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 .
DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Acknowledgements
The Amendment of claims 1-2, 4-6, 12-13, 15-16 and 19-20, filed on 06/25/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-20 are pending and are hereby examined.
Examiner’s Response to Amendment/Remarks
USC § 101
Claims 1-20 continues to be directed towards a platform for analyzing transaction performance in a blockchain nodes. This is an abstract idea. The computer technology merely automates and implements the abstract idea. The additional elements (“a digital token pools managed by a blockchain“, “a processing unit of a platform via a communication interface of the platform”, “digital token pools managed by a blockchain”, “nodes belonging to the blockchain”, “data blocks stored at the N nodes”, “at least one remote device”, “A platform comprising: a communication interface; memory; and a processing unit comprising one or more processors configured to”, “A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions executable by a processing unit of a platform, the execution of the instructions by the processing unit of the platform providing for”), do not improve the functioning of a computer nor does it improve a technology or technical field. Also, the additional elements of computer technology merely automate the abstract idea. In this instance, these are all elements of a computer and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The devices, merely automates and implements the abstract idea to perform the functions. The devices do not provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment, the claim continues to be non-statutory. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. _208_, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014). Additionally, the recitation of “the validation algorithm” which a statistical tool for calculating the at least one metric value, is a mathematical process that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not recite any additional elements indicative of integration into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is still directed to an abstract idea.
In pages 8 and 9 of the response filed on 06/25/2025, Applicant asserts that [One aspect of the improvement consists in improving the accuracy of the transaction data collected from nodes of a blockchain. As mentioned in paragraph [0098] of the description, "in general, for each transaction affecting a digital token pool of a given blockchain 10, the same transaction data are comprised in one data block stored in all (most of) the nodes 50 of the given blockchain 10. Thus, in theory, it is sufficient to collect data from a single node 50 of the given blockchain 10 to obtain the transaction data related to the transaction. However, to compensate potential errors in at least some of the transaction data stored at a given node 50, the following mechanisms is used. For example, the errors may be due to time delays when nodes 50 synchronize with each other." Existing solutions assume that the transaction data stored at a given node of a blockchain are accurate and only collect the transaction data from this given node. If for some reasons, the transaction data at the given node are erroneous (e.g. due to the aforementioned time delays at the given node, due to a technical failure at the given node, due to malicious tampering with the blockchain at the given node, etc.), further processing of the transaction data (e.g. to compute metrics representative of the transactions corresponding to the collected transaction data) is inaccurate].
Examiner respectfully agrees with the remarks on how the blockchain works. As regards the error detention mechanism, these are actions that takes place outside the blockchain structure and are considered as an extra solution activities of analyzing the data that are to be stored in the blockchain, which is an abstract idea of mathematical concept, therefore, a “certain method of organizing human activity of commercial/business process of abstract idea.
Furthermore, on page 9 of the response, Applicant asserts that [… the claims recite that the nodes from which the transaction data are collected are geographically distributed, which renders the presently claimed solution even more resilient to erroneous transaction data. As a matter of fact, if transaction data at a given node in a first location are erroneous, the likelihood that other nodes at the first location also have erroneous transaction data is high].
Examiner disagrees, as collecting transaction data, geographically distributed, is not an improvement in data collection. Most importantly, in a blockchain network, the associated nodes are all over the place geographically and even globally, {see for example, prior art, Winklevoss [col 4:60-col 5:1] {“…wherein each respective digital asset address of the first set of digital asset addresses is tied to a distributed public transaction ledger maintained by a plurality of geographically distributed computer systems in a peer-to-peer network in the form of a blockchain}, therefore, the claimed emphasis on data collected that are geographically distributed is just mere data used for automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer for analyzing transaction data in a blockchain transaction. Therefore, the claim is still directed to an abstract idea. The 101 rejection is hereby maintained.
35 USC § 103
Examiner would like to thank the Applicant for amending the claims to attempt to positively recite the claimed invention, but the amendment does not overcome the elements that are not positively recited. Additionally, in page 13 of the response, Applicant assert that […Quigley fails to teach or suggest that the ledger crawler receives transaction data for a given transaction from several geographically distributed ledger nodes. On the contrary, Quigley teaches that the transaction data for a given transaction are received from a single (emphasis added) distributed ledger node]. This recitation of “from several geographically distributed ledger nodes” has been adequately addressed above in the 101-rejection section, and as regards, the mention of “single distributed ledger node”, all blockchain transactions are performed one node at a time. Therefore, Quigley disclosure in paragraph 15 is sufficient in art.
Applicant further submits in page 14, [that Quigley fails to disclose, teach or suggest the validation algorithm comprising comparing for each transaction the transaction data collected from the N geographically distributed nodes; as recited in independent claim 1]. Examiner respectfully disagree with this remarks, as Quigley clearly disclose performing the algorithms necessary to process transactions, by one or more data processors 10004 for providing specific data pipelines (e.g., validation, transformation, supplementation, etc.), as disclosed in paragraphs 0123, 0294 and 0858, below. Therefore, the 103 rejection is hereby maintained.
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 1-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1-11 are directed to a product (i.e., a platform), claims 12-19 are directed to a process (i.e., a method), and claim 20 is directed to a product (i.e., a non-transitory computer-readable medium), therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention. Thus, the eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A.1.
The limitations of independent claim 12, have been denoted with letters by the Examiner for easy reference. The judicial exceptions recited in claim 12 which is a representative of independent claims 1 and 20 are identified in bold below:
[A] A method for collecting and analyzing transactions performed on digital token pools managed by a blockchain, the method comprising:
[B] collecting by a processing unit of a platform via a communication interface of the platform transaction data generated by recording transactions performed on digital token pools managed by a blockchain, the transaction data collected for each transaction being collected from N geographically distributed nodes belonging to the blockchain, N being an integer greater than one, the transaction data being included in data blocks stored at the N nodes;
[C] applying by the processing unit of the platform a validation algorithm to determine validated transaction data based on the collected transaction data, the validation algorithm comprising comparing for each transaction the transaction data collected from the N geographically distributed nodes and determining the validated transaction data for the transaction based at least on a result of the comparison;
[D] processing by the processing unit of the platform the validated transaction data to calculate a value of at least one metric based on the validated transaction data; and
[E] performing at least one of storing by the processing unit of the platform the calculated value of the at least one metric in a memory of the platform and transmitting [e.g., sending] the calculated value of the at least one metric via the communication interface to at least one remote device for remote storage.
Limitations A-E under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers steps or
functions of certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically managing personal/commercial behavior and mental process (e.g., collecting, validating, determining, applying, processing comparing, storing and sending). For example, the disclosure establishes collecting and analyzing transaction data relating to a token exchange transactions, which is a form of commercial and legal activities, fits squarely within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally, the determining and calculating at least one metric value from the analysis is a mathematical process, an abstract idea of functions of certain methods of organizing human activity. Therefore, limitations A-E recite at least one abstract idea.
Accordingly, claim 12, recite at least two abstract ideas and the analysis proceed to Step 2A.2.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular,
claim 12, which a representative of independent claims 1 and 20 recites the additional elements in bold below:
[A] A method for collecting and analyzing transactions performed on digital token pools managed by a blockchain, the method comprising:
[B] collecting by a processing unit of a platform via a communication interface of the platform transaction data generated by recording transactions performed on digital token pools managed by a blockchain, the transaction data collected for each transaction being collected from N geographically distributed nodes belonging to the blockchain, N being an integer greater than one, the transaction data being included in data blocks stored at the N nodes;
[C] applying by the processing unit of the platform a validation algorithm to determine validated transaction data based on the collected transaction data, the validation algorithm comprising comparing for each transaction the transaction data collected from the N geographically distributed nodes and determining the validated transaction data for the transaction based at least on a result of the comparison;
[D] processing by the processing unit of the platform the validated transaction data to calculate a value of at least one metric based on the validated transaction data; and
[E] performing at least one of storing by the processing unit of the platform the calculated value of the at least one metric in a memory of the platform and transmitting the calculated value of the at least one metric via the communication interface to at least one remote device for remote storage.
[F] A platform comprising: a communication interface; memory; and a processing unit comprising one or more processors configured to:
[G] A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions executable by a processing unit of a platform, the execution of the instructions by the processing unit of the platform providing for collecting and analyzing transactions performed on digital token pools managed by a blockchain by :
The additional elements (“a digital token pools managed by a blockchain“, “a processing unit of a platform via a communication interface of the platform”, “digital token pools managed by a blockchain”, “nodes belonging to the blockchain”, “data blocks stored at the N nodes”, “at least one remote device”, “A platform comprising: a communication interface; memory; and a processing unit comprising one or more processors configured to”, “A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions executable by a processing unit of a platform, the execution of the instructions by the processing unit of the platform providing for”), are no more than a generic computer performing operations to automate the data collection process of the devices. When the additional elements are considered individually and as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole, amounts to no more than or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a device/computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, the additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not recite any additional elements indicative of integration into a practical application. Rather, the claim as whole generally links the judicial exception to a technological environment (“a digital token pools managed by a blockchain“, “a processing unit of a platform via a communication interface of the platform”, “digital token pools managed by a blockchain”, “nodes belonging to the blockchain”, “data blocks stored at the N nodes”, “at least one remote device”, “A platform comprising: a communication interface; memory; and a processing unit comprising one or more processors configured to”, “A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions executable by a processing unit of a platform, the execution of the instructions by the processing unit of the platform providing for”), defined by high level recitations of a computer and the Internet.
Additionally, the recitation of “the validation algorithm” which a statistical tool for calculating the at least one metric value, is a mathematical process that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not recite any additional elements indicative of integration into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea and the analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
The additional elements, both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the outcome of the considerations at Step 2B will be the same when the considerations from Step 2A.2 are reevaluated. As discussed under Step 2A.2, the additional element(s) amount to no more than generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment through “instructions” performed by a generic computer. Because those instructions embody the abstract idea, the claim itself is merely a recitation of the abstract idea and an instruction to “apply it” on a computer. This is not enough to provide an inventive
concept. Therefore, claims 1, 12 and 20 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-8, which is representative of claims 13-16, further recites wherein the transaction data are generated by recording transactions performed on digital token pools managed by a plurality of blockchains, the transaction data collected for each transaction being collected from the nodes belonging to the each blockchain among the plurality of blockchains; wherein the plurality of blockchains comprises a layer 1 blockchain and a layer 2 blockchain, the transaction data collected from the layer 1 blockchain comprising at least one of a summary and a roll-up of transaction data recorded on the layer 2 blockchain; wherein the collection of the transaction data from the N geographically distributed nodes is performed according to at least one of the following patterns: the number N of nodes varies over time and at least one of the N nodes varies over time; wherein the transaction data are collected from all the data blocks from a genesis block up to a given data block; wherein the transaction data are representative of at least one of the following: a swap transaction, a sync transaction, a mint transaction, a burn transaction, and a combination of unitary transactions; wherein at least some of the validated transaction data are stored in the memory before being processed; wherein the processing unit is further configured to transmit to one or more client devices via the communication interface one or more values of at least one among the at least one metric.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers steps or functions that can be reasonably performed by a human (e.g., collecting transaction data, evaluating and validating the collected data and place it storage before being processed). This is a form of managing commercial/legal activities of “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of Step 2A.
The additional elements of “a plurality of blockchains”, “a layer 1 blockchain and a layer 2 blockchain” in addition with the additional elements disclosed in the analysis above, are used as a, computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of as indicated in claims above. As discussed under Step 2A.2, the additional element(s) amount to no more than generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment through “instructions” processed or performed by a generic computer. Because those instructions embody the abstract idea, the claim itself is merely a recitation of the abstract idea and an instruction to “apply it” on a computer. This is not enough to provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claims 2-8 and 13-16 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 9-11, which is representative of claims 17-19, further recites further comprising: configuring by the processing unit of the platform an alert for a given metric, the configuration comprising storing in the memory of the platform a threshold value and an identification of a client device; determining by the processing unit of the platform a value related to the given metric; comparing by the processing unit of the platform the value related to the given metric with the threshold value; and if the value related to the given metric reaches the threshold value, triggering by the processing unit of the platform the alert, the triggering of the alert comprising transmitting via the communication interface of the platform an alert message to the client device corresponding to the identification of the client device stored in the memory; wherein the alert is configured with a plurality of metrics and a corresponding plurality of thresholds, the alert being triggered if values associated to the plurality of metrics simultaneously reach their respective corresponding thresholds; wherein the processing unit of the platform is further configured to execute a machine learning engine, the machine learning engine using a predictive model stored in the memory of the platform for inferring one or more outputs based on inputs, the one or more outputs comprising a predicted volume for a digital token pool, the inputs comprising the value of the at least one metric. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers steps or functions that can be reasonably performed by a human (e.g., evaluating and validating the collected data using a statistical predictive measure and set up an alert if a threshold value is matched to the calculated metric value of the transaction). This is a form of mathematical process and managing commercial/legal activities of “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of Step 2A.
The additional elements of “the processing unit of the platform”, “the memory of the platform”, “a client device”, “a machine learning engine, the machine learning engine using a predictive model stored in the memory of the platform” are used as a, computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of as indicated in claims above. As discussed under Step 2A.2, the additional element(s) amount to no more than generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment through “instructions” processed or performed by a generic computer. Because those instructions embody the abstract idea, the claim itself is merely a recitation of the abstract idea and an instruction to “apply it” on a computer. This is not enough to provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claims 9-11 and 17-19 are not patent eligible.
In summary, the dependent claims considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea 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, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the difference 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 the invention was made.
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(a) are summarized as follows:
i. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
ii. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
iii. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
iv. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-8, 11-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quigley et al. (US 20240346087 A1), in view of Winklevoss et al. (US Pat. 10438290 B1).
With respect to claims 1, 12 and 20, Quigley teaches a method for collecting and analyzing transactions performed on digital token pools managed by a blockchain, a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions executable by a processing unit of a platform, and a platform comprising: a communication interface; memory; and
a processing unit comprising one or more processors configured to{see at least {see at least Fig. 1 ¶¶ 0138, 1057-1063 } the method comprising:
collecting by a processing unit of a platform via a communication interface of the platform transaction data generated by recording transactions performed on digital token pools managed by a blockchain, the transaction data collected for each transaction being collected from N geographically distributed nodes belonging to the blockchain, N being an integer greater than one, the transaction data being included in data blocks stored at the N nodes {see at least ¶ 0015 “…the distributed ledger crawler system is configured to receive [i.e., collect] new transaction data from a distributed ledger node and to preprocess the new transaction data to detect transactions that meet the one or more criteria. Additionally, or alternatively, the one or more criteria comprise an attribute of a distributed ledger token, wherein a respective transaction meets the one or more criteria when the wallet associated with the respective transaction purchases the distributed ledger token. Additionally, or alternatively, the one or more criteria comprise an attribute of a distributed ledger token, wherein a respective transaction meets the one or more criteria when the wallet associated with the respective transaction redeems the distributed ledger token. Additionally, or alternatively, the one or more criteria comprise an attribute of a distributed ledger token, wherein a respective transaction meets the one or more criteria when the wallet associated with the respective transaction sells the distributed ledger token”}.
With respect to the limitation “…the transaction data for each transaction being collected from N geographically distributed nodes belonging to the blockchain, N being an integer greater than one, the transaction data being included in data blocks stored at the N nodes ” What the transaction data “collected from” does not affect the method step or system function “collect … transaction data” this language does not have patentable weight. As it merely adds detail about the data or information being “collected” in the method or system, it is non-functional descriptive material. Therefore, it has been held the nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05), Ex parte Nehls 88 USPQ2d 1883 (BPAI 2008) (precedential).
applying by the processing unit of the platform a validation algorithm to determine validated transaction data based on the collected transaction data, the validation algorithm comprising comparing for each transaction the transaction data collected from the N geographically distributed nodes and determining the validated transaction data for the transaction based at least on a result of the comparison {see at least ¶ 0123 “…These distributed contributors provide the infrastructure of the distributed ledger system by storing copies of the distributed ledger, and performing the algorithms necessary to process transactions, deploy them into new blocks on the distributed ledger, and distribute those blocks to other parts of the system…”, and also ¶ 0294 “…The validation can be based on the digital-token identifier and the ledger. In the process, the account of the transferee on the platform 100 may be verified and/or validated based on the public address of the user and the ledger…”, and ¶ 0858}.
processing by the processing unit of the platform the validated transaction data to calculate a value of at least one metric based on the validated transaction data {see at least ¶ 0858 “…the distributed ledger crawler system may be implemented by the tokenization platform 100. As shown at FIG. 70, the distributed ledger crawler system 10040 may include one or more blockchain crawlers 10002 for ingesting data from one or more blockchains or other distributed ledgers, one or more data processors 10004 for providing specific data pipelines (e.g., validation, transformation, supplementation, etc.) [e.g., processing] for the data, a graph generator 10006 for generating social graphs from the data, an intelligence system 10008 for performing one or more artificial intelligence (AI) assisted techniques [e.g., calculating] using the data (e.g., machine learning or the like), and one or more application systems 10010 for using the data for one or more applications providing various use cases [e.g., at least one metric] (e.g., advertising, community generation, etc.,)…”}.
Quigley does not explicitly disclose, however, Winklevoss discloses performing at least one of storing by the processing unit of the platform the calculated value of the at least one metric in a memory of the platform {col 21 :38-50] “An electronic ledger computer system 5158 may track and/or store [e.g., storing a calculated value] account balances, update account balances, compute account balances, report account balances, and/or place holds on account funds while transactions are in progress (e.g., set an account hold indicator), to name a few. A risk management computer system 5160 may perform processes to detect fraudulent transactions and/or security breaches, to name a few. Such a sub-system may monitor access data describing access of the exchange (e.g., IP addresses, accounts, times of access, to name a few), monitor trading data, analyze trading data, determine patterns, determine anomalies, and/or determine violations of pre-programmed security rules, to name a few”} and transmitting the calculated value of the at least one metric via the communication interface to at least one remote device for remote storage {see at least [col 4:60-col 5:1] “…wherein each respective digital asset address of the first set of digital asset addresses is tied to a distributed public transaction ledger maintained by a plurality of geographically distributed computer systems in a peer-to-peer network in the form of a blockchain; (b) providing a stable value digital asset token database stored on the distributed public transaction ledger maintained by the plurality of geographically distributed computer systems in the peer-to-peer network in the form of the blockchain…”, and [col 14:26-29] “…if the request is verified the transaction is published in the Security Token database of the blockchain reflecting a debit against Alice's token holdings and a corresponding credit to Bob's token holdings…”, and also [col 21:43-50], [col 33:20-26] “…the trusted entity may maintain the SVCoin database off chain as a sidechain which may be periodically or aperiodically published to a blockchain…”, and [col 23:3-10 “…Updating an exchange customer account can comprise electronically updating a fiat electronic ledger stored one or more computer readable media operatively connected to the exchange computer system to reflect the received funds and/or updating a display of the amount of funds in the account or a data ledger on a user computer device or on a printed and/or digitally transmitted receipt provided to the user and/or a user device [e.g., remote device]}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Quigley to include the elements of Winklevoss. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to securely store transaction data in a payment transaction. Furthermore, Quigley discloses providing a secured validated transaction data in a payment transaction. Winklevoss is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of having a securely store transaction data in a payment transaction, in the same or similar context. Because both providing a secured validated transaction data in a payment transaction, as well as having a securely store transaction data in a payment transaction are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Quigley, as well as Winklevoss would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Quigley/Winklevoss.
With respect to claims 2 and 13 the combination of Quigley in view of Winklevoss teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claims 1 and 12 above, respectively.
Furthermore, Quigley discloses wherein the transaction data are generated by recording transactions performed on digital token pools managed by a plurality of blockchains, the transaction data collected for each transaction being collected from the nodes belonging to the each blockchain among the plurality of blockchains {see at least ¶¶ 0015, 0123}.
With respect to claim 13 recitation of “The method of claim 12, wherein the transaction data …” shows that the claim does not recite a further method step or limit a method step of claim 12, therefore, the claim has no patentable weight because it does not further limit claim 12 that it depends from. Additionally, claim 2 has no patentable weight because it does not further limit claim 1 that it depends from.
With respect to claims 3 and 14 the combination of Quigley in view of Winklevoss teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claims 2 and 13 above, respectively.
Furthermore, Quigley discloses wherein the plurality of blockchains comprises a layer 1 blockchain and a layer 2 blockchain, the transaction data collected from the layer 1 blockchain comprising at least one of a summary and a roll-up of transaction data recorded on the layer 2 blockchain {see at least ¶ 1074}.
With respect to the limitation “…wherein the plurality of blockchains comprises a layer 1 blockchain and a layer 2 blockchain…” this only describes the structure of the blockchain environment, while these elements of the blockchains does not have patentable weight because it is not part of the claimed structure and does not affect how the steps of the claimed method are performed.
Additionally, claim 14 recitation of “The method of claim 13, wherein the plurality of blockchains comprises…” shows that the claim does not recite a further method step or limit a method step of claim 13, therefore, the claim has no patentable weight because it does not further limit claim 13 that it depends from.
With respect to claim 4 the combination of Quigley in view of Winklevoss teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 1 above.
Furthermore, Quigley discloses wherein the collection of the transaction data from the N geographically distributed nodes is performed according to at least one of the following patterns: the number N of nodes varies over time and at least one of the N nodes varies over time {see at least ¶ 1066 “…The distribution may vary across embodiments and may vary over time. For example, the distribution may vary based on demand, with additional hardware and/or software entities invoked to handle higher demand. In various embodiments, a load balancer may direct requests to one of multiple instantiations of the special purpose system. The hardware and/or software entities may be physically distinct and/or may share some hardware and/or software, such as in a virtualized environment. Multiple hardware entities may be referred to as a server rack, server farm, data center, etc.,”}.
With respect to claim 4 recitation of “wherein the collection of the transaction data from the N geographically distributed nodes is performed according to at least one of the following patterns: the number N of nodes varies over time and at least one of the N nodes varies over time” shows that the structure/quantity/relationship of the nodes does not have a functional impact on the collect/collecting transaction data, therefore, the claim has no patentable weight because it does not further limit claim 1 that it depends from.
With respect to claims 5 and 15 the combination of Quigley in view of Winklevoss teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claims 1 and 12 above, respectively.
Furthermore, Quigley discloses wherein the transaction data are collected from all the data blocks from a genesis block up to a given data block {see at least ¶ 0242 “…the analytics system 602 may provide a set of interfaces (e.g., application programming interfaces (APIs)) that respectively collect data from the data sources. In some embodiments, the set of interfaces may include a “history” node that monitors a distributed ledger for new blocks being written to the ledger. In embodiments, the history node may be configured to filter the blocks for specific data types, such as blocks containing data that indicates generation, redemption, sale, gift, trade, or other transfer or action relating to one or more types of digital tokens. For instance, the history node may be configured to identify and index any block containing data relating to a specific set of NFTs. In these embodiments, the history node may monitor token identifiers (e.g., schema IDs, template IDs, mint numbers, and/or the like) to identify blocks that pertain to a specified set of NFTs. Once identified, the history node 602 may process and index the data contained in the identified blocks and/or may provide the data to the analytics system 602”, and also ¶¶ 0308, 0368}.
With respect to the limitation “…wherein the transaction data are collected from all the data blocks from a genesis block up to a given data block …” this is a nonfunctional descriptive material as it only describes the elements of information received as “transaction data”, while these elements of the “transaction data” does not impact how the collect/collecting would be performed. Therefore, it has been held the nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05), Ex parte Nehls 88 USPQ2d 1883 (BPAI 2008) (precedential).
With respect to claims 6 and 16 the combination of Quigley in view of Winklevoss teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claims 1 and 12 above, respectively.
Furthermore, Quigley discloses wherein the transaction data are representative of at least one of the following: a swap transaction, a sync transaction, a mint transaction, a burn transaction, and a combination of unitary transactions {see at least ¶ 0025 “…locating, by the tokenization platform, a smart contract corresponding to the acquisition code, wherein the smart contract is configured to mint the distributed ledger token. The method further includes verifying, by the tokenization platform, that the distributed ledger token can be minted based on data stored by the smart contract and the acquisition code. The method further includes in response to verifying that the distributed ledger can be minted, initiating, by the tokenization platform, one or more distributed ledger transactions configured to mint the distributed ledger token using the smart contract; assign the distributed ledger token to the distributed ledger wallet associated with the user device; and update the data stored by the smart contract to disable the acquisition code”, and also ¶¶ 0228, 0247}.
With respect to claim 16 recitation of “The method of claim 12 wherein the transaction data are representative of at least one of the following …” shows that the claim does not recite a further method step or limit a method step of claim 12, therefore, the claim has no patentable weight because it does not further limit claim 12 that it depends from.
Additionally, claim 6 has no patentable weight because it does not further limit claim 1 that it depends from.
With respect to the limitation “…wherein the transaction data are representative of at least one of the following: a swap transaction, a sync transaction, a mint transaction, a burn transaction, and a combination of unitary transactions ” this is a nonfunctional descriptive material as it only describes the elements of the transaction, while these elements of the transaction are not used to perform any of the recited method steps. Therefore, it has been held the nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05), Ex parte Nehls 88 USPQ2d 1883 (BPAI 2008) (precedential).
With respect to claim 7 the combination of Quigley in view of Winklevoss teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 1 above.
Furthermore, Quigley discloses wherein at least some of the validated transaction data are stored in the memory before being processed {see at least ¶ 0199 “…the verification system 306 verifies data stored on the distributed ledger 310. In embodiments, the verification system 306 may verify the validity of tokens and/or may verify the ownership of a token. The verification system 306 may be configured to validate other types of data stored on the distributed ledger 310 as well”, and also ¶ 0294}.
With respect to claim 8 the combination of Quigley in view of Winklevoss teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 1 above.
Furthermore, Quigley discloses wherein the processing unit is further configured to transmit to one or more client devices via the communication interface one or more values of at least one among the at least one metric {¶¶ 0138, 0243 “…the set of interfaces of the analytics system 602 may include or communicate with an oracle. In embodiments, an oracle may refer to a set of computing devices that are configured to collect and report off-chain data. For example, an oracle may be configured to obtain and report specific types of data, [e.g., one metric] such as stock prices, sports scores, sales data, weather data, sensor data, and/or any other suitable type of data}.
With respect to claims 11 and 19 the combination of Quigley in view of Winklevoss teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claims 1 and 12 above, respectively.
Furthermore, Quigley discloses wherein the processing unit of the platform is further configured to execute a machine learning engine, the machine learning engine using a predictive model stored in the memory of the platform for inferring one or more outputs based on inputs, the one or more outputs comprising a predicted volume for a digital token pool, the inputs comprising the value of the at least one metric {¶ 0858}.
With respect to claim 19 recitation of “The method of claim 12, wherein the processing unit of the platform is further…” shows that the claim does not recite a further method step or limit a method step of claim 12, therefore, the claim has no patentable weight because it does not further limit claim 12 that it depends from.
Claims 9-10 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quigley et al. (US 20240346087 A1), in view of Winklevoss et al. (US Pat. 10438290 B1) and further in view of Osborn et al., (US 20230298016 A1).
With respect to claims 9 and 17 the combination of Quigley in view of Winklevoss teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claims 1 and 12 above, but does not explicitly disclose, however, Osborn discloses further comprising: configuring by the processing unit of the platform an alert for a given metric, the configuration comprising storing in the memory of the platform a threshold value and an identification of a client device {see at least ¶ 0036 “…the oracle device 110 may deploy the machine learning model 230 and begin receiving requests from the wallet application 112 and/or the smart contract 114, for example. Optionally, the oracle device 110 can continue to train the machine learning model 230 as transactions are observed for which the machine learning model 230 has insufficient data to provide a threshold level of accuracy. At least the destination blockchain address, and optionally additional transaction context data, for such transactions can be inserted into the investigation database 224…”}.
determining by the processing unit of the platform a value related to the given metric {see at least ¶ 0053 “…For example, the wallet application 112 can be configured to automatically allow the proposed transaction to proceed with the digital asset transfer to the destination blockchain address when the confidence score exceeds a predefined threshold”}.
comparing by the processing unit of the platform the value related to the given metric with the threshold value {see at least ¶¶ 0053}, and
if the value related to the given metric reaches the threshold value, triggering by the processing unit of the platform the alert, the triggering of the alert comprising transmitting via the communication interface of the platform an alert message to the client device corresponding to the identification of the client device stored in the memory {¶¶ 0036, 0053, 0061 “… the blockchain node 106(n) may determine whether to proceed with the transaction defined by the smart contract 114. In examples in which the confidence score is a non-binary value, the smart contract 114 can be configured to compare the confidence score to a predefined threshold to determine whether to allow the transaction to proceed”, and also ¶ 0067 “…the oracle device 110 may determine whether the generated confidence score exceeds a threshold value. For example, the oracle device 110 can be configured to generate a percentage confidence score indicative of a likelihood that the destination blockchain address in the transaction context data corresponds to a recipient identifier in the transaction context data. In this example, the threshold can be fifty percent, although other thresholds and other types of confidence values can also be used in other examples. If the oracle device 110 determines that the threshold value is not exceeded, then the “No” branch is taken to block 608”}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Quigley in view of Winklevoss to include the elements of Osborn. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to present a confidence score for a validated transaction evaluation. Furthermore, Quigley discloses providing a secured validated transaction data in a payment transaction, and Winklevoss discloses providing a secured database for the validated transaction data. Osborn is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of presenting a confidence score for a validated transaction evaluation, in the same or similar context. Because both providing a secured validated transaction data in a payment transaction, and providing a secured database for the validated transaction data as well as presenting a confidence score for a validated transaction evaluation are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Quigley in view of Winklevoss, as well as Osborn would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Quigley/Winklevoss/Osborn.
With respect to claims 10 and 18 the combination of Quigley and Winklevoss in view of Osborn teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claims 9 and 17 above, respectively.
Furthermore, Osborn discloses wherein the alert is configured with a plurality of metrics and a corresponding plurality of thresholds, the alert being triggered if values associated to the plurality of metrics simultaneously reach their respective corresponding thresholds {¶¶ 0036, 0053, 0061, 0067}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Quigley in view of Winklevoss to include the elements of Osborn. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to present a confidence score for a validated transaction evaluation. Furthermore, Quigley discloses providing a secured validated transaction data in a payment transaction, and Winklevoss discloses providing a secured database for the validated transaction data. Osborn is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of presenting a confidence score for a validated transaction evaluation, in the same or similar context. Because both providing a secured validated transaction data in a payment transaction, and providing a secured database for the validated transaction data as well as presenting a confidence score for a validated transaction evaluation are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Quigley in view of Winklevoss, as well as Osborn would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Quigley/Winklevoss/Osborn.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time
policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon:
1) (US 20110035278 A1) – Fordyce et al., Systems And Methods For Closing The Loop Between Online Activities And Offline Purchases - relate to the processing of transaction data, such as records of payments made via credit cards, debit cards, prepaid cards, etc., and/or providing information based on the processing of the transaction data.
2) (US 20180293553 A1) – Dembo et al., Account Platform for a Distributed Networks of Nodes – relates to a network of bank nodes to transfer funds to central bank systems, and an account platform to generate data elements of transactions and record the data elements of transactions on a distributed ledger provided by a computing devices.
3) (US 20170236113 A1) – Chitalia et al., Authentication Systems and Methods Using Location Matching – relates to systems and methods are provided that allow users to use their communication devices to perform payment transactions, without requiring the use of a contactless element or specialized hardware at the merchant.
4) (US 20200042657 A1) – Todd et al., Multi-Dimensional Event Model Generation - relates generally to information processing systems, and more particularly to techniques for generating digital representations, e.g., models, of physical events in such information processing systems.
5) (US Pat. 10621164 B1) – Robert . Kain, Community Data Aggregation With Automated Follow-up - relates to techniques for filling important gaps in data, particularly in health-related data, including electronic health record (EHR) data and patient reported outcomes (PRO) data, but also in a wide range of data types, such as omic data, personal data, demographic data, and so forth. The invention also relates to platforms and approaches to aggregating data from contributing members of a community, compensating or motivating contributing members, and utilizing the data to aid both members and a larger community.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT IDIAKE whose telephone number is (571)272-1284. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 10:30AM to 7:30PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PATRICK MCATEE, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-1284. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form
/V.I./Examiner, Art Unit 3698 /PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights