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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/03/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 3 have been amended. Claim 4 has been canceled. Claims 1-3 and 5-20 are pending. Claims 9-20 were previously withdrawn. Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 04/03/2026, 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 on pgs. 7-9, the amendments and remarks are not persuasive. The amendment “wherein the first paired event and the second paired event are generated together based on the first set of transaction data” merely elaborates on the abstract idea of mental process because a human mind or a human using a pen and paper can practically generate the paired set of processable cryptographic events based on the first set of transaction data together, with the second paired event including a cryptographic reference to the first paired event. The amendment “by creating a cryptographic script function using public keys from mining nodes on the allow list” recites another abstract idea: mathematical concepts. Applicant’s remarks admit that this element is a mathematical operation on pg. 9, 1st paragraph of the remarks. The cross-referencing requirement, as suggested by the remarks to be present in the limitation “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 a blockchain” does not make clear how the restriction is performed. Therefore, under the broadest, most reasonable interpretation, a human mind or a human using a pen and paper can practically restrict collection of the transaction output to only mining nodes on the allow list. Examples of mental concepts include, but is not limited to, observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion. Restricting is a process reasonably considered an evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion. Furthermore, the claims have not recited the generating a paired set of processable cryptographic events, performing cryptographic verification operations, and coordinating transmission of cryptographic events in such a way that it would be impractical for a human mind or a human using a pen and paper to perform. In other words, the claims do not limit how the paired events are specifically generated, how the verification is specifically performed, or how the transmission is specifically coordinated such that a human mind cannot practically perform these steps. Therefore, Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s remarks regarding Step 2A, Prong Two of the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection on pgs. 9-12, 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 mempool of mining nodes configured to propagate the paired set of processable cryptographic events to mempools of other mining nodes on the allow list are not analogous to directing transactions to selected miners that meet a specific criteria. The amendment is at most limiting the paired events to be propagated to a group of mining nodes, but it is not actively selecting a mining node, and especially not selecting a mining node based on any of the previous steps. There lacks a clear nexus between the transmitting step and the previous steps, e.g. how is creating a cryptographic script function using public keys from the mining nodes, and/or any of the other method steps, affect where the paired events are transmitted. Therefore, since it is not clear how the transmission is affected by any of the other method steps, the amended limitations do not enable selective miner participation while ensuring mempool propagation to improve routing efficiency and user control over which miners process their transactions. The amendment directed to the cryptographic script function does not enforce a specific constraint for miner eligibility, prevent unauthorized collection of transaction outputs, and/or enable the system to verify that only mining nodes on the allow list having incorporated the first paired event into a block can collect the transaction output. There lacks any clear nexus between the created cryptographic script function and any of the other operations. One cannot draw such conclusion when a limitation is recited in isolation and does not relate to any of the other method steps. Furthermore, the patent eligibility analysis has not identified any elements to be generic computer components. Therefore, the remarks directed to generic computer components are not relevant. Please see the updated patent eligibility analysis below in light of the amendments.
In response to the Applicant’s remarks regarding Step 2B on pg. 12, for purposes of brevity, please see above for Examiner’s response to the amended limitations and below for the updated patent eligibility analysis in light of the amendments.
Applicant's arguments, filed 04/03/2026, with respect to the prior art rejection have been fully considered, but they are not all persuasive.
Applicant’s remarks state –
In response to the Applicant’s remarks against Dalton U.S. 2022/0318788 on pgs. 13-14, the instant specification describes in [0041] that the paired event is generated by the user who generates the initial event. Although the Examiner does not agree that this constitutes sufficient support for generating the paired events “together” (see the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection below for more information), the interpretation of “wherein the first paired event and the second paired event are generated together based on the first set of transaction data” shall be interpreted to mean they are generated by the same entity in light of the specification. Dalton discloses that a transaction is generated by a transaction service Fig. 4, [0053]. Furthermore, Dalton discloses that “this discussion is applicable to any transaction that is recorded on the blockchain” [0051], thereby suggesting that the transaction service, i.e. the transaction intake application, generates all of the transactions, including previous transactions. Therefore, the generated transaction 465, i.e. second paired event, and the previous transaction to which the transaction 465 refers Fig. 4, i.e. first paired event, are generated “together” since they are generated by the same entity, i.e. the transaction service. The transactions are generated based on transaction data Fig. 4 - transaction data 435, i.e. based on the first set of transaction data. The claimed limitations do not specify what constitutes a set of transaction data, so any transaction data used to generate the transactions would reasonably read upon the element “based on the first set of transaction data.”
Applicant’s amendments directed to the “creating a cryptographic script function using public keys from mining nodes on the allow list” have overcome the previous prior art rejection. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Smith et al. U.S. 2017/0317833.
In response to the Applicant’s remarks against Dalton on pg. 14-15, Dalton discloses in [0096] that a service provider may identify a network of preferred miners and routing a returned transaction to specific preferred nodes. Therefore, Dalton discloses routing, or transmitting, the transactions to a particular set of nodes, and not just a general queue. Furthermore, the active method step is transmitting the paired set of processable cryptographic events to a mining node mempool, what the mining nodes are configured to do does not impart a meaningful limitation on how the paired events are transmitted. The claims are also not actively reciting propagating the paired events to mempools of other mining nodes on the allow list, it is merely providing context on the mining nodes without affecting how the paired events are transmitted. The paired events are transmitted to a mempool, what the mining nodes are configured to do later does not mean the transmission was selective in who receives the paired events. Therefore, what the mining nodes are configured to do is not given patentable weight.
In response to the Applicant’s remarks against Purandare U.S. 2023/0306418 on pgs. 15-16, the remarks are addressing limitations that are being taught by Dalton and Smith (see below). 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).
In response to the Applicant’s remarks against Wright U.S. 2022/0051236 on pg. 16, the claimed limitation does not require a “specific technical integration” as suggested by the remarks. Reciting that the unspent transaction output is “governed by a P2SH pub key address and redeem script associated with the allow list of miners” is general application of P2SH functionality on the claimed invention. The claimed limitation does not require any specific steps for implementation or steps that suggest the integration is specific and technical. Although the Examiner does not find the remarks persuasive, the rejection is withdrawn since Smith discloses the same elements as Wright.
In response to the Applicant’s remarks regarding no motivation to combine on pgs. 16-17, for purposes of brevity, please see below for the rationales for combining the references.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 have overcome the claim objections set forth in the Final Rejection 02/03/2026. Therefore, the claim objections to claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the first paired event and the second paired event are generated together based on the first set of transaction data.” The instant specification discloses in [0041] that the paired event can be generated by the user who generated the initial event. However, this does not disclose or suggest that the events are generated together. The specification discloses that the events can be propagated across the greater mempool together, but this is not the same as the paired events being generated together. Therefore, the claim introduces new matter.
Claims 2-3 and 5-8 depend from claim 1. They do not cure the deficiencies above. Therefore, they are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for at least based on their dependency from a rejected base claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the first paired event and the second paired event are generated together based on the first set of transaction data.” The instant specification does not provide any further insight on how the events are generated together. Claiming the paired events to be generated together suggests that the events are combined, which appears contrary to the claimed invention. Furthermore, it is unclear what constitutes “together,” i.e. at the same time, during the same period of time, generated as one event, etc. Therefore, the scope of “generated together” is indefinite.
Claims 2-3 and 5-8 depend from claim 1. They do not cure the deficiencies above. Therefore, they are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for at least based on their dependency from a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 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, by the transaction intake application, 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 with a miner-associated transaction output set to zero or an amount below a minimum propagation threshold, and a second paired event includes cryptographic reference to the first paired event and a transaction output, wherein the first paired event and the second paired event are generated together based on the first set of transaction data; and
associating, by the transaction intake application, an allow list of miners, each meeting one of a predetermined criteria, with the second paired event
by creating a cryptographic script function using public keys from mining nodes on the allow list,
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 a 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 executing a custom blockchain protocol configured to propagate the paired set of processable cryptographic events to mempools of other mining nodes on the allow list,
wherein the mining nodes are configured to process cryptographic events and append processed cryptographic events as blocks on the blockchain after
determining that the miner select constraint is satisfied to process the first paired event.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, A, C-D, F-G, and J 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. Limitation E is reasonably categorized as a mathematical operation as suggested by the Applicant’s remarks on pg. 9, filed 04/03/2026. Therefore, claim 1 recites abstract ideas in multiple groups.
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 H 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 I 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 H) 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 recites executing a custom blockchain protocol. Inspecting inbound events elaborates on the abstract idea of mental processes. A custom blockchain protocol and the first mining node 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 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 1-3 and 5-8 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 1-3 and 5-8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dalton U.S. 2022/0318788 in view of Smith et al. U.S. 2017/0317833 (herein as “Smith”), and further 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,” Fig. 1 – transaction service 160, i.e. transaction intake application, Fig. 4 - transaction data 435, i.e. first set of transaction data);
generating, by the transaction intake application, 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 with a miner-associated transaction output set to zero or an amount below a minimum propagation threshold and a second paired event includes cryptographic reference to the first paired event and a transaction output, wherein the first paired event and the second paired event are generated together based on the first set of transaction data ([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…a digital signature 455 (i.e. cryptographic reference)…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 since both transactions are generated by the transaction service, they are generated “together,” [0120] – “transaction fee associated with the transaction,” neither the claims nor the instant specification specifies a specific minimum propagation threshold, therefore, under the broadest, most reasonable interpretation, such threshold is interpreted to be the transaction fee); 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 executing a custom blockchain protocol configured to propagate the paired set of processable cryptographic events to mempools of other mining nodes on the allow list ([0096] – “identify a network of preferred miners,” “routing (i.e. transmitting) a returned transaction to specific preferred nodes,” what the mining nodes are configured to do is not given patentable weight since it does not impart a meaningful limit on how the paired set of events are transmitted),
wherein the mining nodes are configured to process cryptographic events and append processed cryptographic events as blocks on the blockchain after determining that the miner selection constraint is satisfied to process the first paired event ([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
by creating a cryptographic script function using public keys from mining nodes on the allow list.
Smith discloses methods and apparatus for providing authentication of information of a user. Specifically, Smith discloses
by creating a cryptographic script function using public keys from mining nodes on the allow list ([0063] – “a multisig attestation address comprises two or more public keys and is created using the Pay To Script Hash (P2SH) protocol,” [0017] – “combining two or more public keys of potential signers,” i.e. associating with mining nodes on the allow list).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to Dalton’s method for reducing computation and computing resources for blockchain transactions with the teachings of creating a script function using public keys of select signers in Smith. One would be motivated to make the combination to reduce the complexity of performing transactions Smith, [0077].
However, Dalton in view of Smith does not explicitly teach
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 a 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 a 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 in view of Smith’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 a 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 Smith and Purandare teach the method of claim 1, and Dalton in view of Smith and 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 Smith and Purandare teach the method of claim 2, and Dalton in view of Smith and Purandare further teach wherein the first mining node is executing the custom blockchain protocol, and wherein the custom blockchain protocol inspects inbound events for relevant cryptographic script public keys associated with paired events prior to propagation (Dalton, Fig. 5 – transaction 502 with public key 510, [0061] – “The node 205 may verify whether the transaction 502 is legal or conforms to a pre-defined set of rules,” [0062] – “decrypt the digital signature 515 using the public key 510,” thereby suggesting the node inspects the transaction for the public key in order to decrypt the signature).
Re Claim 5, Dalton in view of Smith and Purandare teach the method of claim 1, and Dalton in view of Smith and 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 in view of Smith’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 Smith and Purandare teach the method of claim 1, and Dalton in view of Smith and Purandare further teach 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 in view of Smith’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 Smith and Purandare teach the method of claim 6, and Dalton in view of Smith and 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.”
Re Claim 8, Dalton in view of Smith and Purandare teach the method of claim 6, and Dalton in view of Smith and Purandare further teach wherein the unspent transaction output is governed by a P2SH pub key address and redeem script associated with the allow list of miners (Smith, [0045] – “the locking script of the unspent output (UTXO), a P2SH transaction requires the recipient to supply a script (known as the redeem script)”).
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 and allow list of miners with the teachings of governing transactions by P2SH in Smith. 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.
Conclusion
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.
/CHRISTINE DANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights