DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of the Claims
This is a non-final rejection prepared in response to U.S. Patent Application 18/537,839 filed on
December 13, 2023.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a module for participants to negotiate…”, “a module for participants to use their private keys to sign”, “a module for generating aggregate signatures from the individual signatures”, “ a module for carrying out verification on the aggregate signature”, “a module for constructing a first transaction”, “a module for broadcasting the first transaction on the blockchain”, “a module for constructing a second transaction”, “a module for broadcasting the second transaction on the blockchain” and “a module for validating the transactions” in claim 11.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8, 9 and 11-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8, limitations “means for a first party to send an individual signature…”, “means for the second party to recover all the individual signatures of the first party” and “means for the second party to construct a transaction…” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Here the claims and specifications are silent with respect to any structure corresponding to the generic placeholder. Therefore the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lacking adequate written description.
Regarding claim 9, limitations “means for a first party to verify the first transaction…”, “means for the first party to recover all the individual signatures of a second party”, and “means for the first party to construct a transaction…” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Here the claims and specifications are silent with respect to any structure corresponding to the generic placeholder. Therefore the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lacking adequate written description.
Regarding claim 11, limitations “a module for participants to negotiate…”, “a module for participants to use their private keys to sign”, “a module for generating aggregate signatures from the individual signatures”, “ a module for carrying out verification on the aggregate signature”, “a module for constructing a first transaction”, “a module for broadcasting the first transaction on the blockchain”, “a module for constructing a second transaction”, “a module for broadcasting the second transaction on the blockchain” and “a module for validating the transactions” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Here the claims and specifications are silent with respect to any structure corresponding to the generic placeholder. Therefore the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lacking adequate written description.
Claims 12-20 are also rejected upon rejected parent independent claim 11.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “if negative, quit” is unclear because it does not specify what aspect of the process is to be terminated or how the method is to respond. The term “quit” is ambiguous and does not specify whether the process halts entire asset swapping process, skips subsequent steps or perform some other undefined action, leaving the scope of the claim uncertain. Furthermore, claim 1 is also indefinite with respect to the limitation “validating the broadcast transactions by blockchain node or miners”. The claim recites broadcasting multiple transactions to the blockchain. It is therefore unclear which of these transactions is being validated in the recited step.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “the aggregate signature is generated using a reversible signature aggregate function to secure against forgery” is unclear as of which aggregate signature is being referred to. Claim 1 recites “creating aggregate signatures…” in plural form, while claim 4 refers to “the aggregate signature…” in singular form. As a result, the claim lacks clarity as to whether claim 4 is directed to one of the aggregate signatures created in claim 1, to a specific aggregate signature among them, or to a different aggregate signature not previously introduced.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “a swap process quits if the verification of the aggregate signature is negative” fails to limit claim1. The phrase “swap process” lacks antecedents’ basis and is not defined elsewhere in the claim, therefore making it unclear what process is being referred to by “swap process”. Furthermore, the term “quit” is ambiguous and does not specify whether the process halts entire asset swapping process, skips subsequent steps or perform some other undefined action, leaving the scope of the claim uncertain.
Regarding claim 8, limitations “means for a first party to send an individual signature…”, “means for the second party to recover all the individual signatures of the first party” and “means for the second party to construct a transaction…” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification fails to disclose sufficient corresponding structure for the claimed “means” limitations. Furthermore, the claim recites “means for…” followed by a functional expression which is interpreted as being directed to a structure. However, the claim recites “the operation… comprises” which makes the claim unclear and confusing. In other words, the structure for achieving the functions do not commensurate in scope of the operation. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding claim 9, limitations “means for a first party to verify the first transaction…”, “means for the first party to recover all the individual signatures of a second party”, and “means for the first party to construct a transaction…” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification fails to disclose sufficient corresponding structure for the claimed “means” limitations. Furthermore, the claim recites “means for…” followed by a functional expression which is interpreted as being directed to a structure. However, the claim recites “the operation… comprises” which makes the claim unclear and confusing. In other words, the structure for achieving the functions do not commensurate in scope of the operation. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding claim 10, limitation “the operation of validating the transaction comprises:…” is not clear as there is no antecedents basis for an operation of validating the transaction in claim 1. Therefore, it is unclear what specific operation is being referenced in the claim and how it limits claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, limitations “a module for participants to negotiate…”, “a module for participants to use their private keys to sign”, “a module for generating aggregate signatures from the individual signatures”, “ a module for carrying out verification on the aggregate signature”, “a module for constructing a first transaction”, “a module for broadcasting the first transaction on the blockchain”, “a module for constructing a second transaction”, “a module for broadcasting the second transaction on the blockchain” and “a module for validating the transactions” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification fails to disclose sufficient corresponding structure for the claimed limitations. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are also rejected upon rejected parent independent claim 1 or claim 11.
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.
Step 1: Claims 1-10 are directed to computer-implemented method (i.e., process). Claims 11-15 are directed to a system (i.e., machine, and manufacture). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention, and thus must be further analyzed at Step 2A to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.03, subsection II).
Step 2A Prong One: Claim 1, recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea. More specifically, the following bolded claim elements recite abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
A method for asset swapping between blockchains supporting recipient’s confirmation in a transaction, comprising:
negotiating to determine content of asset swapping transactions;
producing individual signatures on the transaction content by each participant;
creating aggregate signatures from the individual signatures by each participant;
exchanging the aggregate signatures between the participants;
verifying the aggregate signatures; if negative, quit;
constructing a first transaction by a second participant;
broadcasting the first transaction by the second participant;
constructing a second transaction by a first participant;
broadcasting the second transaction by the first participant;
validating the broadcast transactions by blockchain node or miners.
Claim 1, recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) a method for negotiating a contract for exchanging assets between different parties. The method executed by negotiating terms for a transaction, signing the contract/transaction, collecting and verifying the signatures and then recording it. Claim 11 is significantly similar to claim 1. As such claim 11 also recite an abstract idea. Specifically, but for the additional elements, the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas (commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
Step 2A Prong Two: Because the claim recites abstract ideas, the analysis proceeds to
determine whether the claim recites additional elements that recite a practical application of the
abstract ideas. Here, the additional elements of blockchains and blockchain nodes merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claim as a whole fail to recite a practical application of the abstract ideas.
Step 2B: Determines whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the exception itself. Evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Here, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements merely serve as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Dependent Claims: Claims 2-10 and 12-20 have also been analyzed for subject matter
eligibility. However, claims 2-10 and 12-20 also fail to recite patent eligible subject matter for the
following reasons:
Claims 2 and 13 recite the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the step that participants negotiate and determine the transaction contents comprise a locking script of the referenced previous transaction, transaction amounts, a flag indicating whether a recipient’s signature is comprised in the transaction.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of a method for negotiating a contract for exchanging assets between different parties. The method executed by negotiating terms for a transaction, signing the contract/transaction, collecting and verifying the signatures and then recording it. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements, if any, fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)).Further, the additional elements, if any, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claim 3 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the participants sign the transaction contents according to a signature scheme comprising Boneh–Lynn–Shacham (BLS) or Schnorr signature scheme.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of a method for negotiating a contract for exchanging assets between different parties. The method executed by negotiating terms for a transaction, signing the contract/transaction, collecting and verifying the signatures and then recording it. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “mathematical concept” group of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements, if any, fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)).Further, the additional elements, if any, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claims 4 and 15 recite the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the aggregate signature is generated using a reversible signature aggregate function to secure against forgery.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of a method for negotiating a contract for exchanging assets between different parties. The method executed by negotiating terms for a transaction, signing the contract/transaction, collecting and verifying the signatures and then recording it. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “mathematical concept” group of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements, if any, fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)).Further, the additional elements, if any, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claim 5 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the reversible signature aggregate function is constructed with a BLS signature scheme given that public keys are authenticated.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of a method for negotiating a contract for exchanging assets between different parties. The method executed by negotiating terms for a transaction, signing the contract/transaction, collecting and verifying the signatures and then recording it. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “mathematical concept” group of abstract ideas.
Claim 6 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the reversible signature aggregate function is constructed with a Schnorr signature scheme given that public keys are authenticated, and each ephemeral public key for signing a transaction content is fixed in a swap process
The claim further recites the abstract idea of a method for negotiating a contract for exchanging assets between different parties. The method executed by negotiating terms for a transaction, signing the contract/transaction, collecting and verifying the signatures and then recording it. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “mathematical concept” group of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements, if any, fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)).Further, the additional elements, if any, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claims 7 and 17 recite the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
a swap process quits if the verification of the aggregate signature is negative.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of a method for negotiating a contract for exchanging assets between different parties. The method executed by negotiating terms for a transaction, signing the contract/transaction, collecting and verifying the signatures and then recording it. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements, if any, fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)).Further, the additional elements, if any, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claims 8 and 18 recite the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the operation of constructing the first transaction comprises means for a first party to send an individual signature on the transaction content to a second party;
if the individual signature is for payment, a signature aggregation of the first party is allowed to be optional;
means for the second party to recover all the individual signatures of the first party;
means for the second party to construct a transaction comprising the transaction content in favor of the second party and its individual signatures from all the parties.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of a method for negotiating a contract for exchanging assets between different parties. The method executed by negotiating terms for a transaction, signing the contract/transaction, collecting and verifying the signatures and then recording it. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” group of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). The non-bolded additional elements, if any, fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)).Further, the additional elements, if any, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claims 9 and 19 recite the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the operation of constructing the second transaction comprises:
means for a first party to verify the first transaction;
if a verification result is negative, the swap process is terminated;
means for the first party to recover all the individual signatures of a second party;
means for the first party to construct a transaction comprising the transaction content in favor of the first party and its individual signatures from all the parties.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of a method for negotiating a contract for exchanging assets between different parties. The method executed by negotiating terms for a transaction, signing the contract/transaction, collecting and verifying the signatures and then recording it. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). The non-bolded additional elements, if any, fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)).Further, the additional elements, if any, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claims 10 and 20 recite the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the operation of validating the transaction comprises:
upon receiving the transaction, wherein the blockchain miners check a format of the transaction according to a blockchain specification;
verifying, by the miners, the signature from a transaction payer;
if a verification result is negative, the transaction is rejected;
verifying, by the miners, the signature from a transaction payee if a flag is set;
if a verification result is negative, the transaction is rejected;
packing, by the miners, the accepted transaction into a block and broadcasting the block to a blockchain network.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of a method for negotiating a contract for exchanging assets between different parties. The method executed by negotiating terms for a transaction, signing the contract/transaction, collecting and verifying the signatures and then recording it. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). The non-bolded additional elements, if any, fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)).Further, the additional elements, if any, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claim 12 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the negotiation on the transaction contents is off-chain.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of a method for negotiating a contract for exchanging assets between different parties. The method executed by negotiating terms for a transaction, signing the contract/transaction, collecting and verifying the signatures and then recording it. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). The non-bolded additional elements, if any, fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)).Further, the additional elements, if any, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claim 14 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the individual signature is produced with a homomorphic signature scheme, wherein an output is either immutable due to some restrictions or deterministic.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of a method for negotiating a contract for exchanging assets between different parties. The method executed by negotiating terms for a transaction, signing the contract/transaction, collecting and verifying the signatures and then recording it. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “mathematical concepts” group of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). The non-bolded additional elements, if any, fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)).Further, the additional elements, if any, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claim 16 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the reversible signature aggregate function is secure against signature forgery, wherein the reversible signature aggregate function is constructed from BLS or half-aggregated Schnorr signature scheme.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of a method for negotiating a contract for exchanging assets between different parties. The method executed by negotiating terms for a transaction, signing the contract/transaction, collecting and verifying the signatures and then recording it. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “mathematical concepts” group of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). The non-bolded additional elements, if any, fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)).Further, the additional elements, if any, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 7, 10-12, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brogliato (US 2024/0202703 A1) in view of Fay (US 20160292672 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Brogliato discloses:
negotiating to determine content of asset swapping transactions; (Brogliato ¶0083, Executing the trade S300 can include: determining trade information for each order S320 and facilitating the trade using the trade information S340, or be otherwise performed. Brogliato ¶0084, Determining the trade information S320 functions to determine the information needed to construct the blockchain transaction that executes the trade. The trade information functions to provide all the information needed for a user to send an asset to the opposing party. The trade information is preferably determined from the order information, but can additionally or alternatively be automatically generated by the exchange system, be determined from the partial transaction, be requested from the user (e.g., wherein the UTXOs to use are requested from the user wallet after the match is made), and/or otherwise determined. Brogliato ¶0091, In a second example, S342 includes generating a different unsigned transaction for each blockchain wallet within the match (e.g., by the exchange), wherein each unsigned transaction is sent to the respective blockchain wallet for signature. Brogliato ¶0105, In this example, a first user and a second user both utilize input and output UTXOs to exchange transaction data (i.e., perform an atomic swap). In this variant, the swap can be executed with only one on-chain transaction. The first user and the second user both have wallets and can establish an off-chain communication channel including email, Telegram, Discord, and/or any other suitable channel. The first user and second user can negotiate a transaction proposal, call the generation of one or more unsigned transactions and/or unsigned partial transactions by S342 and S344, respectively, and receive the transactions by S346 through a wallet application feature and/or otherwise called.)
producing individual signatures on the transaction content by each participant; (Brogliato ¶0092, In a third example, S342 includes generating a different unsigned transaction by each blockchain wallet (e.g., before a match is made), wherein the blockchain wallet can also sign the unsigned transaction (e.g., using a partial signature, using a bitmask, etc.) before sending the unsigned transaction to the exchange for subsequent matching. Each unsigned transaction is preferably a partial transaction, and includes the trade information from the respective wallet (e.g., one or more: inputs, outputs, user- or wallet-selected inputs, user- or wallet-selected outputs, asset amount spent, asset amount received, spending address, receiving address, etc.), but can additionally or alternatively include trade information from the other party (e.g., be a full transaction). Brogliato ¶0094, Each user account in the match preferably generates at least one signature for the transaction to be considered valid (e.g., by the blockchain). The signatures are preferably generated offchain, but can alternatively be generated onchain. The signatures are preferably generated while the user wallets (e.g., private keys) are online (e.g., “hot”), but can be otherwise generated. Brogliato ¶0095, Receiving signed transactions functions to obtain a signature for the transaction from each user account involved in the trade. The signed transaction can be received by a centralized system (e.g., the exchange system), a user account involved in the match, and/or by any other suitable system. The signed transaction can be received offchain, but can alternatively be received onchain.)
creating aggregate signatures from the individual signatures by each participant; (Brogliato ¶0098, S348 can include: aggregating the signatures with the unsigned transaction (e.g., unsigned full transaction), aggregating (pre)signed partial transactions, and/or otherwise constructing the unitary transaction. Brogliato ¶0099, In a first example, S348 includes adding (e.g., appending, associating, etc.) the signatures to the unsigned transaction. In a second example, S348 includes aggregating the signed transactions received from each user.)
verifying the aggregate signatures; if negative, quit;(Brogliato ¶0096, The method can optionally include verifying if the signature on a partial transaction is valid and/or if the aggregated transaction is valid. The execution system and/or any other suitable system can receive the bitmask from a user and a signed partial transaction. The bitmask-indicated inputs and outputs can be verified as indeed relevant to the user to ensure the user and/or wallet are not signing on assets of others. If the test fails, the signature is invalid. If verified, the hash of the transaction with the bitmask appended to the header can be computed and compared against the signature provided by the user. If matched, the signature on the partial transaction can be deemed valid. Any other suitable verification strategies can be executed as well. The aggregated transaction can also be verified as valid if the execution system and/or any other suitable system can sign the aggregated transaction combining the partial signatures confirming that the signatures are valid for each of the partial transactions merged.)
exchanging the aggregate signatures between the participants; (Brogliato ¶0096, In another embodiment, the aggregated transaction may be a multi-signature transaction wherein the transaction requires the signatures of each participating user after the merge to confirm the aggregated transaction is indeed valid (i.e., leaving their partial transaction untouched). The execution system and/or any other suitable system can send the unsigned aggregated transaction to each user and obtain each respective signature before the execution system may optionally sign as well and post on the chain.)
validating the broadcast transactions by blockchain node or miners (Brogliato ¶0100, Sending the unitary signed transaction to the blockchain for confirmation S350 functions to execute the trade… S350 preferably includes sending the unitary signed transaction to the blockchain (e.g., Hathor network) and/or blockchains (e.g., two or more blockchains) via a node for the respective blockchain, but the unitary signed transaction can be otherwise sent to the blockchains. Brogliato ¶0101, Once the unitary signed transaction is sent to the blockchain(s), the respective blockchain(s) preferably validate the signed transaction based on the blockchain's protocol (e.g., by the blockchain's nodes, using the blockchain's consensus mechanism, etc.), wherein signed transaction validation sends the assets to the respective addresses (e.g., executes the trade). Validating the signed transaction can be executed by a single blockchain such as the Hathor Network, and/or by any other blockchain if the atomic swap is transacting between different chains (e.g., Ethereum network, Bitcoin network, and/or any other suitable blockchain network). Validating the atomic transaction can be executed after the signatures from users have been aggregated and posted to a blockchain, but can otherwise be implemented. Validating the atomic transaction can include sending a signed atomic transaction to a blockchain, wherein the signed transaction is the atomic transaction composed by the execution system, user wallet, and/or any other suitable system. Validation also can include verifying the signed atomic transaction is valid by cross-verifying that all the signatures of required parties (e.g., participating users and/or wallets) have with sufficient funds for each party. The blockchains can validate the signed transaction when: the aggregate input values match the aggregate output values (e.g., the same total number of tokens of each type are input and output by the transaction); the signatures match the transaction information (e.g., the signature is valid given the public key associated with each input's user account and the signed field values of the transaction, as indicated by a SIGHASH flag or other indicator attached to the transaction); the transaction constraints are satisfied (e.g., less than the maximum number of orders, private keys, inputs, outputs, addresses, and/or other parameter is involved in the transaction); and/or otherwise considered valid. Since the unitary signed transaction includes all the information for the trade, the trade (e.g., asset transfer between the user accounts) is preferably atomic upon transaction validation (e.g., completed within one block, completed within one validation, completed in a single step, etc.); alternatively, the trade can be a multi-step trade (e.g., when different portions of the trade are executed on different blockchains, when an initial asset transfer needs to be validated before a secondary asset transfer is initiated, etc.). However, the blockchain can otherwise validate the signed transaction.)
Brogliato does not disclose, however Fay teaches:
constructing a first transaction by a second participant; (Fay ¶0052, In FIG. 2C and in step 256, computing device A 120A generates a blockchain transaction using the previously received trade and/or wallet information (e.g., that includes information of trading party B's digital wallet)… For example, a transaction message is generated that specifies the transfer of assets (e.g., 100 shares of AAPL) from one trading party (e.g., A) to the hashed wallet information that is associated with the counter party (e.g., B).)
broadcasting the first transaction by the second participant; (Fay ¶0052, …and transmits the generated blockchain transaction to blockchain computer system 214 at step 257.
constructing a second transaction by a first participant; (Fay ¶0052, Similarly, computing device B 120B (the counter party) generates a blockchain transaction at step 258… The counter-transaction (e.g., generated by computing device B 120AB) may specify the transfer of some other assets (e.g., USD, bitcoin, other asset types, etc. . . . ).
broadcasting the second transaction by the first participant; (Fay ¶0052, …and transmits the transaction to blockchain computer system 214 at step 259.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention, to have modify Brogliato invention with Fay’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements in order to provide individual user agreements (transactions) and commit them to the blockchain to complete the transfer.
Furthermore, in regards to the method claims 1, the claimed limitation “if negative, quit” is a conditional that does not move to distinguish over prior art as it is a conditional limitation which means that the claim limitation is only required when the stated condition is met.
Regarding claim 7 and 17, Brogliato further discloses:
a swap process quits if the verification of the aggregate signature is negative. (Brogliato ¶0096, The method can optionally include verifying if the signature on a partial transaction is valid and/or if the aggregated transaction is valid. The execution system and/or any other suitable system can receive the bitmask from a user and a signed partial transaction. The bitmask-indicated inputs and outputs can be verified as indeed relevant to the user to ensure the user and/or wallet are not signing on assets of others. If the test fails, the signature is invalid. If verified, the hash of the transaction with the bitmask appended to the header can be computed and compared against the signature provided by the user. If matched, the signature on the partial transaction can be deemed valid. Any other suitable verification strategies can be executed as well. The aggregated transaction can also be verified as valid if the execution system and/or any other suitable system can sign the aggregated transaction combining the partial signatures confirming that the signatures are valid for each of the partial transactions merged.)
Furthermore, in regards to the method claim, the claimed limitation “a swap process quits if the verification of the aggregate signature is negative” is a conditional that does not move to distinguish over prior art as it is a conditional limitation which means that the claim limitation is only required when the stated condition is met.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Brogliato further discloses:
upon receiving the transaction, wherein the blockchain miners check a format of the transaction according to a blockchain specification; (Brogliato ¶0101, Once the unitary signed transaction is sent to the blockchain(s), the respective blockchain(s) preferably validate the signed transaction based on the blockchain's protocol (e.g., by the blockchain's nodes, using the blockchain's consensus mechanism, etc.), wherein signed transaction validation sends the assets to the respective addresses (e.g., executes the trade).)
verifying, by the miners, the signature from a transaction payer; if a verification result is negative, the transaction is rejected; (Brogliato ¶0096, The method can optionally include verifying if the signature on a partial transaction is valid and/or if the aggregated transaction is valid. The execution system and/or any other suitable system can receive the bitmask from a user and a signed partial transaction. The bitmask-indicated inputs and outputs can be verified as indeed relevant to the user to ensure the user and/or wallet are not signing on assets of others. If the test fails, the signature is invalid. If verified, the hash of the transaction with the bitmask appended to the header can be computed and compared against the signature provided by the user. If matched, the signature on the partial transaction can be deemed valid. Any other suitable verification strategies can be executed as well.)
While Brogliato doesn’t explicitly states that the transaction is rejected, if the verification of a signature fails, the signature is deemed invalid and cannot be relied upon to authorize or complete a transaction. In an atomic swap system a valid signature is a necessary pre condition for constructing and broadcasting a transaction. Therefore, if the verification fails and the signature is invalid, the logical consequences is that the transaction cannot proceed, effectively terminating the swap.
verifying, by the miners, the signature from a transaction payee if a flag is set; if a verification result is negative, the transaction is rejected; (Brogliato ¶0059, An identifier for the signature hashtype (e.g., a flag) can optionally be added to the signature, wherein the signature validation protocol (e.g., blockchain protocol) can use the identified signature hashtype to determine the portions of the transaction information to evaluate when validating the signature, or otherwise used. However, signatures can be otherwise generated. Brogliato ¶0096, The method can optionally include verifying if the signature on a partial transaction is valid and/or if the aggregated transaction is valid. The execution system and/or any other suitable system can receive the bitmask from a user and a signed partial transaction. The bitmask-indicated inputs and outputs can be verified as indeed relevant to the user to ensure the user and/or wallet are not signing on assets of others. If the test fails, the signature is invalid. If verified, the hash of the transaction with the bitmask appended to the header can be computed and compared against the signature provided by the user. If matched, the signature on the partial transaction can be deemed valid. Any other suitable verification strategies can be executed as well. Brogliato ¶0101, … the signatures match the transaction information (e.g., the signature is valid given the public key associated with each input's user account and the signed field values of the transaction, as indicated by a SIGHASH flag or other indicator attached to the transaction); the transaction constraints are satisfied (e.g., less than the maximum number of orders, private keys, inputs, outputs, addresses, and/or other parameter is involved in the transaction); and/or otherwise considered valid. Brogliato ¶0119, The bitmask and/or element information (e.g., included element indices or bits, excluded element indices or bits, etc.) can be attached to the signature (e.g., as cleartext, using a flag, etc.), such that the blockchain protocol can use the same bitmask to validate the partial signature, be included in the transaction, or excluded from the transaction.)
While Brogliato doesn’t explicitly states that the transaction is rejected, if the verification of a signature fails, the signature is deemed invalid and cannot be relied upon to authorize or complete a transaction. In an atomic swap system a valid signature is a necessary pre condition for constructing and broadcasting a transaction. Therefore, if the verification fails and the signature is invalid, the logical consequences is that the transaction cannot proceed, effectively terminating the swap.
packing, by the miners, the accepted transaction into a block and broadcasting the block to a blockchain network. (Brogliato ¶0128, The signed transactions (sTx) can optionally be received from the user accounts, wherein the validity of the signatures are validated, optionally aggregated into a unitary transaction (e.g., a Hathor transaction, wherein the signed transactions form different components of a Hathor transaction's inputs; a Hathor atomic swap; etc.), and sent the signed transactions to the blockchain (e.g., the Hathor blockchain) and/or the respective assets' blockchains (e.g., for the spent assets). Alternatively, the users (e.g., their wallets) can send the signed transaction to the respective blockchains.
Furthermore, in regards to the method claim, the claimed limitations “if a verification result is negative, the transaction is rejected” are conditional that does not move to distinguish over prior art as it is a conditional limitation which means that the claim limitation is only required when the stated condition is met.
Regarding claim 12, Brogliato further discloses:
the negotiation on the transaction contents is off-chain. (Brogliato ¶0105, In this variant, the swap can be executed with only one on-chain transaction. The first user and the second user both have wallets and can establish an off-chain communication channel including email, Telegram, Discord, and/or any other suitable channel. The first user and second user can negotiate a transaction proposal, call the generation of one or more unsigned transactions and/or unsigned partial transactions by S342 and S344, respectively, and receive the transactions by S346 through a wallet application feature and/or otherwise called. This can all be done off-chain. The first user and the second user can sign the transaction(s) and send the signature(s) and/or transaction(s) to an off-chain execution system, but can be otherwise sent. )
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brogliato and Fay as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Molloy (US20250053965 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 13, the combination of Brogliato and Fay does not disclose, however Molloy teaches :
the step that participants negotiate and determine the transaction contents comprise a locking script of the referenced previous transaction, transaction amounts, a flag indicating whether a recipient’s signature is comprised in the transaction. (Molloy ¶0008, In an "output-based" model (sometimes referred to as a UTXO-based model), the data structure of a given transaction comprises one or more inputs and one or more outputs. Any spendable output comprises an element specifying an amount of the digital asset that is derivable from the proceeding sequence of transactions. The spendable output is sometimes referred to as a UTXO ("unspent transaction output"). The output may further comprise a locking script specifying a condition for the future redemption of the output. A locking script is a predicate defining the conditions necessary to validate and transfer digital tokens or assets. Each input of a transaction (other than a coinbase transaction) comprises a pointer (i.e., a reference) to such an output in a preceding transaction, and may further comprise an unlocking script for unlocking the locking script of the pointed-to output. So, consider a pair of transactions, call them a first and a second transaction (or "target" transaction). The first transaction comprises at least one output specifying an amount of the digital asset, and comprising a locking script defining one or more conditions of unlocking the output. The second, target transaction comprises at least one input, comprising a pointer to the output of the first transaction, and an unlocking script for unlocking the output of the first transaction. Molloy ¶0066, Typically an input of a transaction contains a digital signature corresponding to a public key PA. In embodiments this is based on the ECDSA using the elliptic curve secp256kl. A digital signature signs a particular piece of data. In some embodiments, for a given transaction the signature will sign part of the transaction input, and some or all of the transaction outputs. The particular parts of the outputs it signs depends on the SIGHASH flag. The SIGHASH flag is usually a 4-byte code included at the end of a signature to select which outputs are signed (and thus fixed at the time of signing).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention, to have modify Brogliato and Fay combination with Molloy’s teaching. One
of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements in order to include a locking script, transaction amounts and a flag in the transaction which are routine necessary elements for multi-signature blockchain transactions.
Further, the claim limitation “the step that participants negotiate and determine the transaction contents comprise a locking script…” consists entirely of language disclosing an intended result, which imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed method, so it is considered but given no patentable weight. (see MPEP 2111.05, MPEP 2114 and authorities cited therein). The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brogliato and Fay as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Edgington (Ethereum 2.0 Phase 0 -- The Beacon Chain. Aug,2022 < https://benjaminion.xyz/eth2-annotated-spec/phase0/beacon-chain/>).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Brogliato and Fay does not disclose, however Edgington teaches:
the participants sign the transaction contents according to a signature scheme comprising Boneh–Lynn–Shacham (BLS) or Schnorr signature scheme. (Edgington P. 5, BLS is the digital signature scheme used by Eth2. It has some very nice properties, in particular the ability to aggregate signatures. This means that many validators can sign the same message (for example, that they support block X), and these signatures can all be efficiently aggregated into a single signature for verification. The ability to do this efficiently makes Eth2 practical as a protocol.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention, to have modify Brogliato and Fay combination with Edgington’s teaching. One
of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements in order to provide a secure signature that support aggregation and blockchain validation.
Claims 4-5 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brogliato and Fay as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Boneh (Aggregate and Verifiably Encrypted Signatures from Bilinear Maps. May,2023 <https://crypto.stanford.edu/~dabo/pubs/papers/aggreg.pdf >).
Regarding claim 4 and 15, the combination of Brogliato and Fay does not disclose, however Boneh teaches:
the aggregate signature is generated using a reversible signature aggregate function to secure against forgery (Boneh P.1 abstract, Aggregate signatures are useful for reducing the size of certificate chains (by aggregating all signatures in the chain) and for reducing message size in secure routing protocols such as SBGP. We also show that aggregate signatures give rise to verifiably encrypted signatures. Such signatures enable the verifier to test that a given ciphertext C is the encryption of a signature on a given message M. Verifiably encrypted signatures are used in contract-signing protocols. Boneh P.12 Sec 4.3 We motivate our construction for verifiably encrypted signatures by considering aggregate signatures as a launching point. An aggregate signature scheme can give rise to a verifiably encrypted signature scheme if it is difficult to extract individual signatures from an aggregate, but easy to forge existentially under the adjudicator’s key. Consider the following: 1. Alice wishes to create a verifiably encrypted signature, which Bob will verify; Carol is the adjudicator. Alice and Carol’s keys are both generated under the underlying signature scheme’s key-generation algorithm. 2. Alice creates a signature σ on M under her public key. She forges a signature σ 0 on some random message M0 under Carol’s public key. She then combines σ and σ 0 , obtaining an aggregate ω. The verifiably encrypted signature is the pair (ω, M0 ). 3. Bob validates Alice’s verifiably encrypted signature (ω, M0 ) on M by checking that ω is a valid aggregate signature by Alice on M and by Carol on M0 . 4. Carol adjudicates, given a verifiably encrypted signature (ω, M0 ) on M by Alice, by computing a signature σ 0 on M0 under her key, and removing σ 0 from the aggregate; what remains is Alice’s ordinary signature σ. )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention, to have modify Brogliato and Fay combination with Boneh’s teaching. One
of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements in order to allow for individual signature extraction.
Regarding claim 5, Boneh further teaches:
the reversible signature aggregate function is constructed with a BLS signature scheme given that public keys are authenticated. (Boneh P.1 abstract, We construct an efficient aggregate signature from a recent short signature scheme based on bilinear maps due to Boneh, Lynn, and Shacham. Boneh P.2 ¶2, We construct an aggregate signature scheme based on a recent short signature due to Boneh, Lynn, and Shacham (BLS) [6].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention, to have modify Brogliato, Fay and Boneh combination with Boneh’s additional teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements in order to enable extraction of individual signatures while maintaining security guarantees, ensuring that extracted signatures could be securely attributed to its respective participant.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Brogliato and Fay does not disclose, however Boneh teaches:
the reversible signature aggregate function is secure against signature forgery, wherein the reversible signature aggregate function is constructed from BLS or half-aggregated Schnorr signature scheme. (Boneh P.1 abstract, We construct an efficient aggregate signature from a recent short signature scheme based on bilinear maps due to Boneh, Lynn, and Shacham. Boneh P.2 ¶2, We construct an aggregate signature scheme based on a recent short signature due to Boneh, Lynn, and Shacham (BLS) [6].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention, to have modify Brogliato and Fay combination with Boneh’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements in order to enable extraction of individual signatures while maintaining security guarantees, ensuring that extracted signatures could be securely attributed to its respective participant.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brogliato, Fay and Boneh as applied to claim 4 and 15 above, and further in view of Herlihy (Privacy-Preserving Cross-Chain Atomic Swaps. Feb, 2020 <https://fc20.ifca.ai/wtsc/WTSC2020/WTSC20_paper_20.pdf>).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Brogliato, Fay and Boneh does not disclose, however Herlihy teaches:
the reversible signature aggregate function is constructed with a Schnorr signature scheme given that public keys are authenticated, and each ephemeral public key for signing a transaction content is fixed in a swap process. (Herlihy P.1 abstract, We also show that the recently introduced notion of adapter signatures [Poe18, War17] is a concrete instantiation of ARS under the framework of Schnorr signatures [Sch91] and thus, construct a private crosschain swap using Schnorr signatures. Herlihy P.7, Schnorr signatures are the primary tool for checking validity of transactions on Bitcoin as well as on most other blockchains. If Alice wants to transfer money to Bob, she needs to sign that transaction with her secret key. Anyone can then verify the signature confirming that Alice is the rightful owner of the account from which she is transferring money. If the signature verifies, then the transaction will be published on the blockchain. Herlihy P.9, Alice and Bob generate ephemeral (Schnorr) verification keys pk1A, pk2A and pk1B, pk2B. Note that these are generated by choosing s ← Z∗q and pk = gs. Thus, Alice knows a1, a2, whereas Bob knows b1, b2. The key for tx1 is assigned as pk1 A + pk1 B and the key for tx2 is assigned as pk2 A + pk2 B. In other words, we set up two 2-out-of-2 multi-signature transactions. − Alice chooses t, r1, r2 ← Z∗q. Let c1, c2 be the challenge for the two signatures corresponding to tx1,tx2 respectively. Alice sends R1 = gr1, R2 = gr2, T = gt and c1 · a1 and c2 · a2 to Bob. − Bob adds his part of the keys to generate c1 · (a1 + b1) and c2 · (a2 + b2). Note that Bob can compute the challenges c1, c2 on his own. − Alice creates two adapter signatures σ1 adapt = r1 + c1 · (a1 + b1) and σ2 adapt = r2 +c2 ·(a2 +b2) and sends to Bob. Bob can verify both of these with respect to R1, R2 that Alice sent before. − Finally, when Alice publishes tx2 using σ2 = σ2 adapt + t, that atomically reveals t to Bob and thus enabling him to publish σ1 = σ1 adapt + t and in turn, publishing tx1.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention, to have modify Brogliato, Fay and Boneh combination with Herlihy’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to enhance the system’s efficiency, security and traceability while preserving the ability to create, exchange and verify aggregate signatures in an atomic swap.
Claims 8, 9, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brogliato and Fay as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, further in view of Davis (US 20220286275 A1) and further in view of Boneh (Aggregate and Verifiably Encrypted Signatures from Bilinear Maps. May,2023 <https://crypto.stanford.edu/~dabo/pubs/papers/aggreg.pdf >).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Brogliato further teaches:
if the individual signature is for payment, a signature aggregation of the first party is allowed to be optional; (Brogliato ¶0020, … optionally receive signed transactions (sTx) from the respective users (e.g., wallet). Brogliato ¶0069, The order can optionally be signed by the private key of the spend account and/or a private key associated with the user account. Brogliato ¶0070, The partial transaction can optionally include a signature from the ordering user (e.g., from the private key of the ordering user) (e.g., such that the partial transaction is a presigned partial transaction, or partially signed transaction), or omit a signature.)
The combination of Brogliato and Fay does not disclose, however Davis teaches:
the operation of constructing the first transaction comprises means for a first party to send an individual signature on the transaction content to a second party; (Davis ¶0051, In step 316, the transmitting device 220 of the sender device 102 may electronically transmit the proposal message with the encrypted digital signature included to the receiver device 104 using a suitable communication method and system. Davis ¶0058, n step 410, the generated proposal message with the appended encrypted first digital signature may be electronically transmitted (e.g., by a transmitting device 220) of the first computing device to a second computing device (e.g., receiver device 104).)
means for the second party to construct a transaction comprising the transaction content in favor of the second party and its individual signatures from all the parties. (Davis ¶0051, In step 320, a validation module 218 of the receiver device 104 may validate the two transaction values and network identifiers in the proposal message to ensure that the two blockchain transactions are suitable, such as being correct as to what both parties agreed upon for the exchange of digital assets. In step 322, a generation module 216 of the receiver device 104 may generate its own digital signature for the proposal message by signing the root of the Merkle tree generated using the transaction values and network identifiers. In step 324, the encryption module 210 of the receiver device 104 may encrypt the generated digital signature using the swap public key, as identified in the received proposal message, and a private key of the receiver device 104, such as the private key for a cryptographic key pair that serves as a blockchain wallet for the receiver device 104 for one of the blockchains on which the asset transfer is being performed. In step 326, this additional encrypted digital signature may be appended to the proposal message, such as after the first encrypted digital signature. Davis ¶0052, In step 328, the transmitting device 220 of the receiver device 104 may electronically transmit the proposal message with both encrypted digital signatures to a blockchain node 112 (e.g., the receiver device 104 may transmit the proposal message to a blockchain node for every blockchain network involved in the asset exchange, but for the sake of expediency, the actions performed by a blockchain node in just one of the blockchain networks are illustrated in FIGS. 3A-3C and discussed herein). In step 330, the blockchain node 112 may receive the proposal message from the receiver device 104 using a suitable communication network and method. Davis ¶0059, In one embodiment, the method 400 may further include: generating, by the second computing device, a second digital signature for the proposal message; encrypting, by the second computing device, the second digital signature using the swap public key and a second private key of a second cryptographic key pair; appending, by the second computing device, the encrypted second digital signature to the generated proposal message with appended encrypted first digital signature; and transmitting, by the second computing device, the generated proposal message with appended encrypted first digital signature and appended encrypted second digital signature. In a further embodiment, the generated proposal message may be transmitted by the second computing device to at least one of a plurality of blockchain nodes (e.g., blockchain node 112) in a blockchain network (e.g., blockchain network 110) associated with the second blockchain.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention, to have modify Brogliato and Fay combination with Davis’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements because they are routine and common steps required by multi party transaction and atomic swaps. Therefore, this would’ve been an expected combination to enable secure, verifiable and efficient swap of assets.
The combination of Brogliato, Fay and Davis do not disclose, however Boneh teaches:
means for the second party to recover all the individual signatures of the first party; (Boneh P.12 Sec 4.3 We motivate our construction for verifiably encrypted signatures by considering aggregate signatures as a launching point. An aggregate signature scheme can give rise to a verifiably encrypted signature scheme if it is difficult to extract individual signatures from an aggregate, but easy to forge existentially under the adjudicator’s key. Consider the following: 1. Alice wishes to create a verifiably encrypted signature, which Bob will verify; Carol is the adjudicator. Alice and Carol’s keys are both generated under the underlying signature scheme’s key-generation algorithm. 2. Alice creates a signature σ on M under her public key. She forges a signature σ 0 on some random message M0 under Carol’s public key. She then combines σ and σ 0 , obtaining an aggregate ω. The verifiably encrypted signature is the pair (ω, M0 ). 3. Bob validates Alice’s verifiably encrypted signature (ω, M0 ) on M by checking that ω is a valid aggregate signature by Alice on M and by Carol on M0 . 4. Carol adjudicates, given a verifiably encrypted signature (ω, M0 ) on M by Alice, by computing a signature σ 0 on M0 under her key, and removing σ 0 from the aggregate; what remains is Alice’s ordinary signature σ.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention, to have modify Brogliato, Fay and Davis combination with Boneh’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements in order to enhance the security of the transaction by ensuring that each transaction signature can be attributed and audited.
Furthermore, in regards to the method claim, the claimed limitations “if the individual signature is for payment, a signature aggregation of the first party is allowed to be optional” is conditional that does not move to distinguish over prior art as it is a conditional limitation which means that the claim limitation is only required when the stated condition is met.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Brogliato further teaches:
if a verification result is negative, the swap process is terminated; (Brogliato ¶0096, The method can optionally include verifying if the signature on a partial transaction is valid and/or if the aggregated transaction is valid. The execution system and/or any other suitable system can receive the bitmask from a user and a signed partial transaction. The bitmask-indicated inputs and outputs can be verified as indeed relevant to the user to ensure the user and/or wallet are not signing on assets of others. If the test fails, the signature is invalid. If verified, the hash of the transaction with the bitmask appended to the header can be computed and compared against the signature provided by the user. If matched, the signature on the partial transaction can be deemed valid. Any other suitable verification strategies can be executed as well. The aggregated transaction can also be verified as valid if the execution system and/or any other suitable system can sign the aggregated transaction combining the partial signatures confirming that the signatures are valid for each of the partial transactions merged.)
While Brogliato doesn’t explicitly states that the swap process is terminated if the verification of a signature fails, the signature is deemed invalid and cannot be relied upon to authorize or complete a transaction. In an atomic swap system a valid signature is a necessary pre condition for constructing and broadcasting a transaction. Therefore, if the verification fails and the signature is invalid, the logical consequences is that the transaction cannot proceed, effectively terminating the swap.
The combination of Brogliato and Fay does not disclose, however Davis teaches:
means for a first party to verify the first transaction; (Davis ¶0054, In step 338, the validation module 218 of the sender device 102 may validate the proposal message to ensure that the proposal message is accurate, such as that none of the transaction values was changed and that the second encrypted digital signature has been appended thereto.
means for the first party to construct a transaction comprising the transaction content in favor of the first party and its individual signatures from all the parties. (Davis ¶0054, In step 340, the generation module 216 of the sender device 102 may generate a confirmation message for the exchange of digital assets. The confirmation message may include the swap private key as well as a reference value for the proposal message. In some embodiments, the reference value may be a hash value generated via the application of a hashing algorithm to the proposal message that had been added to the blockchain in the new block. In step 342, the transmitting device 220 of the sender device 102 may electronically transmit the confirmation message to the blockchain node 112 using a suitable communication network and method. Davis ¶0055, In step 344, the blockchain node 112 may receive the confirmation message. In step 346, a new block may be generated by the blockchain node 112 for its blockchain, where the new block includes the confirmation message. The block may be distributed to other blockchain nodes in the blockchain network 110 for confirmation and, in step 348, the new block with the confirmation message may be added to the blockchain. With the addition of the confirmation message, the blockchain transactions on both blockchains may thereby be considered processed, where each of the sender device 102 and receiver device 104 will have then received the digital assets from the other device on the blockchains. Davis ¶0059, In an even further embodiment, the method 400 may even further include: generating, by the first computing device, a confirmation message, the confirmation message including at least (i) a hash value generated using the generated proposal message with appended encrypted first digital signature and appended encrypted second digital signature, and (ii) a swap private key of the swap cryptographic key pair; and transmitting, by the first computing device, the generated confirmation message to a blockchain node in the plurality of blockchain nodes in the blockchain network associated with the second blockchain.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention, to have modify Brogliato and Fay combination with Davis’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements because they are routine and common steps required by multi party transaction and atomic swaps as mentioned previously. Therefore, this would’ve been an expected combination to enable secure, verifiable and efficient swap of assets.
The combination of Brogliato, Fay and Davis do not disclose, however Boneh teaches:
means for the first party to recover all the individual signatures of a second party; (Boneh P.12 Sec 4.3 We motivate our construction for verifiably encrypted signatures by considering aggregate signatures as a launching point. An aggregate signature scheme can give rise to a verifiably encrypted signature scheme if it is difficult to extract individual signatures from an aggregate, but easy to forge existentially under the adjudicator’s key. Consider the following: 1. Alice wishes to create a verifiably encrypted signature, which Bob will verify; Carol is the adjudicator. Alice and Carol’s keys are both generated under the underlying signature scheme’s key-generation algorithm. 2. Alice creates a signature σ on M under her public key. She forges a signature σ 0 on some random message M0 under Carol’s public key. She then combines σ and σ 0 , obtaining an aggregate ω. The verifiably encrypted signature is the pair (ω, M0 ). 3. Bob validates Alice’s verifiably encrypted signature (ω, M0 ) on M by checking that ω is a valid aggregate signature by Alice on M and by Carol on M0 . 4. Carol adjudicates, given a verifiably encrypted signature (ω, M0 ) on M by Alice, by computing a signature σ 0 on M0 under her key, and removing σ 0 from the aggregate; what remains is Alice’s ordinary signature σ.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention, to have modify Brogliato, Fay and Davis combination with Boneh’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements in order to enhance the security of the transaction by ensuring that each transaction signature can be attributed and audited.
Furthermore, in regards to the method claim, the claimed limitations “if a verification result is negative, the swap process is terminated;” is conditional that does not move to distinguish over prior art as it is a conditional limitation which means that the claim limitation is only required when the stated condition is met.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brogliato and Fay as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, further in view of Nguyen (US 2013/0346755 A1).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Brogliato and Fay does not disclose, however Nguyen teaches:
the individual signature is produced with a homomorphic signature scheme, wherein an output is either immutable due to some restrictions or deterministic. (Nguyen ¶0025, A source provides a set of data by dividing the data into blocks and digitally signing each block with respective homomorphic digital signatures 203 (FIG. 2). Nguyen ¶0037, More formally, a homomorphic network signature scheme is a tuple of efficient algorithms .SIGMA.=(Keygen, Sign, Verify, Combine) where Keygen(.lamda.,n) is a probabilistic algorithm that takes as input a security parameter .lamda..di-elect cons. and an integer n.di-elect cons.poly(.lamda.) denoting the length of the vectors to be signed. The algorithm outputs the public key, secret key pair (pk,sk). Sign(pk,sk,{right arrow over (m)},id) is a possibly randomized algorithm that takes public key, secret key pair (pk,sk), a vector {right arrow over (m)} of dimension n, a file identifier id and outputs a signature .sigma. Nguyen ¶0038, Verify(pk,id,{right arrow over (m)},.sigma.) is a deterministic algorithm that takes the public key pk, a signature .sigma. and a vector {right arrow over (m)}. This algorithm outputs Accept or Reject.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention, to have modify Brogliato and Fay combination with Davis’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements in order to guarantee that the signatures remain tamper-resistant and verifiable while supporting efficient aggregation and validation in blockchain based swaps.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 9 of copending Application No. 18/537,841.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Reference Application (18/537,841)
Instant application (18/537,839)
Claim 1
Claim 1
A fault-tolerant asset transfer method, comprising:
A method for asset swapping between blockchains supporting recipient’s confirmation in a transaction, comprising:
parties negotiate and agree on a transaction content;
negotiating to determine content of asset swapping transactions;
generating signatures on the transaction content by the parties;
producing individual signatures on the transaction content by each participant;
exchanging the signatures verifying the signatures;
exchanging the aggregate signatures between the participants; verifying the aggregate signatures;
constructing a transaction by either party;
constructing a first transaction by a second participant; constructing a second transaction by a first participant;
broadcasting the constructed transaction to a blockchain network;
broadcasting the first transaction by the second participant; broadcasting the second transaction by the first participant;
validating the transaction by blockchain nodes or miners.
validating the broadcast transactions by blockchain node or miners.
The main difference in the claim(s) is that while ‘839 discloses much of the subject matter in the instant claim, ‘841 claim does not particularly disclose “creating aggregate signatures from the individual signatures by each participant;” and “if negative, quit;”. However, Brogliato teaches “aggregating the signed transactions received from each user.” (¶0099) as well as “verifying if the signature on a partial transaction is valid and/or if the aggregated transaction is valid… If the test fails, the signature is invalid” (¶0096). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing of instant claim to combine the teachings of signature aggregation and transaction rejection based on the signature verification teaching by Brogliato to instant claimed invention for the purpose of generating a single compact signature which provides the benefit of reducing storage and reducing the computational complexity of verifying multiple individual signatures.
Claim 9
Claim 11
A fault-tolerant asset transfer system, comprising:
A system for facilitating asset swapping between blockchains, comprising:
module for parties to negotiate and agree on a transaction content, and conditions and rules of a transaction;
a module for participants to negotiate and determine the transaction content;
a module for signing the transaction content based on a key pair on a blockchain by the parties;
a module for participants to use their private keys to sign the transaction content on blockchains to provide individual signatures;
a module for the parties to exchange signatures and verify the signatures;
a module to construct the transaction and broadcast the transaction to a blockchain network;
a module for constructing a first transaction; a module for broadcasting the first transaction on the blockchain; a module for constructing a second transaction; a module for broadcasting the second transaction on the blockchain;
a module for blockchain nodes to validate the transaction.
a module for validating the transactions.
The main difference in the claim(s) is that while ‘839 discloses much of the subject matter in the instant claim, ‘841 claim does not particularly disclose “a module for generating aggregate signatures from the individual signatures; a module for carrying out verification on the aggregate signature;” However, Brogliato teaches “aggregating the signed transactions received from each user.” (¶0099) as well as “verifying if the signature on a partial transaction is valid and/or if the aggregated transaction is valid… If the test fails, the signature is invalid” (¶0096). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing of instant claim to combine the teachings of signature aggregation and transaction rejection based on the signature verification teaching by Brogliato to instant claimed invention for the purpose of generating a single compact signature which provides the benefit of reducing storage and reducing the computational complexity of verifying multiple individual signatures.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
Disclosure:
US 20220138748 A1 to Millar et al. discloses: Method for settling an asset transaction in which a first asset is exchanged for a second asset, which first asset is registered as an association with a specific first blockchain asset (A) on a blockchain-based ledger (L), which second asset is either a second blockchain asset (A) on the ledger (L) in question or an asset registered as an association with a specific second blockchain asset (A) on the said ledger (L). The method comprises the following steps: a) a selling first party (U) providing and signing a first blockchain transaction part concerning the first blockchain asset (A) in question, and a buying second party (U) providing and signing a second blockchain transaction part concerning the second blockchain asset (A) in question; b) a central server (100) electronically receiving the signed first and second blockchain transaction parts; c) the central server (100) combining the first and second blockchain transaction parts in a single combined blockchain transaction; and d) the central server (100) publishing the combined blockchain transaction on the blockchain ledger (L). The invention also relates to a computer server interacting with a client computer, and to two interacting computer software products.
US 20210398116 A1 to Fang discloses: Disclosed are computer-implemented methods, non-transitory computer-readable media, and systems for managing transactions in multiple blockchain networks. One computer-implemented method includes identifying a first transaction in a first blockchain network that is a first Hash Time Locked Contract (HTLC) transaction in the first blockchain network, identifying a second transaction in a second blockchain network that is a second HTLC transaction in the second blockchain network different from the first blockchain network, determining that a first transaction commit time of the first HTLC transaction is earlier than a second transaction commit time of the second HTLC transaction and a first secret hash of the first HTLC transaction has a same value as a second secret hash of the second HTLC transaction, and in response, determining that the first HTLC transaction and the second HTLC transaction are associated with each other and related to a cross-chain transaction.
US 20210224797 A1 to Berengoltz discloses: A system and method for securing crypto-asset transactions. The method includes sharding a wallet private key such that each shard of the wallet private key is distributed to a different secure module; generating signatures by each of the different secure modules based on a respective shard of the sharded wallet private key and obtained trading platform credentials; and verifying the crypto-asset transaction when a predetermined threshold of the generated signatures are determined to match each other.
US 10652019 B1 to Nicolas discloses: Disclosed herein are system, method, and computer program product embodiments for performing transactions or atomic swaps using zero-knowledge proofs (“ZKPs”). A first system may propose a transaction between with a second system. The first system may generate a first ZKP indicating that the first system has possession of an asset desired by the second system and that the first system is committing the asset to the transaction. The second system may also similarly generate a second ZKP. These ZKPs may be encrypted and exchanged. The second system may receive an encrypted version of the first ZKP, perform a decryption using a key specific to the second system, and verify the ZKP. When the parties verify the ZKPs, this confirms that each party has committed the requested asset and that the transaction may proceed. The transaction may be committed to a blockchain.
US 20220300916 A1 to Fytraki discloses: A system is provided for swapping assets owned by different parties in different networks. The system provides techniques that allow a first party holding a first asset in a first network and a second party holding a second asset in a second network to swap their assets. The result of the swap will be that the first party owns the second asset in the second network and that second party owns the first asset in the first network. The system employs locks and transfer condition and if needed, a resolution strategy to ensure that either the swap occurs or that the parties retain their own assets.
US 20170366358 A1 to Lyubashevsky discloses: The method involves storing a user identification (ID) for a user computer and a user signing key which comprises a signature on the user ID under a secret key of a selectively-secure signature scheme. A cryptographic proof comprising a zero-knowledge proof of knowledge of the user signing key and including a message in the proof of knowledge are generated (35, 36), The message and a group signature comprising a proof are sent (37) to a verifier computer. The user ID is encrypted using a predetermined encryption scheme to produce a ciphertext.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANICE LOZA whose telephone number is (571)270-3979. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/STEVEN S KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights