DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on 1/19/2024 is being examined under the AIA first inventor to file provisions.
The following is a FINAL Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendments filed on 3/21/2026.
a. Claims 22, 25-28, 30, 32, 35-38, 40 are amended
b. Claims 1-21, 24, 29, 31, 34, 39. 41 are cancelled
c. Claims 42-48 are new
Overall, claims 22-23, 25-28, 30, 32--33, 35-38, 40, 42-48 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 USC 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 22-23, 25-28, 30, 32--33, 35-38, 40, 42-48 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to a judicial exception, i.e. an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, and without significantly more.
Per Step 1 of the multi-step eligibility analysis, claims 22-23, 25-28, 30-31 are directed to computer executable instructions stored on a non-transitory storage medium and claims 32-33, 35-38, 40-41 are directed to a computer implemented method.
Thus, on its face, each independent claim and the associated dependent claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Per Step 2A.1. Independent claim 22, (which is representative of independent claim 32) is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the independent claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitations of the independent claim 22 (which is representative of independent claims 32) recite an abstract idea, shown in bold below:
[A] A non-transitory computer program product comprising a computer-readable medium with computer code instructions stored thereon, the computer code instructions being configured, when executed by a processor exclusively within a secure cryptoprocessor implemented as a dedicated hardware microprocessor of at least one blockchain computing node of a distributed blockchain network, to cause the secure cryptoprocessor to:
[B] implement a multiparty computation (MPC) security subsystem operable within the secure cryptoprocessor implemented as a dedicated microprocessor, the multiparty computation (MPC) security system subsystem configured to prevent reconstruction of a cryptographic private key outside the secure cryptoprocessor;
[C] store, within cryptographically isolated hardware memory regions of the secure cryptoprocessor, a plurality of the cryptographic key shards, each shard being bound to a distinct blockchain computing node of the distributed blockchain network;
[D] prior to execution of any cryptographic signing operation associated with a non-fungible digital asset, perform, by the multiparty computation (MPC) security subsystem, a real-time verification of secure possession of each shard of the plurality of cryptographic key shards by the corresponding blockchain computing nodes;
[E] conditionally enable, by the secure cryptoprocessor and independent of application-level software, execution of the cryptographic signing operation only upon success of the real-time verification, of the secure possession of the cryptographic key shards;
[F] receive, from a machine learning (ML)-based anomaly detection oracle, a machine-generated anomaly signal, the machine-generated anomaly signal being computational input to the multiparty computation (MPC) security subsystem;
[G] modify, by the multiparty computation (MPC) security subsystem and based on the machine-generated anomaly signal, shard validation parameters controlling the real-time verification of the secure possession, the shard validation parameters including at least one of: (i) a minimum shard quorum requirement for cryptographic operation execution, (ii) a shard re-verification frequency, and (iii) an execution prohibition state;
[H] condition execution of the cryptographic signing operation on satisfaction of the modified shard validation parameters,
[I] wherein failure to satisfy the modified shard validation parameters preempts reconstruction or use of the cryptographic private key within the secure cryptoprocessor; and
[J] upon successful execution of the cryptographic signing operation, cryptographically bind the non-fungible digital asset to the cryptographic private key within the secure cryptoprocessor,
[K] wherein the cryptographically bound cryptographic private key is configured to defeat reconstruction or exposure outside the secure cryptoprocessor.
Independent claim 22 (which is representative of independent claims 32) recites: perform a real-time verification of secure possession of a shard an enable execution of cryptographic signing ([D], [E]); receiving a anomaly signal and modifying shard validation parameters ([[F], [G]); execute the signing based on the modified parameters and bind the non-fungible digital; asset to the cryptographic private key ([H], [J]), which, based on the claim language and in view of the application disclosure, represents a process aimed at: “conditionally validating (signing) operations (e.g., transactions) and recording them on a ledger (blockchain node)”.
This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers agreements in the form of sales activities or behaviors, business relationships (e-commerce), which falls under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that independent claim 22 (which is representative of independent claims 32) recites an abstract idea that corresponds to a judicial exception.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS – ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS]
Per Step 2A.2. The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the independent claims only amount to instructions to apply the judicial exception to a computer, or are a general link to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(h)).
For example, the added elements “computer,” “computer-readable medium”, “blockchain computing node”, “cryptoprocessor”, “multiparty computation (MPC) security system” recite computing elements at a high level of generality, generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements “wherein failure to satisfy the modified shard validation parameters preempts reconstruction or use of the cryptographic private key within the secure cryptoprocessor”; “wherein the cryptographically bound cryptographic private key is configured to defeat reconstruction or exposure outside the secure cryptoprocessor” as applied to the failure to satisfy the validation, and the cryptographic private key, are nothing more than (a) descriptive limitations of claim elements, such as describing the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements, or (b) general links to the computing environment, which amount to instructions to “apply it,” or equivalent (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
These additional elements of the independent claims do not preclude from carrying out the identified abstract idea “conditionally validating (signing) operations (e.g., transactions) and recording them on a ledger (blockchain node)”, and do not serve to integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional steps in the independent claims, shown not bolded above, recite: implement a multiparty computation (MPC) security subsystem operable within the secure cryptoprocessor implemented as a dedicated microprocessor ([B]); store, within cryptographically isolated hardware memory regions of the secure cryptoprocessor, a plurality of the cryptographic key shards ([C]).
When considered individually, they amount to nothing more than receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“conditionally validating (signing) operations (e.g., transactions) and recording them on a ledger (blockchain node)”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Therefore, the additional steps of independent claim 22 (which is representative of independent claims 32) do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and the claims remain a judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 22 (which is representative of claims independent 32) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claims 22, 32 are deemed ineligible.
[DEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Dependent claim 25 (which is representative of claims 35) recites:
[A] configuring the transaction to perform a cross-chain transfer of the non-fungible digital asset between the distribute blockchain computer network and at least one additional distributes blockchain computer network.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“conditionally validating (signing) operations (e.g., transactions) and recording them on a ledger (blockchain node)”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“conditionally validating (signing) operations (e.g., transactions) and recording them on a ledger (blockchain node)”).
Therefore, dependent claim 25 (which is representative of claims 35) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 26 (which is representative of claims independent 36) recites:
[A] configuring a first blockchain computing node of the multiple nodes to request access to a shard of the one or more cryptographic key shards; and
[B] configuring a second blockchain computing node of the multiple nodes to delegate access to the shard to the first node.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“conditionally validating (signing) operations (e.g., transactions) and recording them on a ledger (blockchain node)”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“conditionally validating (signing) operations (e.g., transactions) and recording them on a ledger (blockchain node)”).
Therefore, dependent claim 26 (which is representative of claims independent 36) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 27 (which is representative of claims 37) recites:
[A] configuring the second node to manage access to the shard to which the first node is configured to request access.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“conditionally validating (signing) operations (e.g., transactions) and recording them on a ledger (blockchain node)”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“conditionally validating (signing) operations (e.g., transactions) and recording them on a ledger (blockchain node)”).
Therefore, dependent claim 27 (which is representative of claims 37) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 28 (which is representative of claims independent 38) recites:
[A] configuring the client device to interface with an online gaming environment.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“conditionally validating (signing) operations (e.g., transactions) and recording them on a ledger (blockchain node)”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“conditionally validating (signing) operations (e.g., transactions) and recording them on a ledger (blockchain node)”).
Therefore, dependent claim 28 (which is representative of claims independent 38) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 45 recites: wherein the modification of the shard validation parameters
alters an execution path of the secure cryptoprocessor,
the alteration configured to
conditionally disable the reconstruction or use of the cryptographic private key at a hardware level.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“conditionally validating (signing) operations (e.g., transactions) and recording them on a ledger (blockchain node)”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“conditionally validating (signing) operations (e.g., transactions) and recording them on a ledger (blockchain node)”).
Therefore, dependent claim 45 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 46 recites:
dynamically increasing or decreasing the minimum shard quorum requirement for cryptographic operation execution based on the machine-generated anomaly signal.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“conditionally validating (signing) operations (e.g., transactions) and recording them on a ledger (blockchain node)”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“conditionally validating (signing) operations (e.g., transactions) and recording them on a ledger (blockchain node)”).
Therefore, dependent claim 46 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 47 recites:
trigger re-verification of previously validated shards of the cryptographic key shards prior to permitting execution of the cryptographic signing operation.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“conditionally validating (signing) operations (e.g., transactions) and recording them on a ledger (blockchain node)”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“conditionally validating (signing) operations (e.g., transactions) and recording them on a ledger (blockchain node)”).
Therefore, dependent claim 47 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 48 recites:
transition the multiparty computation (MPC) security subsystem to a cryptographic execution suspension state that preempts cryptographic signing operations until a preset validation condition is satisfied.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“conditionally validating (signing) operations (e.g., transactions) and recording them on a ledger (blockchain node)”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“conditionally validating (signing) operations (e.g., transactions) and recording them on a ledger (blockchain node)”).
Therefore, dependent claim 48 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claims 23, 30, 33, 40, 42-44 recite:
wherein the nonfungible digital asset is a non-fungible token (NFT).
wherein the machine-generated anomaly signal includes: a numeric anomaly score ...
wherein the machine-generated anomaly signal is provided as the computational input to the multiparty computation (MPC) security subsystem and is withheld ...
wherein the shard validation parameters include a machine-enforced condition set evaluated exclusively within the secure cryptoprocessor.
wherein the plurality of cryptographic key shards includes at least three shards associated with at least three respective nodes of the blockchain computing nodes
These further elements in the dependent claims do not perform any claimed method steps. They describe the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements (in this instance – the non-fungible digital asset, the machine-generated anomaly, the machine-generated anomaly, the shard validation parameters, the cryptographic key shards) and as such, cannot change the nature of the identified abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.07). The nature, form or structure of the other claim elements themselves do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed and do not provide more than a general link to a technological environment.
Therefore, dependent claims 23, 30, 33, 40, 42-44 are deemed ineligible.
When the dependent claims are considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the claim elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense. The most significant elements, which form the abstract concept, are set forth in the independent claims. The fact that the computing devices and the dependent claims are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility, since their individual and combined significance do not transform the identified abstract concept at the core of the claimed invention into eligible subject matter. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application, considered individually, or as a as a whole, as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07(a)II).
In sum, claims 22-23, 25-28, 30, 32--33, 35-38, 40, 42-48 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
Written Description (New Matter)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
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.
The following is a quotation of the relevant portion of 35 U.S.C. §132(a):
No amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention.
Claims 22-23, 25-28, 30, 32--33, 35-38, 40, 42-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), for failing to comply with the written description requirement. MPEP 2163.06 stipulates – If new matter is added to the claims, the examiner should reject the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) – written description requirement. In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 22, 32 have been amended by Applicant to include the limitations: “… the shard validation parameters including at least one of: …, (ii) a shard re-verification frequency, and (iii) an execution prohibition state”, “wherein failure to satisfy the modified shard validation parameters preempts reconstruction or use of the cryptographic private key within the secure cryptoprocessor”. The limitations have no support in the specification, drawings or initial set of claims.
Claims 42-48 have been added by Applicant to include the limitations “wherein the machine-generated anomaly signal includes: a numeric anomaly score, a categorical execution state indicator, or a cryptographic execution confidence value generated by inference of a trained machine learning (ML) model”, “wherein the machine-generated anomaly signal is provided as the computational input to the multiparty computation (MPC) security subsystem and is withheld from a human user or business process prior to modifying cryptographic execution behavior”, “wherein the shard validation parameters include a machine-enforced condition set evaluated exclusively within the secure cryptoprocessor during execution of the cryptographic signing operation”, “wherein the modification of the shard validation parameters alters an execution path of the secure cryptoprocessor, the alteration configured to conditionally disable the reconstruction or use of the cryptographic private key at a hardware level”, “wherein the modification of the shard validation parameters includes dynamically increasing or decreasing the minimum shard quorum requirement for cryptographic operation execution based on the machine-generated anomaly signal”, “wherein the machine-generated anomaly signal is configured to trigger re-verification of previously validated shards of the cryptographic key shards prior to permitting execution of the cryptographic signing operation”, “ wherein the machine-generated anomaly signal is configured to transition the multiparty computation (MPC) security subsystem to a cryptographic execution suspension state that preempts cryptographic signing operations until a preset validation condition is satisfied.” The limitations have no support in the specification, drawings or initial set of claims.
The remainder of the claims are rejected by virtue of dependency.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon which, however, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20200389304 A1 Gryb; Oleg et al. SINGLE NODE MULTI-PARTY ENCRYPTION - A computer node comprising multiple software modules may receive a cryptographic key from a hardware security module. The computer node may use the cryptographic key to produce two key portions, which are distributed to two software modules. These software modules and an optional additional software module may use the key portions in order to encrypt an initial message. The key portions and their locations in memory are periodically updated in order to provide improved cryptographic security.
US 20230421540 A1 OCEGUEDA; Luis et al. SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR GENERATING SECURE, ENCRYPTED COMMUNICATIONS USING MULTI-PARTY COMPUTATIONS IN ORDER TO PERFORM BLOCKCHAIN OPERATIONS IN DECENTRALIZED APPLICATIONS - Methods and systems described herein relate to an improved platform that provides secure, encrypted communications across distributed computer networks when coordinating cryptography-based digital repositories in order to perform blockchain operations in decentralized applications. More specifically, the methods and systems provide this improved platform by introducing additional abstraction layers into a production service for computing signatures during multi-party computation (MPC) signing procedures.
US 20240235842 A1 Watson; Gaven et al. OBLIVIOUS TRANSFER FROM KEY ENCAPSULATION MECHANISMS - Embodiments can perform efficient OT (oblivious transfer) protocols to efficiently establish OT correlations that could be used for an MPC protocol. The present embodiments relate to a non-interactive OT (NIOT) protocol using a key encapsulation mechanism (KEM). Two OT protocols are non-interactive OTs, in which a sender generates private, public key pair (pk, sk) that is independent of its input or generated OT correlations. The two OT protocols use a cryptographic hash function and a one-way secure dense key encapsulation mechanism (KEM).
US 20250104028 A1 JAKOBSEN; Thomas Pelle et al. EMERGENCY RECOVERY TRANSACTION OF FUNDS OF CRYPTO CURRENCY WALLET - A method for performing an emergency recovery transaction of funds of a crypto currency wallet involves a distributed cryptographic key shared among two or more nodes with each node holding a share of the cryptographic key and none of the nodes holding the entire cryptographic key. The cryptographic key provides access to the funds of the crypto currency wallet. Recovery information regarding the cryptographic key is stored in a storage being separate from the two or more nodes. If the cryptographic key and/or the wallet becomes in-operational, a user retrieves the recovery information from the storage and provides at least part of the retrieved recovery information to an emergency recovery service. The emergency recovery service and the user perform an emergency recovery transaction of funds from the crypto currency wallet to a new crypto currency wallet, based on the recovery information.
US 20230421397 A1 OCEGUEDA; Luis et al. SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PERFORMING BLOCKCHAIN OPERATIONS USING MULTI-PARTY COMPUTATION COHORT MANAGEMENT GROUPINGS - Methods and systems described herein relate to an improved platform that provides secure, encrypted communications across distributed computer networks when coordinating cryptography-based digital repositories in order to perform blockchain operations in decentralized applications. More specifically, the methods and systems provide this improved platform by introducing additional abstraction layers into a production service for computing signatures during multi-party computation (MPC) signing procedures.
US 11431490 B1 Ranellucci; Samuel System and method for securing data in a quantum computing environment using multi-party computation - A computerized system and method for obtaining a post-quantum security scheme, generating a one-time use signing key split into shares, each share of the one-time use signing key is stored in one computerized device of the multiple computerized devices, generating shares of a verification key using a function receiving a share of the signing key, generating a data structure, where each node of the data structure is associated with a share of the verification key, signing a message using the shares of the one-time use signing key, revealing the share of the verification key, and reconstructing at least a portion of the data structure to validate that the revealed share of the verification key is associated with the correct node of the data structure.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s submitted remarks and arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant disagrees with the Office Action conclusions and asserts that the presented claims fully comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 regrading judicial exceptions. Further, Applicant is of the opinion that the prior art fails to teach Applicant’s invention.
Examiner respectfully disagrees in both regards.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Applicant submits:
a. The pending claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
b. The identified abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.
c. The pending claims amount to significantly more.
Furthermore, Applicant asserts that the Office has failed to meet its burden to identify the abstract idea and to establish that the identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application and that the pending claims do not amount to significantly more.
Examiner responds – The arguments have been considered in light of Applicants’ amendments to the claims. The arguments ARE NOT PERSUASIVE. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
The pending claims, as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application. This is because (1) they do not effect improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)); (2) they do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition (see the Vanda memo); (3) they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05 (b)); (4) they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05 (c)); (5) they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designated to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05 (e) and the Vanda memo).
In addition, the pending claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As such, the pending claims, when considered as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application and not amounting to significantly more.
More specific:
Applicant submits “While agreeing, at least implicitly, that the claimed invention is not directed to a mental process or mathematical concept, …”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The eligibility analysis of the independent claims in the instant office action does not make such an allegation.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Applicant notes that amended Claim 22 does not recite any transactions whatsoever – let alone approving transactions only between authenticated parties or otherwise. That should be the end of the matter.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Based on the claim language (“store, within cryptographically isolated hardware memory regions of the secure cryptoprocessor, a plurality of the cryptographic key shards, each shard being bound to a distinct blockchain computing node of the distributed blockchain network;” … “upon successful execution of the cryptographic signing operation, cryptographically bind the non-fungible digital asset to the cryptographic private key within the secure cryptoprocessor”, and in light of the specification (“[0006] Embodiments offer solutions that can improve security in cryptocurrency asset storage, management, and transfer. … [0009] In an example embodiment, the multiple nodes may be configured to operate in connection with each other in the blockchain computer network. According to another example embodiment, the system may include an additional blockchain computer network. The transaction may be configured to perform a cross-chain transfer of the non-fungible digital asset between the blockchain computer network and the additional blockchain computer network. “), the claims are unambiguously directed to “conditionally validating (signing) operations (e.g., transactions) and recording them on a ledger (blockchain node)”.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “And most importantly, it is entirely implausible to assert that these amended claim elements or the remaining elements of Claim 22 as amended recite anything resembling commercial or legal interactions.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
See response immediately above.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Applicant submits that the claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea at least because any such alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
It appears that applicant refers to the provisions of MPEP 2106.05(a).
First, MPEP 2106.05(a) discloses that the additional claim elements bring about “improvements to the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field.” Securing a non-fungible digital asset is a pure BUSINESS problem, rather than a technology or technical field problem. As such, the limitations which have not been deemed as being part of the identified abstract idea, i.e., the “additional elements,” do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application, as disclosed by MPEP 2106.05(a).
Second, MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) discloses:
An important consideration to evaluate when determining whether the claim as a whole integrates a judicial exception into a practical application is whether the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or other technology .... In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art .... Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology. the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. (Emphasis added)
That is, the claimed invention may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by demonstrating that it improves the relevant existing technology although it may not be an improvement over well-understood, routine, conventional activity. (Emphasis added)
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Applicant submits that the secure MPC enforcement functionality recited in amended Claim 22-i.e., fraud prevention and verified transactions for non-fungible digital assets, such as NFTs, with a multiparty computation security system-is a practical application of a solution to a concrete, real-world problem in numerous fields, such as those involving the exchange of collectibles, games and game items, art, and real estate. As such, it is clear that any abstract idea alleged to be recited in Claim 22 is integrated into a practical application and Claim 22 is directed to patent eligible subject matter.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
See response immediately above.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Applicant submits that the secure MPC enforcement functionality recited in amended Claim 22-e.g., implementing the MPC security subsystem, performing the real-time verification, conditionally enabling execution of the cryptographic signing operation, and modifying the shard validation parameters-is a practical application of a solution to a concrete, real-world problem in numerous fields, such as those relating to cryptographic operations and controlling how cryptographic operations are structured and processed. It is thus clear that any abstract idea alleged to be recited in amended Claim 22 is integrated into a practical application and Claim 22 is directed to patent eligible subject matter.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
See response immediately above.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “First, Applicant submits that the Specification as filed sets forth an improvement in technology. Conventional systems lack the ability to secure digital assets, including non-fungible digital assets such as NFTs. …”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
It appears that applicant refers to the provisions of MPEP 2106.05(a).
First, MPEP 2106.05(a) discloses that the additional claim elements bring about “improvements to the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field.” Securing a non-fungible digital asset is a pure BUSINESS problem, rather than a technology or technical field problem. As such, the limitations which have not been deemed as being part of the identified abstract idea, i.e., the “additional elements,” do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application, as disclosed by MPEP 2106.05(a).
Second, MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) discloses:
An important consideration to evaluate when determining whether the claim as a whole integrates a judicial exception into a practical application is whether the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or other technology .... In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art .... Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology. the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. (Emphasis added)
That is, the claimed invention may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by demonstrating that it improves the relevant existing technology although it may not be an improvement over well-understood, routine, conventional activity. (Emphasis added)
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Second, Applicant submits that amended Claim 22 reflects the improvement to the existing techniques for securing digital assets.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
See response immediately above.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Applicant further submits that amended Claim 22 satisfies the requirements set forth in the most recent USPTO guidance for determining if a claim provides an improvement to technology, and as such, is integrated into a practical application.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
See response here above.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “As described in the USPTO guidance, merely concluding that a claim is directed to an abstract idea does not end the determination of patent subject matter eligibility. Rather, a claim that is directed to an abstract idea is directed to patent eligible subject matter where any element, or combination of elements in the claim, "is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the [abstract idea]" itself MPEP 2106.05. Applicant's Claim 22 does just this.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The eligibility analysis in the instant office action concludes:
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 22 (which is representative of claims independent 32) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claims 22, 32 are deemed ineligible.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “The claimed system "changes the architecture" of an existing MPC system "itself' such as by virtue of the claimed MPC security subsystem operable within the secure cryptoprocessor and configured to prevent reconstruction of a cryptographic private key outside the secure cryptoprocessor and the claimed ML-based anomaly detection oracle, among other examples. Moreover, the claimed system changes "how information flows," e.g., as to the claimed plurality of cryptographic key shards, the claimed shard validation parameters, and the claimed cryptographic private key.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
See response immediately above.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
It follows from the above that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 103.
The rejection is withdrawn, as a result of the amendments. Th identified prior art of record does not disclose:
“modify, by the multiparty computation (MPC) security subsystem and based on the machine-generated anomaly signal, shard validation parameters controlling the real-time verification of the secure possession, the shard validation parameters including at least one of: (i) a minimum shard quorum requirement for cryptographic operation execution, (ii) a shard re-verification frequency, and (iii) an execution prohibition state;”
“condition execution of the cryptographic signing operation on satisfaction of the modified shard validation parameters, wherein failure to satisfy the modified shard validation parameters preempts reconstruction or use of the cryptographic private key within the secure cryptoprocessor;”
The other arguments presented by Applicant continually point back to the above arguments as being the basis for the arguments against the other 103 rejections, as the other arguments are presented only because those claims depend from the independent claims, and the main argument above is presented against the independent claims. Therefore, it is believed that all arguments put forth have been addressed by the points above.
Examiner has reviewed and considered all of Applicant’s remarks. The rejection is maintained, necessitated by the fact that the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 101 has not been overcome.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Radu Andrei whose telephone number is 313.446.4948. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday 8:30am – 5pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John Hayes can be reached at 571.272.6708. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
As disclosed in MPEP 502.03, communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center information webpage. Status information for unpublished applications is available to registered users through Patent Center information webpage only.
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.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300
/Radu Andrei/
Primary Examiner, AU 3697
Prosecution Insights