DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
This Office action is responsive to the communications filed November 5, 2025. Claims 1, 7, and 12 were amended. Claims 1-3, 5-9, 12, 13, 15-21, 23-27, 30,31, and 33-36 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 1, 7, and 12.
Applicant has amended claim 12 to include the MPC security system. However, claim 15 depends on claim 1, which does not recite the MPC. The 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim 15 is maintain.
Applicant asserts that Sliwka does not teach responsive to transferring, preempt access to clones of the instantiated response clones. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Sliwka teaches this feature at paragraph [1453] – the system controls access to the clone NFTs such that only one of the clone NFT and the source NFT may be usable at a time.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 15 is 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 15 recites the limitation "the multiparty computation (MPC) security system" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 5-8, 16-21, 23-26, and 33-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2025/0156828 to Sliwka et al. (“Sliwka”).
As per claim 1, Sliwka discloses a plurality of computer networks, each of the plurality of computer networks having a respective plurality of nodes (abstract – blockchain networks);
a first node of a first computer network of the plurality of computer networks being configured to execute a multinetwork digital asset control system, the multinetwork digital asset control system being configured to resolve at least one disparity between at least two computer networks of the plurality of computer networks based on at least one of metadata and rules (paragraphs [1464] - the collection creator device may initiate an operation to enable the NFT collection for transfer to the destination chain. For example, the creator device may present a GUI provided by the ledger bridging system 416 (and/or the bridge oracle or some other component of the tokenization platform 100) that is configured to manage bridging of NFT collections, including the configuration and deployment of smart contracts in accordance with the protocol of the destination chain; [1470] - the bridging system may fetch the attributes of the NFT collection smart contract from the source chain (e.g., from a node device)… the bridging system may reformat some or all of the attributes, add attributes, modify attributes, and/or subtract attributes to resolve any differences between a protocol of the source chain and a protocol of the destination chain. Additionally or alternatively, the bridging system may add, modify, and/or alter attributes of an NFT for one or more additional reasons; and [1477]- attributes may include NFT identifier, title, mint number, image, description, and/or any other attributes and/or values thereof to determine the specific attributes for the clone NFT. In embodiments, the attributes may include mutable attributes, and the clone NFT may have the same mutable attributes with the same values as the source NFT);
the multinetwork digital asset control system being further configured to control a digital asset across the plurality of computer networks by: instantiating respective clones of the digital asset on respective computer networks of the plurality of computer networks (abstract - an oracle server determines whether a clone NFT associated with the source NFT exists on the second blockchain. If so, the oracle instructs a second bridge smart contract to unlock the clone NFT. If no clone NFT exists, the oracle instructs minting of the clone NFT and assigning ownership of the clone NFT to the user's account on the second blockchain. The clone NFT remains controllable by the user while the source NFT stays locked on the first blockchain, maintaining a one-to-one relationship between the tokens across chains);
configuring a cryptographic key to secure the digital asset and the instantiated respective clones (paragraphs [0217] – public key; [0155]-each account may be assigned a public key and private key; [0675] - the configuration functions 5172 may be access-controlled such that only an owner of the PTE game smart contract (or someone else with the correct cryptographic keys) may use the configuration functions 5172); and paragraph [01477] – clone has the same attributes);
validating an access request by a second node of a second computer network of the plurality of computer networks by transferring the cryptographic key to the second node, the access request being for the digital asset or a clone of the instantiated respective clones; and responsive to the transferring, thereby controlling the digital asset across the plurality of computer networks (paragraph [0210] –[0219]; abstract – clones maintains one-to-one relationship between the tokens across chains and [1453]).
Additionally, the “thereby clause” has been considered; however, it merely expresses the intended results. See MPEP§ 2111.04. It is not a step that needs to be performed and does not patentable distinguish over the disclosure of the prior art .
The claims recite the conditional /optional language “--or." Although the conditional/optional language has been considered, Applicants are reminded that optional or conditional elements do not narrow the claims because they can always be omitted. See MPEP §2111.04: "Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation."
As per claim 2, Sliwka discloses the digital asset is configured as a non-fungible token (NFT) (see abstract).
As per claim 3, Sliwka discloses the non-fungible token (NFT) is configured with at least one of: an indication of an owner, one or more status flags, and an ERC-721 interface (see paragraph [0474]- account of owner; address).
As per claim 5, Sliwka discloses the multinetwork digital asset control system is further configured to: resolve a disparity of the at least one disparity between the at least two computer networks, the disparity including at least one of: (i) an exchange value of the digital asset, (ii) an exchange cost associated with the digital asset, (iii) another exchange parameter associated with the digital asset, (iv) an environment of use for the digital asset, the environment of use belonging to a given computer network of the at least two computer networks, and (v) a combination thereof (paragraphs [1264] and [1460]).
As per claim 6, Sliwka discloses wherein the environment of use includes an online gaming environment and wherein the multinetwork digital asset control system is further configured to: validate a request to perform an action upon the digital asset in the online gaming environment; preempt performance of the action in computer networks of the plurality of computer networks different from the given computer network; and preempt performance of the action in environments of the given computer network different from the online gaming environment (paragraphs [0005] and claim 1 above).
As per claim 7, Sliwka discloses the multinetwork digital asset control system is further configured to control the digital asset by: ascertaining at least one security vulnerability pertaining to the digital asset on a given computer network of the plurality of computer networks (paragraphs [0141] and [0151]).
As per claim 8, Sliwka discloses wherein the multinetwork digital asset control system is further configured to: configure a first clone of the instantiated respective clones to enforce a rule pertaining to a second clone of the instantiated respective clones, the first clone belonging to a given computer network of the plurality of computer networks, the second clone belonging to a given other computer network of the plurality of computer networks (paragraph [1462]). Also, functional recitation(s) using the word "for" or other functional language (e.g. “to enforce”) have been considered, but does not patentable distinguish the claim from the prior art because they are regarded as intended use language. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed product must result in a structural difference between the claimed product and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it reads on the claimed limitation. In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) ("The manner or method in which such machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself."); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). See also MPEP §§ 2114 and 2115.
As per claim 16, Sliwka discloses the multinetwork digital asset control system is further configured to: computationally pair respective cryptographic keys with respective nodes of the plurality of computer networks; validate, based on the computationally paired respective cryptographic keys, and source of an access instruction, the access instruction (i) received from a given node of the respective nodes and (ii) pertaining to the digital asset or a clone of the instantiated respective clones; and verify the access instruction based on a computational authorization received from one or more other nodes of the respective nodes, the one or more other nodes being different from the given node (see paragraphs [0152], [1019] and claim 1 above).
As per claim 17, Sliwka discloses the access instruction is an encrypted access instruction, and wherein the multinetwork digital asset control system is further configured to: decrypt the encrypted access instruction (paragraphs [1019] and [1026]).
As per claim 18, Sliwka discloses wherein the multinetwork digital asset control system is further configured to: interface with a virtual machine (VM) embedded oracle; and receive, via the virtual machine (VM) embedded oracle, at least one of the access instruction and the computational authorization (paragraph [1529]).
Claims 19-21 are rejected on the same rationale as claims 1-3, respectively.
Claims 23-26 are rejected on the same rationale as claims 5-8, respectively.
Claims 33-35 are rejected on the same rationale as claims 16-18, respectively.
Claim 36 is rejected on the same rationale as claim 1.
Claims 9, 13, 27, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sliwka as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2022/0021728 to Kelly (“Kelly”).
As per claim 9, Sliwka resolving the disparities (see claim 1 above). Sliwka does not expressly at least one rule of the rules is configured to: computationally assign permissions to a given node of a given computer network of the plurality of computer networks, the permissions configured to unlock, using a zero- knowledge proof (ZKP), a given clone of the instantiated respective clones, the given clone belonging to the given network. Kelly discloses at least one rule of the rules is configured to: computationally assign permissions to a given node of a given computer network of the plurality of computer networks, the permissions configured to unlock, using a zero- knowledge proof (ZKP), a given clone of the instantiated respective clones, the given clone belonging to the given network (Fig. 20A and 20B; paragraphs [0127], [0135], [0150]. [0151] and claim 19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Sliwka by including the features of Kelly. Applying the known technique of Kelly into Sliwka would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would have yielded predictable results.
As per claim 13, Sliwka discloses using oracle server (abstract) and virtual machine (paragraph [1529]). Kelly discloses a VM oracle configured to enforce at least one rule of the rules (paragraph [0144]). t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Sliwka by including the features of Kelly. Applying the known technique of Kelly into Sliwka would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would have yielded predictable results.
Claim 27 is rejected on the same rationale as claim 9.
Claim 31 is rejected on the same rationale as claim 13.
Claims 12 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sliwka as applied to claims 1 and 19 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2023/0177496 to Le Van Gong et al. (“Le Van Gong”).
As per claim 12, Sliwka discloses the multinetwork digital asset control system (see claim 1 above). Sliwka does not expressly disclose the multinetwork is further configured to: implement a multiparty computation (MPC) security mechanism for the cryptographic key by: computationally processing one or more key shards of the cryptographic key; and assigning the computationally processed one or more key shards to one or more respective nodes, the one or more respective nodes belonging to one or more computer networks of the plurality of computer networks. Le Van Gong discloses computationally processing one or more key shards of the cryptographic key; and assigning the computationally processed one or more key shards to one or more respective nodes, the one or more respective nodes belonging to one or more computer networks of the plurality of computer networks (paragraphs [0194] ,[0195], and [0218]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Sliwka by including the features of Le Van Gong. Applying the known technique of Le Van Gong into Sliwka would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would have yielded predictable results.
Claim 30 is rejected on the same rationale as claim 12.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sliwka as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO2021/061724 to Clark (“Clark”).
As per claim 15, Sliwka discloses the system of claim 1. Sliwka does not disclose the first node includes a secure cryptoprocessor implemented as a dedicated microprocessor configured to execute the multiparty computation (MPC) security system; and the multinetwork digital asset control system is embedded on the secure cryptoprocessor. Clark discloses first node includes a secure cryptoprocessor implemented as a dedicated microprocessor configured to execute the multiparty computation (MPC) security system; and the multinetwork digital asset control system is embedded on the secure cryptoprocessor (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Sliwka by including the features of Clark. Applying the known technique of Clark into Sliwka would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would have yielded predictable results.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JALATEE WORJLOH whose telephone number is (571)272-6714. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:00am-2:00pm.
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, 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.
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.
/Jalatee Worjloh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697