DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on January 7, 2026 has been entered. Applicant has: amended claims 1, 5, 10, 11, 13-16 and 20; and cancelled claims 2 and 12. Claims 1, 3-11 and 13-20 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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 13: Claim 13 recites, in part, “further comprising instructions causing the one or more processors to: […] transmit, by a transmitting device, the blockchain transaction to a blockchain network.” The scope of this limitation is unclear because the claim indicates that the “one or more processors” are performing the transmitting step, however the claim is also indicating that the transmitting step is done “by a transmitting device.” It is unclear what relationship, if any, the “one or more processors” have with the “transmitting device.” It is also unclear what relationship, if any, the “transmitting device” has with the claimed system (i.e., is the transmitting device part of the claimed system). In order to further prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the transmitting device to be part of the claimed system, where the one or more processors transmit via the transmitting device. Further clarification is needed. Claim 14 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on its dependency to claim 13.
Regarding Claim 14: Claim 14 recites, in part, “wherein the monitoring of the user blockchain account activity includes instructions causing the one or more processors to: monitor the blockchain for transactions involving the user blockchain wallet, […].” This limitation is unclear because it is unknown if the monitored account activity has the instructions, or if the claimed system comprises the instructions, or something else altogether. Independent claim 11 recites a step where the one or more processors monitors user blockchain activity. As best understood, claim 14 is, among other things, intended to refine this monitoring step. Since claim 11 already indicates that the monitoring step is performed by the one or more processors, the recent amendment that added the “instructions causing the one or more processors to” language appears unnecessary. Examiner recommends amending claim 14 to recite “The system of claim 13, wherein the monitoring of the user blockchain account activity includes monitoring the blockchain for transactions involving the user blockchain wallet, and wherein the user blockchain account action that triggered the at least one of the one or more rules is a blockchain transaction.”
Regarding Claim 15: Claim 15 recites, in part, “the system further comprising instructions causing the one or more processors to: […] transmit, by a transmitting device, the notification to the user device.” The scope of this limitation is unclear because the claim indicates that the “one or more processors” are performing the transmitting step, however the claim is also indicating that the transmitting step is done “by a transmitting device.” It is unclear what relationship, if any, the “one or more processors” have with the “transmitting device.” It is also unclear what relationship, if any, the “transmitting device” has with the claimed system (i.e., is the transmitting device part of the claimed system). In order to further prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the transmitting device to be part of the claimed system, where the one or more processors transmit via the transmitting device. Further clarification is needed. Claims 16 and 17 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on their dependency to claim 15.
Regarding Claim 16: Claim 16 recites, in part, “further comprising instructions causing the one or more processors to: receive, by a receiving device, from the user device, a notification response message […].” The scope of this limitation is unclear because the claim indicates that the “one or more processors” are performing the receiving step, however the claim is also indicating that the receiving step is done “by a receiving device.” It is unclear what relationship, if any, the “one or more processors” have with the “receiving device.” It is also unclear what relationship, if any, the “receiving device” has with the claimed system (i.e., is the receiving device part of the claimed system). In order to further prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the receiving device to be part of the claimed system, where the one or more processors receive via the receiving device. Further clarification is needed.
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, 3-11 and 13-20 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 and 3-10 are directed to the statutory category of a process and claims 11 and 13-20 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
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 based on the at least one triggered rule, wherein the transferring of the authority includes:
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.
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.). The tying of this concept to a particular environment (e.g., a blockchain environment, an environment involving a beneficiary, etc.) fails to move the claims beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea in a particular environment. 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. Furthermore, the Federal Circuit has explained that “the ‘directed to’ inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light of the specification, based on whether ‘their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter.’” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F .3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). It asks whether the focus of the claims is on a specific improvement in relevant technology or on a process that itself qualifies as an "abstract idea" for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. See id. at 1335-36. Here, it is clear that the claim(s) focus on an abstract idea, and not on any improvement to technology and/or a technical field. It is further noted that, the performance of the one or more process steps using a generic computer component (e.g., 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 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. They do not apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond merely linking it to a particular technological environment. Furthermore, 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 3-10 and 13-20 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 fails 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 8 and 18 further refine the abstract idea by describing the types of account information that is stored. 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.
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, 8-9, 11 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isogawa et al. (US 2023/0267452 A1) (hereinafter “Isogawa”) in view of Kinsey (US 2024/0037553 A1).
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, an identified security breach) that triggers at least one of the one or more rules.); and
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 based on the at least one triggered rule (See at least Isogawa [0029]; [0033-0034]; [0038]; [0042]. Isogawa discloses transferring, by the processor of the processing device, authority of the user blockchain account (i.e., by 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) based on the at least one triggered rule.).
Isogawa does not explicitly disclose wherein the transferring of the authority includes: 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.
Kinsey, on the other hand, teaches wherein the transferring of the authority includes: 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 (See at least Kinsey [0115]; [0131-0133]; [0154-0155]; Fig. 15. Kinsey teaches 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).).
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 Kinsey 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 transfer a digital wallet from a user to a new user without the need to record the transfer on the blockchain (Kinsey [0131]; [0154]).
Regarding Claims 8 and 18: The combination of Isogawa and Kinsey discloses the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 11. Isogawa further discloses wherein the user authentication preferences include at least one of: a password, biometric authentication, multi-factor authentication, and hardware-based authentication keys (See at least Isogawa [0025]. Isogawa discloses wherein the user authentication preferences (i.e., credentials) include at least one of: a password, biometric authentication, multi-factor authentication, and hardware-based authentication keys (i.e., “credential 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.”).).
Regarding Claims 9 and 19: The combination of Isogawa and Kinsey 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.).
Claims 3-4 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isogawa in view of Kinsey, 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 Kinsey 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, Kinsey 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 Kinsey, 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 Kinsey discloses the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 11. Isogawa further discloses:
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 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 (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, Kinsey 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, Kinsey 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 Kinsey, 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 Kinsey discloses the method of claim 2 and the system of claim 12. 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]).
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 15 were objected to for antecedent basis issues. Applicant’s amendments have corrected the previously identified issues, accordingly the prior objections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
Claims 11-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. Applicant’s amendments have corrected most of the previously identified issues, however claims 13-16 have remaining clarity issues. In view of the amended claim language, Examiner has updated the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections on claims 13-16 to address the remaining issues.
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 Examiner has applied an incorrect standard in evaluating the present claims under Prong Two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test in the Office Action dated October 1, 2025. Amendment, p. 14. In particular, Applicant alleges that the claim was not considered as a whole. Id. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The only additional elements recited in claims 1 and 11 were generic computing components. The October 1, 2025 Office Action stated “They [the additional elements, i.e., the generic computing components] do not apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond merely linking it to a particular technological environment.” See Office Action at p. 8. The Office Action further stated “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.” See Office Action at pp. 8-9. Contrary to Applicant’s arguments, it is clear that the claims were properly considered as a whole, however merely implementing an abstract idea on a generic computing device/component is not indicative of a practical application.
Applicant argues that the independent claims do not merely claim the result of "taking actions based on events and rules;" instead, they recite a specific technical architecture and control flow. Amendment, p. 15. This argument is unpersuasive. Examiner initially notes that the Office Action identified the abstract idea, or combination of abstract ideas, as “storing information and rules associated with an account, identifying events associated with the account and rules, and taking actions with the account based on the events and rules,” not "taking actions based on events and rules" as suggested by Applicant’s remarks. Examiner fails to find any so called “technical architecture”, rather the claim is merely implementing the abstract idea via the use of generic memory and processors. Furthermore, what Applicant calls “control flow” is merely describing the various steps of the abstract idea. Simply because the abstract idea has a particular “flow” does not, by itself, make the claim eligible.
Applicant alleges that the present claims provide a technological improvement in privacy and security for blockchain accounts. Amendment, pp. 15-16. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim merely describes the storing and updating of authentication credentials based on some unspecified rule. Examiner fails to find any details in the claim that suggest the manner the authentication credentials are stored and/or updated offers any kind of technological improvement. Examiner also notes that the claims use of the blockchain, or blockchain technology, is very limited. That is, while the claim indicates that it is monitoring “blockchain account activity” and that the account is a “blockchain account”, this is nothing more than applying the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The same processes being applied in claim 1 could easily be applied to other types of environments/accounts (e.g., banking environment accounts that reassign ownership of accounts based on events such as death; ownership of a patent application being reassigned based on a right or a company being sold; etc.).
Applicant argues that “when claim 1 is considered as an ordered combination, the claimed invention is a concrete technical solution to the technical problem: How to securely transfer authority and/or ownership of a blockchain wallet and/or any assets associated with that blockchain wallet in the event of one or more defined scenarios such as attempted fraudulent access to the blockchain wallet, loss of the blockchain wallet, inactivity of the blockchain wallet, etc.?” Amendment, pp. 16-17. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed invention is not reciting a technical solution nor is it addressing a technical problem. The claim is merely, and at a high level of generality, updating a database to include new authentication credentials based upon some identified trigger. None of the steps including the way the information is stored in memory, the manner in which the blockchain account activity is monitored, the manner in which account action is identified, or the updating of the authentication preferences are technical in nature. Rather, these steps are recited at a high level of generality. Furthermore, reassigning control of an account is not a technical problem. Accounts are often reassigned based on rules. For example, a will lists rules defining who will take over an account upon a person’s death. In the instant claims, a smart contract is used to contain/describe the rules instead of a will, and a blockchain account/wallet is used instead of a traditional bank account. Examiner contends that is not a technological problem of why cryptocurrency accounts were/are not normally transferred, rather it is merely a business decision that prevents users from doing so.
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. 17-19. 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 known issue of blockchain account access in the event of one or more defined scenarios. Amendment, pp. 19-20. 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. In the instant claims if a condition in a rule is met, the account is updated with new credentials. The same thing happens when a user loses there email password. The click a link indicating they forgot their password (i.e., triggering a rule), as a result the password is updated. The instant claims are not providing any specific details that are relevant to the blockchain environment that are not relevant to any other environment.
Applicant indicates that the claims are also eligible when evaluated under step 2B, however Applicant fails to provide any specific arguments. Amendment, pp. 20-21. 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.
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. § 102/103
Applicant incorporated dependent claim 2 into the independent claims. Applicant argues that Kinsey, which was used to teach the features of claim 2, differs from the claimed invention because the present claims do not require any active user actions to effectuate the transfer of blockchain wallet control. Amendment, pp. 22-23. This argument is unpersuasive. Examiner acknowledges that the claimed invention does not explicitly require any “active” user actions, however the claimed invention also fails to preclude user actions when performing these actions. For example, while the claimed invention indicates the processor of the processing device updates the user authentication preferences, there is nothing in the claim that precludes this updating from being performed in response user input (e.g., a user providing a new password). Simply because the claim fails to recite user involvement does not mean that a user is not involved in the process. For example, Applicant’s disclosure indicates that “The updating of the user authentication preferences can include, but is not limited to, updating the authentication preferences according to the one or more rules (e.g., a saved username and/or password associated with the one or more designated third-parties), sending a notification to the one or more designated third-parties requiring the one or more designated third-parties to login and update the user authentication preferences, sending a notification to the one or more designated third-parties with a temporary username and/or password to the one or more designated third-parties, etc.” Specification [0027]. Accordingly, Applicant’s own specification describes active user actions (e.g., login and updating authentication preferences) when updating the authentication preferences. Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention in view of Applicant’s disclosure, Examiner contends that the combination of Isogawa and Kinsey renders independent claims 1 and 11 obvious.
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.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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