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 .
Acknowledgements
The reply filed 11/24/2025 is acknowledged. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 9-20 were previously withdrawn. Claims 1-8 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 11/24/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-8 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s remarks regarding Step 2A, Prong One of the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, the remarks rely on teachings in the disclosure that are not being claimed. For example, the generation processing involving “complex operation such as creating cryptographic script functions and implementing secure key exchange protocols” are not claimed. Similarly, “verifying that mining pool operators who wish to collect the bounty from the paired event include both the initial event…,” etc. are also not being claimed. Furthermore, there is no positively recited step in the claimed invention that verifies “the condition that the predetermined miner associated with the subject paired event processed the initial event either in an earlier block, or the block the paired event is processed in.” Contrary to Applicant’s remarks, the claimed limitations do not require “cross-referencing between multiple cryptographic events across different blocks and verification of cryptographic signatures.” At most, the cryptographic events are being generated, associated, validated, transmitted, and processed. There is no language to suggest that they are being cross-referenced across different blocks or cryptographic signatures are being verified. Therefore, Applicant’s remarks cannot be persuasive since they do not pertain to what is being claimed.
In response to Applicant’s remarks regarding Step 2A, Prong Two of the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, the claimed invention is not enabling selective miner participation or modifying how blockchain consensus processes operate through protocol-specific conditions that determine miner eligibility. There is no active process for selection of a miner. Associating an allow list of miners with the second paired event and transmitting the paired set of processable cryptographic events to a mining node are not directing transactions to selected miners that meet a specific criteria. The mining node that is receiving the paired set of processable cryptographic events could be any mining node. The amendment “after determining that the miner selection constraint is satisfied to process the first paired event” does not limit who/what can be the mining node that receives the paired set of processable cryptographic events. Therefore, since the claimed limitations are not claiming what the Applicant is relying upon to result in the purported improvement to blockchain technology, the remarks cannot be persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-8 stands.
Applicant's arguments, filed 11/24/2025, with respect to the prior art rejection have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s remarks state –
“However, Dalton describes generating individual transactions for blockchain submission, not paired sets of cryptographic events where a second event specifically references a first event. The claimed invention requires generating "a paired set of processable cryptographic events ... wherein ... a second paired event includes reference to the first paired event." Dalton's transaction generation process (Dalton [0053]) creates single transactions with standard blockchain elements but does not disclose or suggest creating paired events with cross-references between them.”
In response to the Applicant’s remarks, Dalton discloses in [0053] – “The transaction data 435 may include information about the assets to be transferred and a reference to the sources of the assets, such as previous transactions in which the assets were transferred to the first internal user 102 or an identification of events that originated the assets.” Therefore, the previous transaction in which the assets were transferred is analogous to the first paired event and the generated transaction 465 (Fig. 4, [0053]), which is associated with the transaction data 435, is analogous to the second paired event. Dalton also discloses in [0051] – “It will be understood, however, that this discussion (generation of a transaction) is applicable to any transaction that is recorded on the blockchain. Therefore, the first paired event, or previous transaction, is also generated and includes the transaction data as disclosed.
“While Dalton discusses transaction validation ([0120]), this relates to standard blockchain transaction processing, not the use of a specialized cryptographic verification process used to validate paired event structures for blockchain compatibility and satisfaction of a miner selection constraint. The claimed cryptographic verification operations are specifically directed towards ensuring that the paired event structure maintains blockchain protocol compliance while implementing selective miner routing functionality, which is not disclosed or suggested by Dalton.”
In response to the Applicant’s remarks, the claimed invention is not claiming a “specialized cryptographic verification process.” The “cryptographic verification operations” do not indicate that the verification process is “specialized.” Dalton discloses in [0120] that the transactions are validated. Dalton also discloses in [0121] that validating the transaction may include determining whether the transaction is legal or conforms to a pre-defined set of rules for that transaction, establishing user authenticity, and establishing transaction data integrity, and in [0061] – “User authenticity may be proven via cryptography,” i.e. “cryptographic verification process.” Furthermore, the transactions validated successfully are added to a block [0121]. Therefore, under the broadest, most reasonable interpretation, the transactions being validated prior to being added to a block is analogous to validating “for blockchain compatibility.”
“Dalton's routing is a network optimization technique that directs completed transactions to geographically preferred nodes, whereas the claimed invention embeds selection constraints within the cryptographic event structure itself to control processing eligibility before mining occurs.”
In response to the Applicant’s remarks, the claimed invention is not claiming embedding selection constraints within the cryptographic event structure itself to control processing eligibility before mining occurs. Therefore, these remarks cannot be persuasive since they do not pertain to what is being claimed.
“While Dalton discusses a transaction queue (Dalton [0120]), this is fundamentally different from the claimed custom blockchain protocol that specifically propagates zero-fee paired cryptographic events. As described in at least paragraphs [0037]-[0038], the custom protocol modification enables propagation of zero-fee paired events based on allow lists which is not disclosed or suggested by Dalton's transaction queuing process.”
In response to the Applicant’s remarks, the claimed invention does not claim “propagation of zero-fee paired events based on allow lists.” Therefore, these remarks cannot be persuasive since they do not pertain to what is being claimed. Furthermore, Applicant’s remarks have failed to provide any substantive evidence against Dalton. Generically stating that Dalton’s method is fundamentally different is not sufficient evidence against the prior art rejection.
“Regarding claim 5, the combination of Dalton and Sears fails to teach "determining whether a given miner who has processed the first paired event onto the blockchain is on the allow list of miners of the second paired event." Sears' description of "a miner of the block in fact was a legitimate miner'' (Sears [0042]) relates to general miner legitimacy verification, not the specific determination of whether a miner processing a first paired event is included in an allow list associated with a second paired event. The claimed invention requires cross-referencing between paired events to verify miner eligibility, which is not disclosed or suggested by the combination of both references.”
In light of the amendments, the Applicant’s remarks with respect to the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Purandare U.S. 2023/0306418.
“Purandare's UTXO transfers are based on general validation criteria, not conditions specifically associated with a second paired event that references the first paired event. The current invention requires an integration between paired events where the UTXO transfer condition in the first event depends on criteria embedded in the second event which is not described in Purandare.
In response to the Applicant’s remarks, the claimed invention does not claim any “criteria embedded in the second event” or “integration between paired events.” Purandare discloses in [0086] that the miner that meets one or more criteria may receive the second transfer fee, i.e. unspent transaction output, in response to a successful validation of the first electronic transfer, i.e. first event. Dalton discloses preferred miners associated with a transaction, i.e. a predetermined condition associated with the second paired event. Therefore, the combination of Dalton in view of Purandare teach the method of claims 6 and 7. For purposes of brevity, please see below for an updated rejection in light of the amendments.
“The claimed invention requires the P2SH implementation to be specifically associated with the allow list of miners from the paired event which is not disclosed or suggested by Wright's general teaching of P2SH transactions.”
In response to the Applicant’s remarks against Wright U.S. 2022/0051236 individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Wright was used to disclose the unspent transaction output is governed by a P2SH pub key address and redeem script. Dalton was used to disclose the allow list of miners. Therefore, it is the combination of Dalton in view of Wright that teaches claim 8.
In light of the amendments, the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claims 1-2 and 4 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Purandare U.S. 2023/0306418.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“the blockchain” in line 13 should be “a blockchain.”
“a blockchain” in line 19 should be “the blockchain.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-8 fall into at least one of the four categories of statutory subject matter. The eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A.1.
Step 2A.1:
The limitations of independent claim 1 have been denoted with letters by the Examiner for easy reference. The judicial exceptions recited in claim 1 are identified in bold below:
A method of blockchain mining protocol enabling selected miners with a miner selection constraint to mine a first paired event, comprising:
receiving by a transaction intake application, a first set of transaction data;
generating a paired set of processable cryptographic events based on the first set of transaction data, wherein the first paired event includes transacting parties and amounts and a second paired event includes reference to the first paired event and a transaction output; and
associating, by the transaction intake application, an allow list of miners, each meeting one of a predetermined criteria, with the second paired event,
wherein the miner selection constraint restricts collection of the transaction output to only mining nodes on the allow list having incorporated the first paired event into a block on the blockchain;
performing cryptographic verification operations to validate the paired set of processable cryptographic events for blockchain compatibility; and
transmitting the paired set of processable cryptographic events to a mining node mempool of a distributed cryptographic network of mining nodes,
wherein the mining nodes are configured to process cryptographic events and append processed cryptographic events as blocks on a blockchain after
determining that the miner select constraint is satisfied to process the first paired event.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, A, C-F, and I recite limitations that can be reasonably categorized under mental processes - concepts performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper, including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion. Enabling select miners through generating paired events, associating an allow list of miners with the a paired event, performing verification operations, and determining that a selection constraint is satisfied can all be reasonably be performed by the human mind and/or by a human using a pen and paper.
Claim 1 recites at least one abstract idea. The eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A.2.
Step 2A.2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the additional element(s) not in bold above.
Limitations B and G amount to no more than necessary data gathering and outputting MPEP 2106.05(g). They are considered insignificant extra-solution activities because the limitations do not add meaningful limits to the process of enabling selected miners with a miner selection constrain to mine a first paired event. Therefore, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The additional elements “blockchain,” “transaction intake application,” and limitation H are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h) because the limitations have been generically recited at a high-level of generality such that the limitation is no more than general usage of a data structure and/or general usage of a computer to process information. Therefore, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B:
The additional elements, both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the outcome of the considerations at Step 2B will be the same when considerations from Step 2A.2 are re-evaluated. Furthermore, the courts have recognized that “receiving or transmitting data over a network” (limitations B and G) are well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions when claimed in a merely generic manner MPEP 2106.05(d), buySAFE. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities that are recited at a high level of generality. Furthermore, generally linking the exception to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claim 2 recite receiving and propagating the paired set of processable cryptographic events. The limitations are considered additional elements, but suffer from the same deficiencies covered above. Therefore, when the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claim from which they depend, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 3 is related to a miner associated transaction fee and recites executing a custom blockchain protocol. The limitations are considered additional elements, but are merely generically linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, when the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claim from which they depend, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 4 is related to a transaction fee and does not recite any new additional elements. The claim merely elaborates on the abstract idea. Therefore, when the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claim from which they depend, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 5 recites determining whether a given miner is on the allow list of miners and awarding a transaction fee. The determining step is merely elaborating on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. The awarding step introduces an additional abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically, commercial or legal interactions in the form of sales activities or behaviors. Awarding a fee, or providing compensation, for a service, is a sales activity or behavior. The claim does not recite any new additional elements. Therefore, when the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claim from which they depend, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s).
Dependent claims 6-8 are related to an unspent transaction output. The claims introduce an additional abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically, commercial or legal interactions in the form of sales activities or behaviors. Transferring an unspent transaction output to a miner for processing the event onto the blockchain is analogous to paying a miner for a service, which is a sales activity/behavior. Claims 7-8 merely provide further context that elaborate on the abstract idea(s), and they do not recite new additional elements that impose meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea(s). Therefore, when the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claim from which they depend, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s).
In summary, the dependent claims considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea(s) into a patent eligible application such that the abstract idea amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 1-8 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dalton U.S. 2022/0318788 in view of Purandare U.S. 2023/0306418.
Re Claim 1, Dalton discloses a method of blockchain mining protocol enabling selected miners with a miner selection constraint to mine a first paired event, comprising:
receiving by a transaction intake application, a first set of transaction data ([0059] – “The computer system 150 may receive transactions from internal users of the blockchain network 130…The transactions may be submitted to the computer system 150 via desktop applications, smartphone applications, digital wallet applications, web services, or other software applications (i.e. transaction intake application),” Fig. 4, transaction data 435, i.e. first set of transaction data);
generating a paired set of processable cryptographic events based on the first set of transaction data, wherein the first paired event includes transacting parties and amounts and a second paired event includes reference to the first paired event and a transaction output ([0053] – “The transaction data 435 may include information about the assets to be transferred and a reference to the sources of the assets, such as previous transactions in which the assets were transferred to the first internal user 102 or an identification of events that originated the assets,” “(transaction 465) may include…a blockchain address of sender 430…and transaction output information 460.” The previous transaction in which the assets were transferred is analogous to the first paired event and the generated transaction 465 (Fig. 4, [0053]), which is associated with the transaction data 435 and references the previous transaction, is analogous to the second paired event. [0051] – “It will be understood, however, that this discussion (generation of a transaction) is applicable to any transaction that is recorded on the blockchain, therefore, the first paired event, or previous transaction, is also generated and includes the transaction data as disclosed); and
associating, by the transaction intake application, an allow list of miners, each meeting one of a predetermined criteria, with the second paired event [0096] – “A transaction (i.e. second paired event) may be associated with an address that limits which of the preferred nodes will get to process the transaction (i.e. an allow list of miners),” “a service provider may identify a network of preferred miners based on geography or based on a volume discount perspective (i.e. each meeting one of a predetermined criteria),”
performing cryptographic verification operations to validate the paired set of processable cryptographic events for blockchain compatibility ([0121] – “Validating the transaction may include determining whether the transaction is legal or conforms to a pre-defined set of rules for that transaction, establishing user authenticity, and establishing transaction data integrity,” “validated transaction is added to a block,” i.e. “for blockchain compatibility,” [0061] – “User authenticity may be proven via cryptography,” i.e. “cryptographic”); and
transmitting the paired set of processable cryptographic events to a mining node mempool of a distributed cryptographic network of mining nodes, wherein the mining nodes
are configured to process cryptographic events and append processed cryptographic
events as blocks on a blockchain after determining that the miner selection constraint is satisfied to process the first paired event ([0059] – “the computer system 150 may send or broadcast the transactions (i.e. transmitting) to the blockchain network 130,” [0097] – “A value may be associated with the transaction so that it goes to preferred miners in a specific geographic region,” i.e. after determining the miner selection constraint is satisfied, [0063] – “Each full node 205 is operable to store transaction in the mempool to be queried by miners…When a miner has successfully assembled a block, such blocks are submitted to the nodes 205 who add the blocks to the blockchain”).
However, Dalton does not expressly disclose
wherein the miner selection constraint restricts collection of the transaction output to only mining nodes on the allow list having incorporated the first paired event into a block on the blockchain.
Purandare discloses techniques relating to selection of miners/validators in a decentralized cryptographic network. Specifically, Purandare discloses
wherein the miner selection constraint restricts collection of the transaction output to only mining nodes on the allow list having incorporated the first paired event into a block on the blockchain ([0086] – “in response to a successful validation of the selected first electronic transfer (i.e. having incorporated the first paired event into a block on the blockchain) by a miner/validator that meets the one or more criteria (i.e. only mining nodes on the allow list), the validator receives, via a second electronic transfer, the second transfer fee (i.e. transaction output)”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dalton’s method for reducing computation and computing resources for blockchain transactions with the teachings of the miner selection constraint restricts collection of the transaction output to only mining nodes on the allow list having incorporated the first paired event into a block on the blockchain in Purandare. One would be motivated to make this modification to allow steering of requests to a desired subset of validators that meet one or more criteria, Purandare [0016].
Re Claim 2, Dalton in view of Purandare teach the method of claim 1, and Dalton in view of Purandare further teach further comprising:
receiving, by a first mining node of the distributed cryptographic network of mining nodes, the paired set of processable cryptographic events including the first paired event
and the second paired event Dalton, [0120] – “The transaction may be received by one or more nodes”; and
propagating the paired set of processable cryptographic events to a mempool of a second mining node of the distributed cryptographic network of mining nodes Dalton, [0059] – “Once the transaction 502 is received by the one or more nodes 205 of the blockchain network 130, it may be propagated by the receiving nodes 205 to other nodes 205 of the blockchain network 130.”
Re Claim 3, Dalton in view of Purandare teach the method of claim 2, and Dalton in view of Purandare further teach wherein the first paired event does not include a miner associated transaction fee and the first mining node is executing a custom blockchain protocol that causes the first mining node to propagate cryptographic events without transaction fees rather than discard (Dalton, [0120] – “If the transaction is not selected for validation by any of the nodes 205, then the transaction may be placed in a queue and wait to be selected by a node 205 (i.e. custom blockchain protocol, the transaction is queued rather than discarded).” [0122] – “Alternatively (to a transaction fee), or in addition, the winning node may be awarded compensation as an amount of cryptocurrency added to an account.” One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that since the awarded compensation is an amount of cryptocurrency, and not the transaction fee, and it is offered as an alternative to the transaction fee, then it would be reasonable to conclude that these processed transactions do not have a transaction fee).
Re Claim 4, Dalton in view of Purandare teach the method of claim 2, and Dalton in view of Purandare further teach wherein the first paired event includes an inconsequential miner associated transaction fee Dalton, [0120] – “upon receiving the transaction, a node 205 may choose to validate the transaction, for example, based on transaction fees associated with the transaction. If the transaction is not selected for validation by any of the nodes 205, then the transaction may be placed in a queue and wait to be selected by a node 205.”
Examiner notes that the content of the first paired event is nonfunctional descriptive language. The content of the first paired event does not meaningfully limit the method steps of enabling selected miners with a miner selection constraint to mine a first paired event. Claim 4 also does not require any method steps. Therefore, the claim cannot be given patentable weight. However, for purposes of compact prosecution, prior art is provided.
Re Claim 5, Dalton in view of Purandare teach the method of claim 1, and Dalton in view of Purandare further teach further comprising:
in response to said determination that the given miner is on the allow list of miners, awarding a transaction fee to the given miner via the blockchain Dalton, [0122] – “The node 205 that solves its puzzle first wins the right to publish its block. As compensation, the winning node may be awarded a transaction fee associated with the transaction.”
However, Dalton does not expressly disclose the limitations italicized
in response to processing of the second paired event onto the blockchain, determining whether a given miner who has processed the first paired event onto the blockchain is on the allow list of miners of the second paired event.
Purandare discloses techniques relating to selection of miners/validators in a decentralized cryptographic network. Specifically, Purandare discloses
in response to processing of the second paired event onto the blockchain, determining whether a given miner who has processed the first paired event onto the blockchain is on the allow list of miners of the second paired event “[0072] – “in response to a successful validation of the first electronic transfer by a validating entity (i.e. a given miner who has processed the first paired event onto the blockchain)…the computing system determines whether the validating entity meets the one or more criteria,” [0074] – “determines that the validating entity meets the one or more criteria by verifying the address associated with the validating entity matches an address corresponding to miners/validators that have been approved as meeting the criteria (i.e. allow list of miners).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dalton’s method for reducing computation and computing resources for blockchain transactions (i.e. paired events) with the teachings of determining whether a given miner who has processed the first paired event onto the blockchain is on the allow list of miners in Purandare. One would be motivated to make this modification to allow steering of requests to a desired subset of validators that meet one or more criteria, Purandare [0016].
Re Claim 6, Dalton in view of Purandare teach the method of claim 1, and Dalton further discloses wherein the first paired event includes transfer a fee to a miner that processes the first paired event onto the blockchain upon satisfaction of a predetermined condition associated with the second paired event (Dalton, [0096] – “A transaction may be associated with an address that limits which of the preferred nodes will get to process the transaction (i.e. a predetermined condition associated with the second paired event),” [0098] - “selected or winning node 205 may receive a reward, such as a transaction fee”).
However, Dalton does not expressly disclose
an unspent transaction output that is configured to transfer to a miner that processes the first paired event onto the blockchain Purandare, [0086] – “in response to a successful validation of the selected first electronic transfer by a miner/validator that meets the one or more criteria, the validator receives, via a second electronic transfer, the second transfer fee.” [0087] – “the miner/validator may receive the second transfer fee via a 1:N multi-signature output that is embedded in the first electronic transfer. The multi-signature transfer may be an unspent transaction output (UTXO) of a bitcoin transaction that includes the first electronic transfer.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dalton’s method for reducing computation and computing resources for blockchain transactions with the teachings of an unspent transaction output that is configured to transfer to a miner that processes the first paired event onto the blockchain in Purandare. One would be motivated to make this modification to incentivize miners/validators to pick the transaction for processing, thereby enabling quicker confirmation and increasing processing efficiency Purandare, [0023-24].
Re Claim 7, Dalton in view of Purandare teach the method of claim 6, and Dalton in view of Purandare further teach wherein the predetermined condition is that the miner that processes the first paired event onto the blockchain is identified by the allow list of miners of the second paired event Dalton, [0096] – “A transaction may be associated with an address that limits which of the preferred nodes will get to process the transaction.”
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dalton U.S. 2022/0318788 in view of Purandare U.S. 2023/0306418 as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Wright U.S. 2022/0051236.
Re Claim 8, Dalton in view of Purandare teach the method of claim 6, however, Dalton in view of Purandare do not explicitly teach wherein the unspent transaction output is governed by a P2SH pub key address and redeem script associated with the allow list of miners.
Wright discloses methods and systems by which an agreed set of conditions governing transfers on a blockchain can be generated and enforced. Specifically, Wright discloses
wherein the unspent transaction output is governed by a P2SH pub key address and redeem script associated with the allow list of miners ([0045] – “a P2SH transaction requires the recipient to supply a script (known as the redeem script…) which hashes to the same hash in the locking script, and also supply the data that is required to satisfy any conditions set out in the locking script such that the data will cause the script to evaluate to TRUE. If the redeem script hashes match, and the correct data is provided to enable a TRUE evaluation of the UTXO’s locking script, the funds associated with the output are unlocked and control is transferred to the recipient.” Dalton discloses the allow list of miners in [0096] as noted above.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dalton in view of Purandare’s method for reducing computation and computing resources for blockchain transactions, and allow list of miners, with the teachings of governing transactions by P2SH in Wright. The combination is use of a known technique, i.e. Pay-to-Script-Hash (P2SH) to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and therefore yield predictable results Wright, [0042-43].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rakic U.S. 2025/0184163 directed to using a blockchain to provide proof of a data retention policy. See at least [0017] and Fig. 1B.
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 CHRISTINE DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5880. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5pm MT.
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.
/C.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698