, 16-19 and 21-22 are directed to the abstract idea of issuing cash tokens while preventing the number of issued token to exceed a predefined amount during a specific time period. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Analysis
In the following analysis, bolded text indicates abstract idea and the rest of the text indicates additional elements. Independent claims 1, 10 and 19 recite:
registering, by a central instance system, a user-identifier, wherein the user-identifier is registered by determining a hiding commitment of a digital cash credential in a underlying ledger system based on a private key relating to the user-identifier and based on a system unique serial number of the digital cash credential, wherein the hiding commitment of the digital cash credential is comprised of an issued field and a deposited field in a current epoch, wherein the issued field is set to Zero and the deposited field is set to Zero;
determining, by the central instance system, epochs of equally long and adjacent time periods;
issuing, by the central instance system, digital cash tokens related to the user-identifier;
storing, in the underlying ledger system, a sum number of the issued digital cash tokens issued during an actual epoch, wherein the sum number of the issued digital cash tokens are related to the user-identifier;
preventing, by the central instance system, an issuing of digital cash tokens larger than a predefined maximum number of digital cash tokens relating to the user-identifier in the actual epoch; and
resetting, by the central instance system, the sum number of issued tokens in the actual epoch at an end of the actual epoch.
Therefore, claims 1, 10 and 19 recite the abstract idea of issuing cash tokens while preventing the number of issued token to exceed a predefined amount during a specific time period, which is a “fundamental economic principle or practice” and “a commercial or legal interaction,” grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106) because the claims involve a series of steps for issuing cash tokens while preventing the number of issued token to exceed a predefined amount during a specific time period. In addition, claims recite “mathematical formulas and equations” which are grouped within the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements of a central instance system, a ledger system, one or more processors and a memory operatively coupled to the one or more processors, a computer readable storage medium, one or more computing systems, merely use one or more computers as tools to perform the abstract idea. The use of a central instance system, a ledger system, one or more processors and a memory operatively coupled to the one or more processors, a computer readable storage medium, one or more computing systems, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than one or more computing devices performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. 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)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way 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 claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they 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, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements amount to no more than using computing devices or processors to automate and/or implement the abstract idea.
As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, these additional elements perform the steps or functions that correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2 and 11 recite:
Storing, in the underlying ledger system, a sum number of deposited digital cash tokens in a time period of the actual epoch related to the user-identifier;
preventing a depositing of digital cash tokens larger than a predefined maximum number of digital cash tokens from a user-identifier; and
resetting the sum number of deposited digital cash tokens in the time period of the actual epoch at the end of the epoch,
which further recites the abstract idea as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 10 above. As no additional element is recited in the claims, the analysis under prong two of step 2A is not required.
Dependent claims 3 and 12 recite:
wherein amounts larger than a predefined maximum digital cash value are transferred from one account to another account using the underlying ledger system operated by the central instance system.
which further recites the abstract idea as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 10 above. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional element of an underlying ledger system operated by the central instance system, merely use one or more computers as tools to perform the abstract idea of transferring a value from one account to another. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements amount to no more than using computing devices or processors to automate and/or implement the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 5, 14 and 21 recite:
engaging in an interactive protocol between the central instance system and a system relating to the user-identifier by:
receiving proof from a user associated with the user-identifier of proving, knowledge of a secret key underlying the private key and the system unique serial number;
receiving proof from the user associated with the user-identifier that the hiding commitment of the digital cash credential is set to Zero in the issued field and the deposited field and ei as the current epoch;
determining by the central instance system that a registration is a first registration relating to the user identifier;
determining that the proof delivers a true outcome by confirming that the issued field is set to Zero, the deposited field is set to Zero, and the ei as the current epoch all deliver the true outcome,
which further recites the abstract idea as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 10 above. The claims recite “mathematical formulas and equations” which are grouped within the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. As no additional element is recited in the claims, the analysis under prong two of step 2A is not required.
Dependent claims 7, 16 and 22 recite:
receiving a message by the central instance system including an amount of digital cash tokens to be issued from a ledger account;
submitting a redeem transaction to the underlying ledger system upon determining a validity of a zero knowledge proof in a context of the message;
accepting the transaction by a distributed ledger system if required prerequisites are met; and
sending a message by the central instance system being indicative of a digital cash issuance,
which further recites the abstract idea as discussed with respect to claims 5 and 14 above. As no additional element is recited in the claims, the analysis under prong two of step 2A is not required .
Dependent claims 8 and 17 recite:
receiving a message by the central instance system including an amount of digital cash tokens to be deposited at an account, a signature, and a random message identifier;
determining, by the central instance system, that the signature is a valid signature under its public key on the random message identifier;
submitting a deposit transaction upon determining, by the central instance system, that the random message identifier was not used in a deposit transaction before and a valid Zero knowledge proof; and
accepting, by the underlying ledger system, the deposit transaction if a token serial number which is part of the deposit transaction did not appear in the underlying ledger system before and the signature is valid.
which further recites the abstract idea as discussed with respect to claims 5 and 14 above. As no additional element is recited in the claims, the analysis under prong two of step 2A is not required.
Dependent claims 9 and 18 recite:
receiving a reinitializing transaction request, by the central instance system, comprising a Zero as issued field and as deposited field and a message serial number; and
accepting the reinitializing transaction request by the underlying ledger system if the message serial number did not appear in the ledger before,
which further recites the abstract idea as discussed with respect to claims 5 and 14 above. As no additional element is recited in the claims, the analysis under prong two of step 2A is not required.
Therefore, the claims recite abstract idea and do not include any additional elements to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, 14, 16-19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Androulaki (US Patent Publication No. 2023/0057898,) in view of Agrawal (US Patent Publication No. 2019/0164153,) further in view of El Khiyaoui (US 2023/0208640.)
With respect to claims 1, 10 and 19 Androulaki teach:
determining, by the central instance system, epochs of equally long and adjacent time periods; (transaction engine sets up epochs as predetermined amounts of time: [0048], claim 1)
issuing, by the central instance system, digital cash tokens related to the user-identifier; (the transaction engine generates tokens related to a transaction of an owner (i.e., related to a user identifier): [0049]-0050], claim 1)
wherein the sum number of the issued digital cash tokens are related to the user-identifier; (the transaction engine generates tokens related to a transaction of an owner associated with a private key (i.e., related to a user identifier): [0049]-0050], claim 1)
In addition, with respect to claims 10 and 19 Androulaki teach:
one or more processors and a memory operatively coupled to t one or more processors, wherein said memory stores program code portions which, when executed by said one or more processors…([0098]-[0103])
a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, said program instructions being executable by one or more computing systems or controllers to cause said one or more computing systems…([0098]-[0103])
Androulaki do not explicitly teach:
storing, in the underlying ledger system, a sum number of the issued digital cash tokens issued during an actual epoch,
preventing, by the central instance system, an issuing of digital cash tokens larger than a predefined maximum number of digital cash tokens relating to the user-identifier in the actual epoch; and
resetting, by the central instance system, the sum number of issued tokens in the actual epoch at an end of the actual epoch.
However, Agrawal teach:
storing, in an underlying ledger system, a sum number of the issued digital cash tokens issued during an actual epoch, (every transaction is stored on a blockchain (i.e., ledger system): [0029], [0031], [0033] account balance is stored: [0051], amounts of generated tokens are stored: [0086], transaction per epoch are stored: [0093], a transaction initiated in an epoch (i.e., issued during an epoch) is recorded (stored): [0082], [0085])
wherein the sum number of the issued digital cash tokens are related to the user-identifier; (the generated tokens are related to public key of a user account (i.e., related to a user identifier): [0082], [0085])
preventing, by the central instance system, an issuing of digital cash tokens larger than a predefined maximum number of digital cash tokens relating to the user-identifier in the actual epoch; (a counter (nonce) increments with every transaction: [0040], a limit is set for every block of epochs: [0096], nonce is associated with each epoch [0067]-[0068])
resetting, by the central instance system, the sum number of issued tokens in the actual epoch at an end of the actual epoch. (nonce is reset to null at each epoch: [0069])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the double spend protection features as taught by Agrawal , into the privacy preserving auditable accounts of Androulaki , in order to support complex functions such as replay and double spend protection. (Agrawal : Abstract, [0005], [0016])
Androulaki and Agrawal do not explicitly teach; however, El Khiyaoui teach:
registering, by a central instance system, a user-identifier, ([0039]- [0040])
wherein the user-identifier is registered by determining a hiding commitment of a digital cash credential in an underlying ledger system based on a private key relating to the user-identifier and based on a system unique serial number of the digital cash credential, (hiding commitment of uid (user ID), type, value, serial number is determined: [0044], [0046]-[0048], registration is performed by determining hiding commitment: [0054]-[0075])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the hiding commitment as taught by El Khiyaoui, into the privacy preserving auditable accounts of Androulaki and Agrawal, in order to preserve privacy by representing assets as hiding commitments.
Androulaki, Agrawal and El Khiyaoui do not explicitly teach:
wherein the hiding commitment of the digital cash credential is comprised of an issued field and a deposited field in a current epoch, wherein the issued field is set to Zero and the deposited field is set to Zero;
However, the claim recitation “wherein the hiding commitment of the digital cash credential is comprised of an issued field and a deposited field in a current epoch, wherein the issued field is set to Zero and the deposited field is set to Zero,” indicates non-functional descriptive material that merely describes fields of data structure and therefore does not further limit the scope of the claim. In addition, the functions “is comprised” and “is set” are not positively recited and therefore do not further limit the scope of the claim
With respect to claims 2 and 11, Androulaki, Agrawal and El Khiyaoui teach the limitations of claims 1 and 10.
Moreover, Agrawal teach:
storing, in the underlying ledger system, a sum number of deposited digital cash tokens in a time period of the actual epoch related to the user-identifier; (every transaction is stored on a blockchain (i.e., ledger system): [0031] account balance is stored: [0051], amounts of tokens are stored: [0086], transaction per epoch are stored: [0093])
preventing a depositing of digital cash tokens larger than a predefined maximum number of digital cash tokens from a user-identifier; (a counter (nonce) increments with every transaction: [0040], a limit is set for every block of epochs: [0096], a nonce is associated with each epoch [0067]-[0068])
resetting the sum number of deposited digital cash tokens in the time period of the actual epoch at the end of the epoch. (the nonce associated with each epoch is reset to null at each epoch: [0069])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the double spend protection features as taught by Agrawal, into the privacy preserving auditable accounts of Androulaki, in order to support complex functions such as replay and double spend protection. (Agrawal : Abstract, [0005], [0016])
With respect to claims 3 and 12, Androulaki, Agrawal and El Khiyaoui teach the limitations of claims 1 and 10.
Androulaki, Agrawal and El Khiyaoui do not explicitly teach:
wherein amounts larger than a predefined maximum digital cash value are transferred from one account to another account using the underlying ledger system operated by the central instance system.
However, the claim recitation indicates a non-positively recited function. The function “transferring” is not positively recited and therefore does not further limit the scope of the claim.
With respect to claims 5, 14 and 21, Androulaki, Agrawal and El Khiyaoui teach the limitations of claims 1, 10 and 19.
Moreover, Agrawal teach:
engaging in an interactive protocol between the central instance system and a system relating to the user-identifier by:
receiving proof from a user associated with the user-identifier of proving, knowledge of a secret key underlying the private key and the system unique serial number;(user (prover) proves knowledge of secret key: [0067], [0106], [0144])
receiving proof from the user associated with the user-identifier…(prover shows knowledge of multiple data fields: [0106], [0108])
Agrawal does not explicitly teach that the proof received from user is specifically “that the hiding commitment of the digital cash credential is set to Zero in the issued field and the deposited field and ei as the current epoch.” However, claim recitation indicate non-functional descriptive material and does not further limit the scope of the claim. That is because Agrawal teaches receiving proof from user showing knowledge of multiple data items and therefore, Agrawal reads on the claim recitation even if the proof received from user is not explicitly about the values of an issued field, deposited field and ei.
determining that the proof delivers a true outcome…(a verifier checks whether proofs are valid: [0068], [0108])
Agrawal does not explicitly teach that the determining is “by confirming that the issued field is set to Zero, the deposited field is set to Zero, and the ei as the current epoch all deliver the true outcome.” However, claim recitation indicate non-functional descriptive material and does not further limit the scope of the claim. That is because Agrawal teaches determining that the proof delivers a true outcome by checking proofs validity. Therefore, Agrawal reads on the claim recitation even if determining validity of proof does not include confirming specific values of an issued field, deposited field and ei.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the double spend protection features as taught by Agrawal, into the privacy preserving auditable accounts of Androulaki , in order to support complex functions such as replay and double spend protection. (Agrawal : Abstract, [0005], [0016])
In addition, El Khiyaoui teach:
determining by the central instance system that a registration is a first registration relating to the user identifier; ([0054]-[0062])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the hiding commitment as taught by El Khiyaoui, into the privacy preserving auditable accounts of Androulaki and Agrawal, in order to prevent multiple registrations for the same user.
With respect to claims 7, 16 and 22, Androulaki, Agrawal and El Khiyaoui teach the limitations of claims 5, 14 and 21.
Moreover, Agrawal teach:
receiving a message by the central instance system including an amount of digital cash tokens to be issued from a ledger account; (platform receives a transaction request from user: [0086]-[0087])
submitting a redeem transaction to the underlying ledger system upon determining a validity of a zero knowledge proof in a context of the message; (transaction is invoked (submitted) after proof is validated: [0085]-[0087], [0093], [0137])
accepting the transaction by a distributed ledger system if required prerequisites are met; (verifier checks signature and the proof: [0107]-[0109], [0124], [0128])
sending a message by the central instance system being indicative of a digital cash issuance. (message calls indicate asset transfer: [0112]-[0113], [0158], Table 1)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the double spend protection features as taught by Agrawal, into the privacy preserving auditable accounts of Androulaki , in order to support complex functions such as replay and double spend protection. (Agrawal : Abstract, [0005], [0016])
With respect to claims 8 and 17, Androulaki, Agrawal and El Khiyaoui teach the limitations of claims 5 and 14.
Moreover, El Khiyaoui teach:
receiving a message by the central instance system including an amount of digital cash tokens to be deposited at an account, a signature, and a random message identifier; (user submits a transaction including an identifier and a signature to transfer a digital asset value: [0041]-[0043], signatures used to sign transactions: [0037], user identifier is based on a random number: [0028])
determining, by the central instance system, that the signature is a valid signature under its public key on the random message identifier, (check if signature is valid relative to public key: [0073], [0075])
submitting a deposit transaction upon determining, by the central instance system, that the random message identifier was not used in a deposit transaction before and a valid Zero knowledge proof; (auditor verifies if identifier is a correct new identifier: [0028]-[0029], auditor verifies transaction based on zero-knowledge proof: [0043]-[0044], [0054]-[0061], transaction is sent to the blockchain: [0062])
accepting, by the underlying ledger system, the deposit transaction if a token serial number which is part of the deposit transaction did not appear in the underlying ledger system before and the signature is valid. (blockchain performs checks including serial number and verifies new credentials [0070]-[0090] ensuring that serial number did not appear in the ledger:[0092])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate transaction validation process as taught by El Khiyaoui, into the privacy preserving auditable accounts of Androulaki and Agrawal, in order to minimize data redundancy.
With respect to claims 9 and 18, Androulaki, Agrawal and El Khiyaoui teach the limitations of claims 5 and 14.
Moreover, Agrawal teach:
receiving a … transaction request, by the central instance system, comprising transaction data ([0085]) the request includes a first operand and a second operand (i.e., issued field and deposited field): [0087])
the transaction request may include further operands with an encrypted value of zero ([0088])
Moreover, El Khiyaoui teach:
receiving a … transaction request, by the central instance system, comprising a message serial number (user submits a transaction including an identifier and a signature to transfer a digital asset value: [0041]-[0043], signatures used to sign transactions: [0037], user identifier is based on a random number: [0028])
accepting the …transaction request by the underlying ledger system if the message serial number did not appear in the ledger before. (blockchain performs checks including serial number and verifies new credentials [0070]-[0090] ensuring that serial number did not appear in the ledger:[0092])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate transaction validation process as taught by El Khiyaoui, into the privacy preserving auditable accounts of Androulaki and Agrawal, in order to minimize data redundancy.
The examiner notes that Androulaki and Agrawal and El Khiyaoui do not explicitly teach:
a reinitialization transaction request
request comprising a Zero as issued field and as deposited field
However, the claim recitations “a reinitialization transaction request,” merely gives a name to a request as “reinitialization transaction request” that does not have any effect on the claimed features and therefore constitutes non-functional descriptive material and does not further limit the scope of the claim.
Similarly, the claim recitation “request comprising a Zero as issued field and as deposited field,” does not have any effect on the claimed features and therefore constitutes non-functional descriptive material and does not further limit the scope of the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chen (US 2021/0119807 ) teaches performing blockchain transactions upon obtaining and validating zero knowledge proof.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SIMA ASGARI whose telephone number is (571)272-2037. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571)272-7575. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SIMA ASGARI/Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights