DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 30, 2026, has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on June 30, 2026, has been entered. Applicant has: amended claims 1, 5, 11, and 13-16; cancelled claims 8 and 18; and added claims 21-26. Claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, 13-17, and 19-26 are now pending, have been examined and currently stand rejected.
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 .
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, 3-7, 9-11, 13-17, and 19-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites and is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., an abstract idea) and does not provide an integration of the recited abstract idea into a practical application nor include an inventive concept that is “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea to which the claim is directed. MPEP §2106.
In determining subject matter eligibility in an Alice rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101, it is first determined at Step 1 whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of an invention (i.e., a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter). MPEP §2106.03. Here, it is determined that claims 1, 3-7, 9, 10, 21, 23 and 25 are directed to the statutory category of a process and claims 11, 13-17, 19, 20, 22, 24 and 26 are directed to the statutory category of a machine. Under a Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more enumerated categories of patent ineligible subject matter that amounts to a judicial exception to patentability. MPEP §2106.04. Independent claim 1, the method claim, is selected as being representative of the independent claims. Independent claim 1 recites:
A method for transferring authority of a blockchain wallet to a beneficiary, comprising:
storing, in a memory of a processing device, a user blockchain account profile, the user blockchain account profile including a user blockchain wallet including a user private key and a user public key, user authentication preferences defining access to the user blockchain account profile, and one or more smart contracts defining one or more rules for the transfer of authority of the user blockchain wallet to one or more designated third-parties;
monitoring, by a processor of the processing device, user blockchain account activity;
identifying, by the processor of the processing device, a user blockchain account action that triggers at least one of the one or more rules; and
in response to identifying the user blockchain account action that triggers at least one of the one or more rules, automatically transferring, by the processor of the processing device, authority of the user blockchain account to at least one of the one or more designated third-parties, wherein the transferring of the authority includes:
automatically updating, by the processor of the processing device, the user authentication preferences to correspond to authentication preferences of the at least one of the one or more designated third-parties, the authentication preferences including at least one of: a username, a password, a biometric authentication, a multi-factor authentication, and hardware-based authentication keys associated with the blockchain account profile.
Here, the claims recite the abstract idea, or combination of abstract ideas, of storing information and rules associated with an account, identifying events associated with the account and rules, and taking actions with the account (e.g., updating authentication preferences) based on the events and rules. This concept/abstract idea, which is identified in the bolded sections seen above, falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping because it describes a fundamental economic principle or practice (e.g., account management, transferring authority of an account based on rules/conditions, etc.). This abstract idea could also fall within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping because it also describes a commercial or legal interaction (e.g., setting account parameters/rules, and transferring authority of an account based upon defined rules, etc.). Accordingly, it is determined that the claims recite an abstract idea since they fall within one or more of the three enumerated categories of patent ineligible subject matter. MPEP §2106.04. It is further noted that the performance of the one or more process steps using a generic computer component (e.g., a processing device, one or more processors, a memory, etc.) does not preclude the claim limitation(s) from being in the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping.
Since it is determined that the claim(s) contain(s) a judicial exception, it must then be determined, under Step 2A, Prong 2, whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of the exception. MPEP §2106.04. In this instance, claim 1 recites the additional elements of: a memory of a processing device, and a processor of a processing device. Claim 11 recites the additional elements of: one or more processors, and a non-transitory memory storing instructions. The memory, processor(s) and processing device are all recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception, or a portion thereof, using a generic computer component and/or apparatus. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims’ use of the memory, processor(s) and/or processing device does not transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application because the claims do not require any nonconventional computer components, or even a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces,” but merely call for the performance of the abstract idea on a generic computing/processing device. Bascom Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 2015-1763, 2016 WL 3514158, at *6-7 (Fed. Cir. June 27, 2016). Examiner finds no indication that the computer component(s) itself/themselves is/are improved, or that there is an improvement to some other technology. Examiner finds no indication in the Specification (See e.g., Specification [0030-0041]), that the operations recited in the independent claims require any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, invoke any allegedly inventive programming, or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("[A]fter Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible."). They do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing. The tying of this concept to a particular environment (e.g., a blockchain environment, an environment involving a beneficiary, an environment involving a blockchain wallet, etc.) fails to move the claims beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea in a particular environment. Additionally, there is no indication in the claim(s) that the computing components in combination with the abstract idea leads to an improvement of the computing components, or another technology, or to a technical field. 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. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually.
Under the Step 2B analysis, it is determined whether the recited additional elements amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea to which the claims are directed (i.e., provide an inventive concept). MPEP §2106.05. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of using various computing components (e.g., a processor, a memory, a processing device, etc.) to implement the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. That is, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Accordingly, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
Therefore, independent claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 and are not patent eligible. Dependent claims 3-7, 9, 10, 13-17 and 19-26 when analyzed are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 3 and 13 recite the additional abstract idea of generating and transmitting a transaction, which is a fundamental economic practice. Claims 3 and 13 recite the additional elements of a processor of the processing device and a transmitting device of the processing server, however, as in claim 1, these additional elements are merely used to implement the abstract idea. Accordingly, these claims fail to include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 4 and 14 further refine the abstract idea by describing how the events associated with the account are identified. These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 5 and 15 further refine the abstract idea by describing the type of account information that is stored. These claims also refine the abstract idea by describing the sending of a notification in response to a particular account event. These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 6 and 16 further refine the abstract idea by describing the receiving of a response pertaining to a detected event. These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 7 and 17 further refine the abstract idea by describing the contents of the notification. These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 9 and 19 further refine the abstract idea by describing the types of events that could trigger account action. These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 10 and 20 further refine the abstract idea by describing how a particular account event is detected (e.g., by comparing activity to stored data). These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 21 and 22 further refine the abstract idea by describing the type of information stored in the account profile. These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 23 and 24 recite identifying all unspent transaction outputs on
the blockchain associated with the user blockchain wallet; consolidating the identified unspent transaction outputs into a single blockchain data value; and transferring the consolidated single blockchain data value to a wallet associated with the at least one of the one or more designated third-parties, which are steps that fall within the Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity grouping because they describe a fundamental economic practice (e.g., currency conversion and transfer). Claims 23 and 24 recite the additional elements of the processor of the processing device, and one or more processors, however, as in claims 1 and 11, these additional elements are merely used to implement the abstract idea. Accordingly, these claims fail to include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 25 and 26 refine the abstract idea, by describing at a high level of generality, how the one or more rules used in the abstract idea are generated (e.g., based on user usage patterns). Claims 25 and 26 recite the additional element of one or more machine learning algorithms that are used by the processor(s) to monitor the user blockchain activity. The claimed invention fails to place any limits on how the one or more machine learning algorithm(s) function. Rather, these limitations only recite the outcome of using the machine learning algorithms and do not include any details about how the monitoring of the user activity is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these elements, whether considered alone or in combination, fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
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 of the abstract idea(s) such that the claims amount 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, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible. Accordingly, it is determined that all claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 and are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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, 9, 11, 19, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isogawa et al. (US 2023/0267452 A1) (hereinafter “Isogawa”) in view of Turek et al. (US 2017/0301048 A1) (hereinafter “Turek”).
Regarding Claims 1 and 11: Isogawa discloses:
Claim 1: A method for transferring authority of a blockchain wallet to a beneficiary, comprising:
Claim 11: A system for transferring assets stored on a blockchain to a beneficiary, the system comprising one or more processors and a non-transitory memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to (See at least Isogawa [0021] “digital asset transfer system”; [0043-0047] “The system 300 includes a processor 310, a memory 320”; [0049]; Fig. 3 items 310 and 320.):
storing, in a memory of a processing device, a user blockchain account profile, the user blockchain account profile including a user blockchain wallet including a user private key and a user public key, user authentication preferences defining access to the user blockchain account profile, and one or more smart contracts defining one or more rules for the transfer of authority of the user blockchain wallet to one or more designated third-parties (See at least Isogawa [0003]; [0021]; [0025]; [0027]. Isogawa discloses storing, in a memory of a processing device (i.e., memory of a digital asset transfer system, e.g., a memory of a computing device), a user blockchain account profile, the user blockchain account profile including a user blockchain wallet (i.e., wallet(s)) including a user private key and a user public key (i.e., the public and private keys of the wallet(s)), user authentication preferences defining access to the user blockchain account profile (i.e., credentials, e.g., username, identifier, password, etc.), and one or more smart contracts (i.e., one or more smart contracts) defining one or more rules (i.e., rules and/or conditions) for the transfer of authority of the user blockchain wallet to one or more designated third-parties (i.e., for the transfer of digital assets between a user (e.g., owner) wallet and their configured beneficiary(ies) and/or backup wallet(s)).);
monitoring, by a processor of the processing device, user blockchain account activity (See at least Isogawa [0022]; [0029]; [0031]; [0033]. Isogawa discloses monitoring, by a processor of the processing device (e.g., via a pulse checker module of the digital asset transfer system), user blockchain account activity (i.e., activity of the user on a blockchain network, e.g., via the user’s connected wallet(s)).);
identifying, by the processor of the processing device, a user blockchain account action that triggers at least one of the one or more rules (See at least Isogawa [0029]; [0033-0034]; [0037-0038]; [0042]. Isogawa discloses identifying, by the processor of the processing device, a user blockchain account action (i.e., a triggering event, e.g., a detected wallet activity or inactivity, an identified security breach) that triggers at least one of the one or more rules.); and
in response to identifying the user blockchain account action that triggers at least one of the one or more rules, automatically transferring, by the processor of the processing device, authority of the user blockchain account to at least one of the one or more designated third-parties (See at least Isogawa [0029]; [0033-0034]; [0038]; [0042]. Isogawa discloses in response to identifying the user blockchain account action that triggers at least one of the one or more rules (i.e., in response to identifying the triggering event, e.g., a detected wallet activity or inactivity, an identified security breach), automatically transferring, by the processor of the processing device, authority of the user blockchain account (i.e., by automatically transferring assets of the user/owner wallet) to at least one of the one or more designated third-parties (i.e., to one or more beneficiary and/or backup wallets).).
Isogawa discloses that digital assets may be transferred to selected beneficiary and/or backup wallets based on certain events such as a security breach, exceeding a threshold number of incorrect password attempts, or a period of wallet inactivity (e.g., inactivity due to death). Isogawa [0020]; [0038]. Isogawa also discloses that a user may configure which beneficiaries receive a subset, or all, of their digital assets. Isogawa [0026]. Isogawa also describes the use of user authentication preferences (i.e., credentials, which “may include one or more of a username, identifier, password, email address, and/or any other suitable set of characters used to identify and authenticate the user.”) in order to access the digital asset transfer system. Isogawa [0025]. However, Isogawa does not explicitly disclose wherein the transferring of the authority includes: automatically updating, by the processor of the processing device, the user authentication preferences to correspond to authentication preferences of the at least one of the one or more designated third-parties, the authentication preferences including at least one of: a username, a password, a biometric authentication, a multi-factor authentication, and hardware-based authentication keys associated with the blockchain account profile.
Turek, on the other hand, teaches wherein the transferring of the authority includes: automatically updating, by the processor of the processing device, the user authentication preferences to correspond to authentication preferences of the at least one of the one or more designated third-parties, the authentication preferences including at least one of: a username, a password, a biometric authentication, a multi-factor authentication, and hardware-based authentication keys associated with the blockchain account profile (See at least Turek [0025]; [0031]. Turek teaches wherein the transferring of the authority includes: automatically updating (i.e., automatically changing), by the processor of the processing device (i.e., by a processor of the estate management system), the user authentication preferences (i.e., the user’s password) to correspond to authentication preferences of the at least one of the one or more designated third-parties (i.e., to a new password, e.g., a new password that is given to an executor), the authentication preferences including at least one of: a username, a password (i.e., password, new password), a biometric authentication, a multi-factor authentication, and hardware-based authentication keys associated with the blockchain account profile.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Turek into Isogawa’s method of transferring assets to one or more beneficiary and/or backup wallets. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include such features in order to allow an executor to access an estate holder’s personal accounts as they perform their duties (Turek [0031]).
Regarding Claims 9 and 19: The combination of Isogawa and Turek discloses the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 11. Isogawa further discloses wherein the one or more rules include at least one of: a maximum number of user blockchain account profile login attempts, a maximum inactivity period, and an IP address change rule (See at least Isogawa [0029]; [0033-0034]; [0037-0038]; [0042]. Isogawa discloses wherein the one or more rules include at least one of: a maximum number of user blockchain account profile login attempts (i.e., a threshold number of attempts (e.g., incorrect password attempts) to access the digital asset transfer system), a maximum inactivity period (i.e., a configured duration of inactivity), and an IP address change rule.).
Regarding Claims 21 and 22: The combination of Isogawa and Turek discloses the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 11. As indicated above, Isogawa discloses storing a user blockchain account profile that includes user authentication preferences defining access to the user blockchain account profile (i.e., credentials, e.g., username, identifier, password, etc.). Isogawa [0003]; [0025]. However, Isogawa does not explicitly disclose wherein the user blockchain account profile includes the updated authentication preferences.
Turek, on the other hand, further teaches wherein the user blockchain account profile includes the updated authentication preferences (See at least Turek [0031]. Turek teaches wherein the user blockchain account profile (i.e., estate management account) includes (i.e., stores) the updated authentication preferences (i.e., the new password(s)).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Turek into Isogawa’s method of storing authentication preferences in a user account profile. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include such features in order to allow an executor to access an estate holder’s personal accounts as they perform their duties (Turek [0031]).
Claims 3-4 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isogawa in view of Turek, as applied above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0138739 A1) (hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding Claims 3 and 13: The combination of Isogawa and Turek discloses the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 11. Isogawa further discloses:
generating, by the processor of the processing device, a blockchain transaction using the user private key (See at least Isogawa [0003]. Isogawa discloses generating, by the processor of the processing device, a blockchain transaction (i.e., transaction) using the user private key (i.e., using the user/owner private key).); and
transmitting, by a transmitting device of the processing server, the blockchain transaction to a blockchain network for confirmation and addition to a blockchain (See at least Isogawa [00]. Isogawa discloses .).
Isogawa discloses the use of a smart contract that automates the transfer of digital assets between the user wallet(s) and their selected beneficiary wallet(s) and/or backup wallet(s). Isogawa [0031]. Isogawa indicates that the smart contract may include computer code that is configured to cause the transfer of the digital assets and that smart contract may also include a signature corresponding to public and/or private key’s corresponding to the user’s wallet. Id. However, Isogawa does not explicitly disclose generating a blockchain transaction including at least a digital signature generated using the user private key and the one or more smart contracts. Lee, on the other hand, teaches generating, by the processor of the processing device, a blockchain transaction including at least a digital signature generated using the user private key and the one or more smart contracts (See at least Lee Abstract; [0009; [0209]; [0223]. Lee teaches generating (i.e., creating), by the processor of the processing device (i.e., by the processor of the portable electronic device), a blockchain transaction (i.e., transaction) including at least a digital signature (i.e., signed transaction) generated using the user private key (i.e., private key of the user) and the one or more smart contracts (e.g., the first smart contract).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Lee into Isogawa’s method of using a smart contract to automate the transfer of digital assets. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include such features in order to get an external device to perform an additional function or an additional service related to the transaction/request (Lee [0047]).
Regarding Claims 4 and 14: The combination of Isogawa, Turek and Lee discloses the method of claim 3 and the system of claim 13. Isogawa further discloses wherein the monitoring of the user blockchain account activity includes:
monitoring, by the processor of the processing device, the blockchain for transactions involving the user blockchain wallet (See at least Isogawa [0029]; [0031]; [0033]. Isogawa discloses monitoring, by the processor of the processing device (e.g., via the use of the pulse checker), the blockchain (i.e., blockchain network) for transactions involving the user blockchain wallet (i.e., user’s wallet).),
wherein the user blockchain account action that triggered the at least one of the one or more rules is a blockchain transaction (See at least Isogawa [0029-0030]; [0033-0034]; [0037-0038]; [0042]. Isogawa discloses wherein the user blockchain account action (i.e., a triggering event, e.g., a detected wallet activity, an identified security breach) that triggered the at least one of the one or more rules is a blockchain transaction (e.g., the wallet signing a transaction, sending a transaction request to the blockchain network, sending tokens and/or cryptocurrency, etc.).).
Claims 5-7 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isogawa in view of Turek, as applied above, and further in view of Humpherys et al. (US 2025/0182094 A1) (hereinafter “Humpherys”).
Regarding Claims 5 and 15: The combination of Isogawa and Turek discloses the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 11. Isogawa further discloses:
prior to the automatically transferring authority of the user blockchain account, generating, by the processor of the processing device, a notification, the notification including details about the identified user blockchain account activity that triggered the at least one of the one or more rules and an indication of suspected fraudulent activity based on the triggered at least one rule of the one or more rules (See at least Isogawa [0034]; [0036]; [0038]. Isogawa discloses prior to the automatically transferring authority of the user blockchain account, generating, by the processor of the processing device, a notification (e.g., a notification providing an indication instructing a user to cause wallet activity to prevent the automatic transfer of digital assets by a smart contract included on the blockchain network. The notifications may be any one of email notifications, social media notifications, cellular (e.g., SMS) notifications, and/or any other suitable digital notifications used to contact a user), the notification including details about the identified user blockchain account activity that triggered the at least one of the one or more rules (e.g., a detected wallet activity) and an indication of suspected fraudulent activity (e.g., an identified security breach) based on the triggered at least one rule of the one or more rules.); and
transmitting, by the transmitting device of processing device, the notification to the user device (See at least Isogawa [0034]; [0036].).
Isogawa further discloses that the user may use a credential to access the digital asset transfer system. Isogawa [0025] Isogawa indicates that the credential may include one or more of an identifier and/or any other suitable set of characters used to identify and authenticate the user. Id. However, Isogawa does not explicitly disclose wherein the user blockchain account profile further includes a user device identification identifying a user device.
Humpherys, on the other hand, teaches wherein the user blockchain account profile further includes a user device identification identifying a user device (See at least Humpherys [0021]; [0038]; [0054]; [0056-0058]; Fig. 3 steps 304-310. Humpherys teaches wherein the user blockchain account profile (i.e., identity asset) further includes a user device (i.e., client device) identification identifying a user device (e.g., an IP address, identification number, client device number, etc.).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Humpherys into Isogawa’s method of using an identifier to identify and authenticate the user. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include such features in order to generate an association between client data (e.g., an IP address, identification number, client device number, etc.) and a blockchain identifier (e.g., a wallet ID) (Humpherys [0020-0021]; [0054]).
Regarding Claims 6 and 16: The combination of Isogawa, Turek and Humpherys discloses the method of claim 5 and the system of claim 15. Isogawa further discloses: receiving, by a receiving device of the processing device from the user device, a notification response message approving or denying the identified user blockchain account activity (See at least Isogawa [0034]. Isogawa discloses receiving, by a receiving device of the processing device from the user device, a notification response message (e.g., a transfer request in response to the notification) approving or denying the identified user blockchain account activity (i.e., where future transactions are denied based on transferring the digital assets out of the user/owner wallet).).
Regarding Claims 7 and 17: The combination of Isogawa, Turek and Humpherys discloses the method of claim 5 and the system of claim 15. Isogawa does not explicitly disclose wherein the notification includes a grace period. However, Isogawa teaches that it was known in the art to include a grace period in a notification, the grace period being a pre-defined time period during which a notification response message must be received (See at least Isogawa [0034]. Isogawa discloses wherein a notification includes a grace period (i.e., a time remaining for the inactivity time), the grace period being a pre-defined time period (e.g., 1 month, 2 weeks, 1 week, 3 days, and 1 day remaining before the expiry of the inactivity timer) during which a notification response message (e.g., wallet activity) must be received.).
In view of the teachings provided by Isogawa, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a grace period in the notification. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to include such a feature in order to give the user an indication of when the issue identified in the notification must be resolved (Isogawa [0034]).
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isogawa in view of Turek, as applied above, and further in view of Azgad-Tromer et al. (US 2024/0104521 A1) (hereinafter “Azgad”).
Regarding Claims 10 and 20: The combination of Isogawa and Turek discloses the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 11. Isogawa discloses where a security event associated with a credential could be identified, and that a smart contract could take actions based on the security event. Isogawa [0008]; [0034]; [0038]. However, Isogawa does not explicitly disclose: generating, by the processor of the processing device, a user blockchain account activity profile based on past user blockchain account activity; wherein the identifying the user blockchain account action that triggers at least one of the one or more rules includes: comparing, by the processor of the processing device, the monitored user blockchain account activity to the user blockchain account activity profile; and determining, by the processor of the processing device, the user blockchain account action deviates from the user blockchain account activity profile.
Azgad, on the other hand, teaches:
generating, by the processor of the processing device, a user blockchain account activity profile based on past user blockchain account activity (See at least Azgad [0153]; [0214]. Azgad discloses generating, by the processor of the processing device, a user blockchain account activity profile (i.e., statistical information about a user’s wallet) based on past user blockchain account activity (i.e., based on cryptocurrency wallet activity, e.g., transaction activity/history on the system).);
wherein the identifying the user blockchain account action that triggers at least one of the one or more rules includes:
comparing, by the processor of the processing device, the monitored user blockchain account activity to the user blockchain account activity profile (See at least Azgad [0210-0211]; [0214]; [0233]; [0236]; [0255]. Azgad discloses comparing, by the processor of the processing device, the monitored user blockchain account activity (i.e., transaction activity) to the user blockchain account activity profile (i.e., to past activity).); and
determining, by the processor of the processing device, the user blockchain account action deviates from the user blockchain account activity profile (See at least Azgad [0214]. Azgad discloses determining, by the processor of the processing device, the user blockchain account action deviates (i.e., is not commensurate) from the user blockchain account activity profile (i.e., from their past activity).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Azgad into Isogawa’s method of identifying security events and taking action based on the security events. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include such features in order to identify abnormal activity associated with a particular wallet (Azgad [0214], and/or to block transactions based on a transaction history of the wallet (Azgad [0236]).
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isogawa in view of Turek, as applied above, and further in view of Dalton et al. (US 2022/0198441 A1) (hereinafter “Dalton”).
Regarding Claims 23 and 24: The combination of Isogawa and Turek discloses the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 11. Isogawa discloses transferring assets of the user/owner wallet to one or more beneficiary and/or backup wallets. Isogawa [0033]; [0038]; [0042]. Isogawa also discloses that a user may configure which beneficiaries receive a subset, or all, of their digital assets. Isogawa [0026]. However, Isogawa does not explicitly disclose: identifying, by the processor of the processing device, all unspent transaction outputs on the blockchain associated with the user blockchain wallet; consolidating, by the processor of the processing device, the identified unspent transaction outputs into a single blockchain data value; or transferring the consolidated single blockchain data value to a wallet associated with the at least one of the one or more designated third-parties.
Dalton, on the other hand, teaches:
identifying, by the processor of the processing device, all unspent transaction outputs on the blockchain associated with the user blockchain wallet (See at least Dalton [0089-0090]. Dalton teaches identifying, by the processor of the processing device, all unspent transaction outputs (i.e., UTXOs, e.g., UTXO token 602f and UTXO token X) on the blockchain associated with the user blockchain wallet (i.e., associated with the user account).);
consolidating, by the processor of the processing device, the identified unspent transaction outputs into a single blockchain data value (See at least Dalton [0089-0091]; also see [0095-0096] which describes an alternative way to consolidate/combine the UTXO tokens (e.g., UTXO tokens 720a-720n) into a single blockchain data value (i.e., into a delegated account comprising UTXO tokens 720a-720n). Dalton teaches consolidating (i.e., combining), by the processor of the processing device, the identified unspent transaction outputs (i.e., the UTXOs, e.g., UTXO token 602f and UTXO token X) into a single blockchain data value (e.g., into a single UTXO token.).); and
transferring the consolidated single blockchain data value to a wallet associated with the at least one of the one or more designated third-parties (See at least Dalton [0089]; [0091]; also see [0099-0100] where the delegated account is transferred; Fig. 7; Fig. 8. Dalton teaches transferring the consolidated single blockchain data value (e.g., the single UTXO token) to a wallet associated with the at least one of the one or more designated third-parties (i.e., to the other account).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Dalton into Isogawa’s method of transferring assets of the user/owner wallet to one or more beneficiary and/or backup wallets. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include such features in order to reduce memory and computational burdens as well as reducing associated costs and blockchain operational inefficiencies when transferring funds (Dalton [0091]).
Claims 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isogawa in view of Turek, as applied above, and further in view of Sood et al. (US 2020/0118137 A1) (hereinafter “Sood”).
Regarding Claims 25 and 26: The combination of Isogawa and Turek discloses the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 11. Isogawa further discloses monitoring, by the processor of the processing device, the user blockchain activity (See at least Isogawa [0022]; [0029]; [0031]; [0033]. Isogawa discloses monitoring, by the processor of the processing device (e.g., via a pulse checker module of the digital asset transfer system), the user blockchain account activity (i.e., activity of the user on a blockchain network, e.g., via the user’s connected wallet(s)).).
Isogawa does not explicitly disclose: monitoring, using one or more machine learning algorithms, to determine one or more user usage patterns; or generating, by the processor of the processing device, the one or more rules based on the determined one or more user usage patterns.
Sood, on the other hand, teaches:
monitoring, by the processor of the processing device using one or more machine learning algorithms, the user account activity to determine one or more user usage patterns (See at least Sood [0187]; [0279-0280]; [0288]; [0290-0291]; [0300]; Fig. 2A. Sood teaches monitoring, by the processor of the processing device (i.e., by the processor of the transaction monitor) using one or more machine learning algorithms (i.e., using a machine learning module), the user account activity (e.g., an output from the rule application, transaction data, previous transaction data, other data associated with the current or selected transaction, context data, location data, etc.) to determine one or more user usage patterns (i.e., user behavior, e.g., where the user makes purchases, how often the user makes purchases, how much the user typically spends at a particular location, etc.).); and
generating, by the processor of the processing device, the one or more rules based on the determined one or more user usage patterns (See at least Sood [0187]; [0279-0280]; [0285]; [0287-0288] “Heuristic rules 1316 can learn and be specific to individual behavior and allow the context module 220 to extend the legitimacy of the interaction from what the user has done to what she is doing to what she is likely to do.”; [0290-0291]; [0300]; [0308-0309] “learnings 1304 may be "rules" determined by the system and used to adapt the system to be in line with decisions made by the human user in user review 1348. In other words, learnings 1304 may change the behavior of the system based on rules 1312/1316.”. Sood teaches generating (i.e., by determining, creating, changing and/or adapting), by the processor of the processing device, the one or more rules (i.e., rules, e.g., heuristic rules) based on the determined one or more user usage patterns (i.e., user behavior, e.g., where the user makes purchases, how often the user makes purchases, how much the user typically spends at a particular location, etc.).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Sood into Isogawa’s method of monitoring user blockchain account activity. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include such features in order to learn from an individual’s past behavior and to adapt rules based on the past behavior (Sood [0288]).
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
Claims 13-17 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. Applicant’s amendments have corrected the previously identified issues, accordingly the prior 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant argues that the Examiner has overgeneralized the claim and mischaracterized what is "recited." Amendment, p. 13. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The concept/abstract idea identified in the Office Action incorporates the recited features/processes of the claimed invention and is therefore not an overgeneralization of the claimed invention.
Applicant argues that the claims as a whole integrate any exception into a practical application and are therefore not "directed to" the exception. Amendment, pp. 14-15. In particular, Applicant alleges that the claims recite an improvement in the security of blockchain wallets. Id. Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the claimed invention stores a blockchain wallet in an account profile, there is nothing in the claimed invention that actually improves the functioning ,or security, of the wallet. Rather, the claimed invention merely updates/replaces an authentication preference (i.e., a credential, e.g., a password) based on determining that some user blockchain account action triggered a rule.
Applicant’s remarks indicate that “if a wallet is lost, stolen, or compromised, the associated assets generally cannot be recovered, and the rightful owner ordinarily has no recourse.” Amendment, p. 14. Applicant alleges that the claimed invention addresses this problem by preserving access to, and control over, a blockchain wallet upon a detected fraud-, loss-, or inactivity-related trigger. Amendment, p. 15. This argument is unpersuasive. While the claimed invention may allow a third-party to access the user blockchain account profile, and/or the blockchain wallet via the user private key, after a detected fraud event, the claimed invention fails to provide any indication that it could recover stolen assets or prevent assets from being stolen. Examiner contends that providing a third-party access to the private key by reassigning credentials after a detected event is the functional equivalent of giving a third-party a bank account PIN number after money has been stolen from a bank account. The claimed invention does not alter how the blockchain wallet operates, rather it merely gives a third-party access to a private key used to control the wallet based on a detected/identified event/trigger.
Applicant alleges that the claims provide a technological solution to a technological problem. Amendment, p. 15. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner contends that reassigning/transferring control of an account based on a detected event is not a technological problem, rather, it is a fundamental economic practice. For example, accounts are often transferred reassigned for various reasons (e.g., authority of a bank account, or mortgage account, is transferred to an executor upon a person’s death; authority of an account is transferred to authorities upon detection of fraud or other illegal activities; etc.). Furthermore, the claimed invention does not provide a technological solution. The method of monitoring the account activity and identifying the account action that triggers the rules are both recited at a high level of generality. Examiner fails to find any improvement to the manner the monitoring or identifying is performed. Likewise, the transferring of the authority of the user blockchain account is merely accomplished by updating the authentication preferences (i.e., the credentials, e.g., a password) in the account profile. Updating a stored password is not an indication of a technological solution. Additionally, applying the abstract idea to a blockchain environment is not an indication of a practical application.
Applicant argues that software can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology, and an improvement need not reside in specialized hardware. Amendment, pp. 15-16. Examiner agrees, however, no such improvement is found in the claimed invention.
Applicant refers to BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and argues that when the independent claims are considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, they each recite a specific, non-conventional arrangement of computer components that integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application and, at a minimum, amounts to "significantly more." Amendment, pp. 16-17. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Unlike BASCOM, the instant claims do not describe a particular placement of the components. Rather, the instant claims merely call for the performance of the abstract idea on a generic processor which is implementing an abstract idea, or at least part of the idea, in a particular environment (e.g., the blockchain environment).
Applicant refers to McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America, Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1313, 120 USPQ2d at 1101-1102 (Fed. Cir. 2020), and argues that the present claims recite a specific way to solve the specific problem of preserving secure control of a blockchain wallet in defined scenarios such as suspected fraudulent access, loss, or inactivity. Amendment, pp. 17-18. Examiner respectfully disagrees. McRo described a particular process to animate characters that differed from the manner a human animator would complete the process. Examiner fails to find any analogous situation in the instant claims. Here, the instant claims update authentication preferences upon detecting that a condition in a rule is met. The same thing happens when a user loses their email password. For example, an email system can detect that a forgot password link was clicked (i.e., detect/identify a trigger), and, in response, a new/temporary password can be assigned to the account. The instant claims do not provide any specific details/steps that indicate that there is some sort of improvement to a computer, technology or technical field.
Applicant remarks indicate that in a centralized banking or a recordation system, a trusted intermediary (a bank, a registrar) can re-credential or reassign an account, however applicant contends that no such intermediary exists for a self-custodied blockchain wallet, which is the problem the claimed invention allegedly solves. Amendment, p. 18. This argument is unpersuasive. Examiner contends that the claimed “user blockchain account profile” is the functional equivalent of an account on a recordation system. That is, this profile (i.e., account) stores information (e.g., wallet information, a user private key, a user public key, user authentication preferences, etc.) and, based on some detected event, changes the user authentication preferences (i.e., credentials, e.g., a password) to the account profile. Examiner notes that the claimed invention is not performing any steps to reassign the blockchain wallet and/or the keys in the wallet. Rather, the claimed invention is merely changing the user credentials to a third-party credential so that a third-party can access the information stored in the user account (e.g., the wallet info, the private keys, etc.). The claimed “user blockchain account profile” has no direct connection with the blockchain, or the user wallet, other than the fact that the user blockchain account profile stores a particular type of information (e.g., blockchain related information). Phased differently, the user blockchain account profile stores public keys, which function like a username on the blockchain, and it also stores private keys, which function like a password on the blockchain. Giving a third-party access to the public and private keys is the functional equivalent of giving a third-party access to a username and password for any other type of account. As previously indicated, merely limiting the abstract idea to a particular environment is not an indication of a practical application or significantly more.
Applicant indicates that the claims are also eligible when evaluated under step 2B, however Applicant fails to provide any specific arguments. Amendment, pp. 18-19. Examiner contends that the claim elements, whether considered individually or as an ordered combination, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea(s) into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea(s) such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Applicant argues that dependent claims 10 and 20 are patent eligible because they recite a specific, behavior-based anomaly-detection mechanism and thus provide a technical means for detecting suspicious or unauthorized wallet activity. Amendment, p. 19. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner contends that generating a profile based on prior activity and determining that current activity deviates from the profile are not technical problems. Profile generation and assessment have been around long before the advent of the computer. Furthermore, claims 10 and 20 do not recite a technical solution, rather they merely describe, at a high level of generality, what type of activity (i.e., blockchain account activity) is used to assess the user activity and used to generate the profile. Contrary to applicants’ remarks, claims 10 and 20 do not improve the security of the blockchain wallet, rather they merely describe the particular conditions that trigger the changing of the user authentication preferences (i.e., credentials). Accordingly, claims 10 and 20 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do they recite significantly more. Claims 10 and 20 merely refine the abstract idea of storing information and rules associated with an account, identifying events associated with the account and rules, and taking actions with the account (e.g., updating authentication preferences) based on the events and rules by describing how a particular account event is detected (i.e., by comparing activity to store data).
For the above reasons, and for those set forth in the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection seen above, all claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant argues that neither Isagawa nor Kinsey, alone or in combination, discloses, teaches, or suggests the automatic, processor-performed updating of authentication preferences. Amendment, pp. 20-22. Examiner agrees that the updating of the authentication preferences in Kinsey was not automatic. In view of the claim amendments, Examiner has removed Kinsey from the prior art rejection and has added a new reference, Turek, to teach this particular feature. Examiner contends that the combination of Isagawa and Turek renders amended independent claims 1 and 11 obvious.
Applicants’ remarks regarding the combination of Isogawa and Kinsey (Amendment, pp. 22-23) have been considered but are moot since Kinsey is no longer being utilized in the prior art rejections.
For the above reasons, and for those set forth in the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection seen above, all claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure is cited in the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892). The additional cited art further establishes the state of the art prior to the effective filling date of Applicant’s claimed invention.
Burnette et al. (US 2023/0018133 A1) discloses using a smart contract to automatically transfer funds from a payer wallet to a billing wallet based on certain conditions. Burnette [0041]; [0043-0046]. Burnette also discloses utilizing the public key associated with the payer wallet, to locate/identify the payer wallet and to determine if sufficient funds are in the wallet. Burnette [0047]; [0060]; [0065]; [0067].
Chan et al. (US 2019/0213564 A1) discloses where an apparatus associated with a centralized authority of a secured distributed storage ledger may detect an occurrence of a triggering event, and may access and decrypt a set of rules hashed into the secured distributed storage ledger using a confidentially-held master cryptographic key. The apparatus may identify a rule associated with the detected event and perform one or more operations consistent with the rule and involving at least one of assets tracked within the secured distributed storage ledger or an owner of a portion of the tracked assets. Chan Abstract.
Ramirez et al. (US 2019/0304012 A1) discloses identifying a variety of accounts associated with a user and determining a set of actions that can be taken with respect to the accounts. For instance, upon death of a user, a predetermined set of actions can be executed to transfer one or more assets as defined in a digital will. The accounts can be identified by scanning one or more accounts associated with the user. The accounts associated with the user and/or the account actions for the accounts can be automatically maintained over time. On an account transfer event, each of the accounts can be automatically transferred and/or closed in accordance with the determined account actions. Ramirez Abstract; [0026-0032]; Fig. 3.
Kinsey (US 2024/0037553 A1) discloses wherein the transferring of the authority (i.e., the authority of the digital wallet) includes: updating (i.e., changing), by the processor of the processing device (i.e., by the processor of the handheld device), the user authentication preferences (i.e., the authentication data, e.g., a PIN) to correspond to authentication preferences of the at least one of the one or more designated third-parties (i.e., to new authentication data (e.g., a new PIN) for the new user). Kinsey [0115]; [0131-0133]; [0154-0155]; Fig. 15.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON FENSTERMACHER whose telephone number is (571)270-3511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM to 5:30 PM ET, Alternate Fridays Off.
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.
/J.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights