Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Acknowledgements
The Amendment of claims 1 and 13-14, filed on 11/13/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-14 are pending and hereby examined.
Specification
Drawings
The replacement drawings of Fig., 2 and 11 are acknowledged and hereby entered.
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 1-14, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1-12 are directed to a product (i.e., a non-transitory computer readable medium), claim 13 is directed to a process (i.e., a method),
and claim 14 is directed to a machine (i.e., a system), therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention. Thus, the eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A.1.
The limitations of independent claim 13, which is representative of independent claims 1 and 14, have been denoted with letters by the Examiner for easy reference. The judicial exceptions recited in claim 13 are identified in bold below:
[A] A method of content transaction using a zero-knowledge proof performed by a computing device including a processor, the method comprising:
[B] generating, by the computing device, a first transaction, the first transaction generates a cryptographic key pair and stores only a public key in a blockchain network;
[C] encrypting and hashing digital content provided from an outside to obtain an encrypted content and a hash of the encrypted content;
[D] generating, by the computing device, a second transaction, the second transaction registers content-related information comprising a seller address, the hash of the encrypted content, a hash derived from a content-decryption key bound to the seller address, and a first zero-knowledge proof in the blockchain network;
[E] verifying, by an on-chain verifier of a smart contract, the first zero-
knowledge proof and, upon successful verification, registering the content-related information;
[F] generating, by the computing device, a third transaction, the third transaction registers purchase requisition information comprising an order ciphertext obtained by encrypting order information with the seller's public key and a commitment value derived from purchaser specific data;
[G] verifying, by the on-chain verifier, a second zero-knowledge proof and, upon successful verification, creating an on-chain temporary escrow of a purchase amount;
[H] generating, by the computing device, a fourth transaction, the fourth transaction registers purchase approval information comprising a key-delivery ciphertext obtained by encrypting the content-decryption key with a buyer's public key and a third zero-knowledge proof;
[I] verifying, by the on-chain verifier, the third zero-knowledge proof and, upon successful verification, releasing the escrowed amount to a seller and conditionally releasing the key-delivery ciphertext to a buyer; and
[J] transmitting a decryption key of the encrypted content to a buyer terminal through the blockchain network, wherein the first, second, and third zero-knowledge proofs are zk-SNARK proofs.
Limitations A-J under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers steps or functions of certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically managing personal/commercial behavior (e.g., generating, registers, proving, registers purchase requisition information, proving the purchase approval information, transmitting [e.g., sending]). For example, the disclosure establishes generating a content transaction and obfuscate the transaction data and stored in the ledger, entertain a request to purchase the content, and provide the content to an approved buyer, which is a form of commercial and legal activities, fits squarely within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally, the recitation of “encrypting and hashing digital content provided from an outside to obtain an encrypted content and a hash of the encrypted content”, “…a hash derived from a content-decryption key bound to the seller address, and a first zero-knowledge proof…”, and the use of “ciphertext” in this transaction, are all an abstract idea of a mathematical concept of certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. Obfuscating the transaction data for transmission, using a key-pair value/ciphertext, and also doing this with identity anonymity (zero-knowledge proof), to later unscramble the data to retrieve the original data is an abstract idea of a mathematical concept. Therefore, limitations A and J recite at least two abstract idea. See Fair Warning IP, LLC v. latric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, claim 13 which is a representative of claims 1 and 14 respectively, recite at least two abstract idea and the analysis proceed to Step 2A.2.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular,
claims 13, which is a representative of claims 1 and 14 respectively, recites the additional elements in bold below:
[A] A method of content transaction using a zero-knowledge proof performed by a computing device including a processor, the method comprising:
[B] generating, by the computing device, a first transaction, the first transaction generates a cryptographic key pair and stores only a public key in a blockchain network;
[C] encrypting and hashing digital content provided from an outside to obtain an encrypted content and a hash of the encrypted content;
[D] generating, by the computing device, a second transaction, the second transaction registers content-related information comprising a seller address, the hash of the encrypted content, a hash derived from a content-decryption key bound to the seller address, and a first zero-knowledge proof in the blockchain network;
[E] verifying, by an on-chain verifier of a smart contract, the first zero-knowledge proof and, upon successful verification, registering the content-related information;
[F] generating, by the computing device, a third transaction, the third transaction registers purchase requisition information comprising an order ciphertext obtained by encrypting order information with the seller's public key and a commitment value derived from purchaser specific data;
[G] verifying, by the on-chain verifier, a second zero-knowledge proof and, upon successful verification, creating an on-chain temporary escrow of a purchase amount;
[H] generating, by the computing device, a fourth transaction, the fourth transaction registers purchase approval information comprising a key-delivery ciphertext obtained by encrypting the content-decryption key with a buyer's public key and a third zero-knowledge proof;
[I] verifying, by the on-chain verifier, the third zero-knowledge proof and, upon successful verification, releasing the escrowed amount to a seller and conditionally releasing the key-delivery ciphertext to a buyer; and
[J] transmitting a decryption key of the encrypted content to a buyer terminal through the blockchain network, wherein the first, second, and third zero-knowledge proofs are zk-SNARK proofs.
[K] Additionally, claim 1 recites a non-transitory computer-readable
medium, comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by a processor of a computing device, cause the computing device to perform a content transaction step of encrypting and transacting content, cause the computing device to at least:
[L] And also claim 14 recites a blockchain system comprising: a memory;
and at least one processor connected to the memory, wherein the at least one processor comprises:
The additional elements (“a computing device including a processor”, “external terminal in the blockchain network”, “seller terminal”, “an on-chain verifier of a smart contract” “a buyer terminal through the blockchain network”, “a non-transitory computer-readable medium, comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by a processor of a computing device, cause the computing device to perform a content transaction step of encrypting and transacting content, cause the computing device to at least:”, “a blockchain system comprising: a memory; and at least one processor connected to the memory, wherein the at least one processor comprises:”), are no more than a generic computer performing operations to automate the purchase of a digital content transaction. Also, the additional elements of (“a private key and a public key in a blockchain network”, “a cryptographic key pair”, “an on-chain verifier of a smart contract”, “digital content” and “a zk-SNARK proofs”), they identify the data to which the abstract idea applies as being “digital” or “electronic,” which is a general link to a technological environment. When the additional elements are considered individually and as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole, amounts to no more than or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer/a blockchain, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, the additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not recite any additional elements indicative of integration into a practical application. Rather, the claim as whole generally links the judicial exception to a technological environment (e.g., “a computing device including a processor”, “external terminal in the blockchain network”, “a buyer terminal through the blockchain network”, “a non-transitory computer-readable medium, comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by a processor of a computing device, cause the computing device to perform a content transaction step of encrypting and transacting content, cause the computing device to at least:”, “a blockchain system comprising: a memory; and at least one processor connected to the memory, wherein the at least one processor comprises:”), defined by high level recitations of a computer/a blockchain and the Internet. Additionally, the additional element of (“a private key and a public key in a blockchain network”, “a cryptographic key pair”, “an on-chain verifier of a smart contract”, “digital content”, and a zk-SNARK proofs“), which are mere data used for automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for digital content purchase. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea and the analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
The additional elements, both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the outcome of the considerations at Step 2B will be the same when the considerations from Step 2A.2 are reevaluated. As discussed under Step 2A.2, the additional element(s) amount to no more than generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment through “instructions” performed by a generic computer. Because those instructions embody the abstract idea, the claim itself is merely a recitation of the abstract idea and an instruction to “apply it” on a computer. This is not enough to provide an inventive
concept. Therefore, claims 1, 13 and 14 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-4, further recites wherein the content-related information comprises a randomly generated private key, the encrypted content using a key data, a hash value of the encrypted content, a hash value of the key data, a seller terminal address, and a first zero-knowledge proof value; wherein the purchase requisition information comprises a purchase requisition information contract value cmpeer and a CTord obtained by encrypting order information with a seller's public key, wherein the order information comprises a buyer's public key, a random value required to make the Cmpeer, a purchase price, and a hash value of a content encryption key.; wherein the purchase approval information comprises a CTkdata obtained by encrypting a data encryption key kdata using the buyer's public key and a third zero- knowledge proof value. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers steps or functions of certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically managing personal/commercial behavior. For example, the claims establish defining data included as in the content, the request for purchase, and the purchase approval, which is a form of commercial and legal activities, fits squarely within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of Step 2A. The claims do not recite any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 2-4 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 5-8, further recites wherein the generating of the second transaction comprises generating a first zero- knowledge proof of the content-related information, wherein the proving of the content-related information comprises proving validity of a hash value of encrypted content and a hash value of key data by proving the first zero- knowledge proof; register the content-related information in the blockchain network when the first zero-knowledge proof is proved; wherein the generating of the third transaction comprises generating a second zero- knowledge proof of the purchase requisition information, wherein the proving of the purchase requisition information comprises proving the second zero-knowledge proof; temporarily store a content purchase amount in the blockchain network when the second zero-knowledge proof is proved. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers steps or functions of certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically managing personal/commercial behavior. For example, the claims establish defining data included as in the content, the request for purchase, and the purchase approval, which is a form of commercial and legal activities, fits squarely within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of Step 2A. The claims do not recite any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 5-8 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 9-12, further recites wherein the generating of the fourth transaction comprises generating a third zero- knowledge proof of the purchase approval information, wherein the proving of the purchase approval information comprises proving the third zero-knowledge proof; transmit a temporarily stored content purchase amount to the seller terminal when the third zero-knowledge proof is proved; wherein the second, third and fourth transaction comprise steps to generate the first, second, and third zero-knowledge proofs, respectively, wherein the generating the first, second, and third zero-knowledge proofs use a zk- snark algorithm; wherein the transmitting of the decryption key of the encrypted content comprises: decrypting a content decryption key encrypted at the buyer terminal to extract the content decryption key; and decrypting the encrypted content using the content decryption key. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers steps or functions of certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically managing personal/commercial behavior. For example, the claims establish obfuscating and unscrambling the obfuscated request for purchase data and store the purchase amount in a ledger, after the purchase approval, which is a form of commercial and legal activities, fits squarely within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of Step 2A. The claims do not recite any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 9-12 are not patent eligible.
In summary, the dependent claims considered both individually and as an
ordered combination do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea
into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to
significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims do not recite an improvement
to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the
computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract
idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 1-12 are 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “generate, by the seller terminal, a second transaction, the second transaction registers content-related information comprising a seller address, the hash of the encrypted content, a hash derived from a content-decryption key bound to the seller address, and a first zero- knowledge proof attesting to consistency among said items in the blockchain network” Emphasis added by the Examiner.
The Specification does not provide the algorithm or steps/drawing for
performing the entire claimed function of a first zero- knowledge proof attesting to consistency among said items in the blockchain network in sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended them to be performed. See MPEP § 2161.01 I, 2163.02 and 2181, IV.
Claim 1 has been amended to recites “generate, by the seller terminal, a second transaction, the second transaction registers content-related information comprising a seller address, the hash of the encrypted content, a hash derived from a content-decryption key bound to the seller address, and a first zero- knowledge proof attesting to consistency among said items in the blockchain network”. There is no instance of a first zero- knowledge proof attesting to consistency among said items in the blockchain network as claimed. According to the specification, ¶ 0011 “The generating of the second transaction may include generating a first zero- knowledge proof of the content-related information. The proving of the content-related information may include proving validity of a hash value of encrypted content and a hash value of key data by proving the first zero-knowledge proof. Emphasis added by the Examiner. This is not a first zero- knowledge proof attesting to consistency among said items in the blockchain network. Therefore, because the attesting to consistency by a first zero- knowledge proof Is not in the original disclosure of the Applicant specification. this is New Matter, as the specification does not provide support for this limitation. Emphasis added by the Examiner
Dependent claims 2-12 are also rejected since they all depend on claims 1.
Prior Art Analysis
The previous prior art with Allowable subject matter that was in the Office Action mailed on 08/13/2025 has been amended and therefore no longer valid. This application contains subject matter that the Examiner is unable to find prior art for this limitation:
“generating, by the computing device, a second transaction, the second transaction registers content-related information comprising a seller address, the hash of the encrypted content, a hash derived from a content-decryption key bound to the seller address, and a first zero-knowledge proof in the blockchain network;”.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon:
(US 20220358231 A1) – Chayapathy Alpharetta Gangadarappa,
Automated Validation and Security for Digital Assets in a Computer Environment - relates to computer systems, and more specifically, to computer-implemented methods, computer systems, and computer program products configured and arranged to provide automated validation and security for digital assets in a computer environment. {see at least ¶¶ 0059-0060}.
2) (US 20170180134 A1) – David J. King, Method and System for Blockchain Variant using Digital Signatures – relates to the use of digital signatures for signing blockchain transactions, specifically the use of digital signatures by multiple entities for use in the signing and validation of blockchain transactions for added security and more efficient validation {see at least ¶¶ 0008-0009}.
3) (US 20180349896 A1) – Arora et al., Method and system for Anonymization of Electronic Transactions via Blockchain – relates to the anonymization of an electronic transaction conducted via a blockchain, specifically the use of one or more intermediary addresses to obscure the source and destination of funds in a blockchain transaction to increase anonymity of entities associated with blockchain addresses.
4) (US 20190213573 A1) – Zelten et al., Systems and Methods for Processing Store Returns - relates generally to store returns, and more specifically to systems and methods for archiving purchase receipts for use in future store returns.
5) (EP 3799352 A1) – Fijolek et al., A Method for Secure Transferring of Information Through A Network Between An Origin Virtual Asset Service Provider and A Destination Virtual Asset Service Provider - generally relates to methods for secure data exchange in a computer network, compliant with Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Travel Rule, in particular, to a method for secure transferring of information through a network between an origin Virtual Asset Service Provider, and a destination Virtual Asset Service Provider. The present invention further relates to a computer readable storage medium comprising computer program code instructions for implementing the method. The invention further relates to a system configured and programmed for performing said method.
6) (US Pat. 11870905 B1) - Method for Providing User Identity Based on Zero-knowledge Proof Over Blockchain Network by Using User Certificate And Blockchain System Using The Same - relates to a method for providing a user identity based on zero-knowledge proof over a blockchain network by using a user certificate, and a blockchain system using the same; and more particularly, to the method for (i) generating a unique user identity usable on the blockchain network by using the user certificate issued outside the blockchain network and (ii) servicing the user identity based on the zero-knowledge proof over the blockchain network by using the user certificate to prove through the zero-knowledge proof that the user identity used on the blockchain network corresponds to an owner of the user identity, and server using the same.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT IDIAKE whose telephone number is (571)272-1284. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 10:30AM to 7:30PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PATRICK MCATEE, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-7575. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form
/V.I./Examiner, Art Unit 3698 /PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698