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 Claims
The following is a FINAL Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendments filed on 10/16/2025.
a. Claim 1 is amended
b. Claim 7 is cancelled
c. Claims 11-18 are new
Overall, Claims 1-18 are pending and have been considered below.
Priority
The application claims priority to foreign application EP21461548.6, filed on 05/31/2021. The priority is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: "being recorded as an asset" should read "being recorded on asset"; "with user's private key" should read "with a user's private key" or "with the user's private key"; "the received digital assets with the user's private key", the examiner request to the applicant to clarify which user is the previous owner and which user is the current owner. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 USC 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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 10 is directed to a computer program product comprising instruction, which when executed cause a computer program to perform steps of a method. However, the claim does not recite structure because it fails to require a computer readable storage medium and instead it encompasses software itself.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to a judicial exception, i.e. an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, and without significantly more.
Per Step 1 of the multi-step eligibility analysis, claims 1-8 are directed to a computer implemented method, claim 9 are directed to computer executable instructions stored on a non-transitory storage medium, and claim 10 are directed to a computer program product.
Thus, on its face, each independent claim and the associated dependent claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
Per Step 2A.1. Claim 1, (which is representative of Claims 9, 10), is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The limitations of the independent claim 1, (which is representative of Claims 9, 10), recite an abstract idea, shown in bold, while the non-bolded claim elements recite additional element according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
[A] A method for enabling trade of cryptocurrencies, tokenized assets and/or fiat currencies on a single distributed ledger system comprising a plurality of nodes, wherein:
[B] at least some of the nodes are minting nodes; and
[C] at least some of the nodes are user nodes;
[D] the method comprising:
[E] at the minting nodes:
[F] minting digital assets, each minted digital asset being recorded [on] an asset-specific subchain within the distributed ledger and comprising: (i) a globally unique asset serial number, (ii) an asset type selected from at least two asset types, (iii) an asset value, (iv) an identifier of an issuing minting node and a first signature of the issuing minting node, (v) a prove key signature generated inside a tamper-resistant hardware security module (HSM) of the issuing minting node and different from the first signature, and (vi) a first owner identifier and a first owner signature, wherein only digital assets whose subchains include at least said first minting-node signature, said HSM-generated prove key minting-node signature, and said first owner signature are valid within the distributed ledger system;)
[G] at the user nodes:
[H] requesting or accepting an exchange transaction to exchange digital assets with another user, wherein the exchange transaction request includes information on the amount of the first asset type to be exchanged, the second asset type to which the first asset type is to be exchanged and an exchange rate;
[I] checking if the exchange transaction can be performed by (a) verifying, from wallet data subchains broadcast by peer nodes, that each user has sufficient digital assets, and (b) cryptographically validating, for each digital asset to be transferred, the minting- node signatures and the first owner signature in its subchain, including verifying that the prove key signature corresponds to a hardware-bound public key different from the minting node's first public key;
[J] confirming that the transaction can be performed;
[K] amending the transferred digital assets by signing the transferred digital assets with user's private key as the previous owner signature; and
[L] amending the received digital assets by adding information that the user is the current owner and signing the received digital assets with user's private key as the current owner signature, and
[M] committing the exchange transaction atomically by causing the distributed ledger to treat the exchange as a single update unit comprising the pair of involved digital-asset subchains, by appending, to each involved digital-asset subchain, said previous-owner signature of a transferor and said current-owner identifier and current-owner signature of a transferee, wherein the distributed ledger appends both subchains only upon successful verification of required signatures and otherwise appends neither.
Claim 1 (which is representative of claims 9, 10) recites: trading of assets on a system ([A]); some nodes are minting nodes and some are user nodes ([B], [C]); minting digital assets and requesting or accepting transaction to exchange assets ([F], [H]); checking and confirming if transactions can be performed ([I], [J]); signing the digital asset ([K], [L]); and verifying both signature and appending to the ledger ([M]), which, based on the claim language and in view of the application disclosure, represents a process aimed at enabling a system for managing digital asset.
The overall combination, covers agreement in the form of sales activities or behaviors, business relationships (e-commerce) because the claim language recites recording asset, verifying if transaction can occur, performing the transaction, and recording the transaction. The applicant’s specification on lines 13-14 recites “system that allows trading different cryptocurrencies” The one of skill in the art can determine, the user is performing a transaction based on the paragraph. Additionally, the recited limitation above falls under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that claim 1 (which is representative of claims 9, 10) recites an abstract idea that corresponds to a judicial exception.
Per Step 2A.2. The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the independent claims only amount to instructions to apply the judicial exception to a computer, or are a general link to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(h)). For example, the additional limitation “user,” “distributed,” “digital,” “minting,” “node,” and, “update unit” recite computing elements at a high level of generality, recite computing elements at a high level of generality, which is equivalent to instructions to implement the abstract idea “by a computer” or “on a computer.” The additional elements do not preclude from carrying out the identified abstract idea of for managing digital asset. Therefore, those additional elements do not serve to integrate the identified abstract idea into practical application.
The additional elements in the independent claims, shown not bolded above, recite: wherein at least some of the nodes are minting nodes” ([B]); wherein at least some of the nodes are user nodes ([C]). When considered individually or as an ordered combination, they amount to nothing more than reception, transmission and/or general computation (i.e., not specific enough computation) of claim elements that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (adding the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea.
Therefore, the additional steps of claim 1 (which is representative of claims 9, 10) do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and the claims remain a judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Claim 1, (which is representative of claims 9, 10), does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Therefore, when considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, the additional elements in the claim amount to instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. Moreover, as noted above, there is nothing the computing and additional elements (limitations [B]-[C]), that is significant or meaningful to the underlying abstract idea because the identified abstract idea of for managing digital asset could have been reasonably performed when provided with the relevant data and/or information. Therefore, it is concluded that independent claim 1, (which is representative of claims 9, 10) deemed ineligible.
Dependent Claims: Claims 2-8, 11-18 are analyzed for subject matter eligibility. However, these claims fails to recite patent eligible subject matter for following reasons:
Claim 2, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recites additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim further recites:
[A] comprising minting digital assets at the minting node upon receiving a notification of deposit of funds or cryptocurrency or certificate of an asset by a user to an entity that governs the minting node.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of managing digital asset. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping 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)).
Claim 3, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recites additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim further recites:
[A] wherein checking if the exchange transaction can be performed includes checking if the other user has enough digital assets to perform the transaction.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of managing digital asset. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping 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)).
Claim 4, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recites additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim further recites:
[A] providing information on user wallet after completion of the exchange transaction and distributing user wallet information to the distributed ledger system.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of managing digital asset. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping 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)).
Claim 5, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recites additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the distributed ledger system is based on a blockchain and the information on digital assets and user wallets is stored as ledger data propagated by messages in accordance with a Digital Ledger Technology, DLT, protocol wherein the information on the user wallet comprises one or more entries defining an asset type and currently owned amount of that asset in the wallet.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of managing digital asset. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping 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)).
Claim 6, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recites additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim further recites:
[A] digital assets by removing digital assets from the circulation on the DLT.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of managing digital asset. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping 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)).
Claim 7, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recites additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim further recites:
[A] at the user nodes, observing and real-time auditing of the minting and termination activity of the minting nodes operated by anchor-of-trust organizations.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of managing digital asset. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping 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)).
Claim 8, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recites additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim further recites:
[A] at the minting nodes, upon deposition of blockchain-based assets, updating the data of the primary blockchain of the deposited assets to indicate the minting node as the new owner of the deposited assets, and upon redemption of blockchain-based assets, updating the data of the primary blockchain of the redeemed assets to indicate the user as the new owner of the redeemed assets and removing the corresponding redeemed minted assets from the distributed ledger system.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of managing digital asset. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping 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)).
Claim 11, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recites additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the first minting-node signature is produced by a blockchain access module key and the prove key signature is produced by an HSM module key distinct from the blockchain access module key.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of managing digital asset. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping 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)).
Claim 12, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recites additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the consensus protocol rejects any transaction that attempts to append only one of the pair of involved digital-asset subchains.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of managing digital asset. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping 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)).
Claim 13, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recites additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim further recites:
[A] at the user nodes, observing and real-time auditing of activity of the minting nodes operated by anchor-of-trust organizations, and recording corresponding audit events on the distributed ledger.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of managing digital asset. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping 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)).
Claim 14, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recites additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim further recites:
[A] wherein redemption and termination are performed by a clearing agent module that verifies, prior to removal from circulation, each digital asset's subchain and signatures.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of managing digital asset. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping 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)).
Claim 15, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recites additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the minting node connects to the distributed ledger system via a firewall.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of managing digital asset. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping 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)).
Claim 16, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recites additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the user wallet data broadcast to the distributed ledger is verifiable at any time by any node against transaction histories recorded in the corresponding digital-asset subchains
The claim further recites the abstract idea of managing digital asset. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping 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)).
Claim 17, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recites additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the exchange rate is obtained automatically from an exchange-rate service that provides current exchange rates of digital assets based on overall market data.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of managing digital asset. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping 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)).
Claim 18, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recites additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim further recites:
[A] wherein minting and redemption activities of the minting nodes are public, visible, and immutable on the distributed ledger to enable audits.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of managing digital asset. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping 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)).
When the dependent claims are considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the claim elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense, i.e., a computer receives information from another computer, processes that information and then sends a response based on processing results. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified in the independent claims as an abstract idea. The fact that the computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer subject matter eligibility. Overall, the further elements do not confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance are not changing the nature of the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application do not amount to significantly more. (See MPEP 2106.05).
In sum, Claims 2-8, 11-18 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-4, 9-13, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glover (US 20190095880 A1) in view of So (US 11139955 B1), in further view of Griera (US 20210306149 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 9-10. Glover discloses:
A method for enabling exchange of cryptocurrencies, tokenized assets and/or fiat currencies on a single distributed ledger system comprising a plurality of nodes, wherein: [see at least (0017) FIG. 1 depicts an exemplary distributed, self-regulating, asset-tracking cryptocurrency system 100 implemented in a blockchain system … FIG. 1 shows a data network 102 (such as the Internet), a plurality of nodes, and a plurality of oracles.]
at least some of the nodes are minting nodes; and [see at least (0013) minting, by the node, one or more digital assets on a proof-of-stake blockchain network]
at least some of the nodes are user nodes; [see at least (0018) a node may comprise one or more user nodes (104, 106)]
the method comprising: at the minting nodes: minting digital assets, each minted digital asset being recorded as an asset-specific subchain within the distributed ledger and comprising: (i) a globally unique asset serial number, (ii) an asset type selected from at least two asset types, (iii) an asset value … [see at least Fig. 3 (0021) determining the variable quantity of minted asset tokens may include calculating the quantity of minted asset tokens for a block … where b is a block number (reads on: serial number), UP and DOWN are adjustment factors, cap(b) is a minted amount cap, n is an interval size, and p(b) is a market price of the asset token for the block (reads on: asset value). (0034) the system 100 may include a second token type apart from the asset token type that tracks the price of a unit of the target asset. The second token type may include a mining token. The asset token of the blockchain may be associated with a mining token. Thus, a mining token associated with an asset token type that tracks the U.S. dollar may not be associated with an asset token type that tracks gold. (reads on: types of asset) ]
Note: The Glover reference does not expressly disclose: (i) a globally unique asset serial number, (ii) an asset type selected from at least two asset types, (iii) an asset value,;. However this limitation represents non-functional descriptive material and does not affect how the claimed method functions (i.e., the descriptive material does not have any claim function in the claimed method; see MPEP 2106.01). The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
at the user nodes: requesting or accepting an exchange transaction to exchange digital assets with another user, wherein the exchange transaction request includes information on the amount of the first asset type to be exchanged, the second asset type to which the first asset type is to be exchanged and an exchange rate; [see at least Fig. 1 (0020) the proposer node 114 determines the variable quantities of the asset tokens to be minted, the removal of variable quantities of the asset tokens, and assembles the block of trading activity received from various nodes, such as the user 104. (0034) the system 100 may include a second token type apart from the asset token type that tracks the price of a unit of the target asset. The second token type may include a mining token. The asset token of the blockchain may be associated with a mining token. (0069) Sender A may send a first transaction amount 210 in a transaction to Recipient A. Sender B may send a second transaction amount 212 in a transaction to Recipient B. A transaction in the system may comprise a transaction record that includes the transaction amount (210, 212), the stability fee (214, 216), the compute fee (211, 213), and other transaction data.]
Glover discloses minting node, however, Glover does not disclose:
(iv) an identifier of an issuing minting node and a first signature of the issuing minting node, (v) a prove key signature generated inside a tamper-resistant hardware security module (HSM) of the issuing minting node and different from the first signature, and (vi) a first owner identifier and a first owner signature, wherein only digital assets whose subchains include at least said first minting- node signature, said HSM-generated prove key minting-node signature, and said first owner signature are valid within the distributed ledger system;
checking if the exchange transaction can be performed by (a) verifying, from wallet data subchains broadcast by peer nodes, that each user has sufficient digital assets, and (b) cryptographically validating, for each digital asset to be transferred, the minting- node signatures and the first owner signature in its subchain, including verifying that the prove key signature corresponds to a hardware-bound public key different from the minting node's first public key;
confirming that the exchange transaction can be performed;
amending the transferred digital assets by signing the transferred digital assets with user's private key as the previous owner signature; and
amending the received digital assets by adding information that the user is the current owner and signing the received digital assets with user's private key as the current owner signature, and committing the exchange transaction atomically by causing the distributed ledger to treat the exchange as a single update unit comprising the pair of involved digital-asset subchains, by appending, to each involved digital-asset subchain, said previous-owner signature of a transferor and said current-owner identifier and current-owner signature of a transferee, wherein the distributed ledger appends both subchains only upon successful verification of required signatures and otherwise appends neither.
Nonetheless, So discloses verifying transaction by validating the signature:
(iv) an identifier of an issuing minting node and a first signature of the issuing minting node, …[see at least Fig. 6C () process may generate and store keys for, a multi-signature digital asset account, where at least one of the private keys is divided into a plurality of key segments. () step S6076, the isolated computer may be used to write each of the digital asset account identifiers along with the corresponding reference identifier.]
(vi) a first owner identifier and a first owner signature, wherein only digital assets whose subchains include at least said first minting- node signature … prove key minting-node signature, and said first owner signature are valid within the distributed ledger system [see at least () the digital asset system operated by the token issuer uses its off-line key storage infrastructure to sign the request with the previously approved designated key sets. In this example, two signatures are required (signature 1 and signature 2)]
checking if the exchange transaction can be performed by (a) verifying, from wallet data subchains broadcast by peer nodes, that each user has sufficient digital assets, and (b) cryptographically validating, for each digital asset to be transferred, the minting- node signatures and the first owner signature in its subchain, including verifying that the prove key signature corresponds to a hardware-bound public key different from the minting node's first public key; [see at least Fig. 60 (37/7-12) the request message, miners on the blockchain network will confirm the transaction, including verifying that the message was properly signed by Alice. In Step S1004-b, the miners may verify that Alice has sufficient amount of tokens to perform the requested transaction]
confirming that the exchange transaction can be performed; [see at least Fig. 60 (37/7-12) the request message, miners on the blockchain network will confirm the transaction, including verifying that the message was properly signed by Alice. In Step S1004-b, the miners may verify that Alice has sufficient amount of tokens to perform the requested transaction]
amending the transferred digital assets by signing the transferred digital assets with user's private key as the previous owner signature; and [see at least Fig. 60 (51/37-42) the signature may provide authorization for the transaction to proceed, e.g., authorization to broadcast the transaction to a digital asset network and/or authorization for other users in a digital asset network to accept the transaction. A signature can be a number that proves that a signing operation took place.]
amending the received digital assets by adding information that the user is the current owner and signing the received digital assets with user's private key as the current owner signature, and committing the exchange transaction atomically by causing the distributed ledger to treat the exchange as a single update unit comprising the pair of involved digital-asset subchains, by appending, to each involved digital-asset subchain, said previous-owner signature of a transferor and said current-owner identifier and current-owner signature of a transferee, wherein the distributed ledger appends both subchains only upon successful verification of required signatures and otherwise appends neither. [see at least Fig. 60 (51/37-42) the signature may provide authorization for the transaction to proceed, e.g., authorization to broadcast the transaction to a digital asset network and/or authorization for other users in a digital asset network to accept the transaction. A signature can be a number that proves that a signing operation took place.]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify features of Glover to include the features of So. A person in the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to sign the asset transaction with the minting asset as taught by Glover using the signing technique taught by So. Glover discloses minting and transacting with digital assets. So teaches signing transaction. Because both Glover, as well as So are in the flied of cryptocurrency transaction and the signing technique as taught by So would have used the minted asset of Glover to complete the transaction. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Glover, as well as So would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Glover/So.
The combination of Glover in view of So discloses minting node, and verifying signature. However, the above combination does not disclose:
(v) a prove key signature generated inside a tamper-resistant hardware security module (HSM) of the issuing minting node and different from the first signature, and … said HSM-generated prove key…
However, Griera discloses generating signatures inside a HSM:
(v) a prove key signature generated inside a tamper-resistant hardware security module (HSM) of the issuing minting node and different from the first signature, and … said HSM-generated prove key… [see at least (0007) the proxy hardware security module to transmit a request to the hardware security module for generation of the signing key]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify features of Glover, So to include the features of Griera. A person in the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to sign the asset transaction with the minting asset as taught by Glover, So using the signature generated in a HSM taught by Griera. Glover, So discloses minting and transacting with digital assets. Griera teaches generating signature inside a HSM. Because both Glover, So as well as Griera are in the flied of cryptocurrency transaction and the generating of the signature e as taught by Griera would have used the minted asset of Glover, So to complete the transaction. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Glover, So as well as Griera would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Glover, So/Griera.
Regarding Claim 2. Glover, So, Griera discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Glover further discloses:
minting digital assets at the minting node upon receiving a notification of deposit of funds or cryptocurrency or certificate of an asset by a user to an entity that governs the minting node. [see at least Fig. 1 (0016) Leveraging blockchain technology, and one or more regulation method, including but not limited to variable minting of quantities of a cryptocurrency, variable removal of units of the cryptocurrency from circulation, and deterministic selection of a block-proposing node for a block in a blockchain system allows, for example, an asset-tracking cryptocurrency to maintain a generally stable value. In some embodiments, this stable value or target price for an asset token of the cryptocurrency can generally equal the value of a unit of the target asset (e.g. $1.00 USD).]
Regarding Claim 3. Glover, So, Griera discloses the limitations of Claim 1. So further discloses:
wherein checking if the exchange transaction can be performed includes checking if the other user has enough digital assets to perform the transaction. [see at least Fig. 60 (37/10-12) In Step S1004-b, the miners may verify that Alice has sufficient amount of tokens to perform the requested transaction]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify features of Glover, So, Griera to include the additional features of So. A person in the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to sign the asset transaction with the minting asset as taught by Glover using the signing technique taught by So. Glover discloses minting and transacting with digital assets. So teaches signing transaction. Because both Glover, as well as So are in the flied of cryptocurrency transaction and the signing technique as taught by So would have used the minted asset of Glover to complete the transaction. Moreover, since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 4. Glover, So, Griera discloses the limitations of Claim 1. So further discloses:
providing information on user wallet after completion of the exchange transaction and distributing user wallet information to the distributed ledger system. [see at least Fig. 60 (37/10-33) In Step S6008, response messages to the digital asset addresses of both Alice and Bob may be sent to reflect that the transaction was successfully processed. In embodiments, such messages may include information including: (i) the source digital asset address; (ii) the destination digital asset address; (iii) the amount of tokens transferred; and/or (iv) the new balances for each digital asset address or associated digital wallet]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify features of Glover, So, Griera to include the additional features of So. A person in the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to sign the asset transaction with the minting asset as taught by Glover using the signing technique taught by So. Glover, So, Griera discloses minting and transacting with digital assets. So further teaches signing transaction. Because both Glover, So, Griera, as well as So are in the flied of cryptocurrency transaction and the signing technique as taught by So would have used the minted asset of Glover, So, Griera to complete the transaction. Moreover, since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 11. Glover, So, Griera discloses the limitations of Claim 1. So further discloses:
wherein the first minting-node signature is produced by a blockchain access module key and the prove key signature is produced by an HSM module key distinct from the blockchain access module key. [(32/35-38) This change requires the authorization of Custodian 6450, which in turn requires two signatures from keys in its designated keyset (e.g., Off-Line Keyset 6462) sent to it on the blockchain. (33/5-7) Once the request is validated against the signatures, complete Unlock parses the content of the request and issues the command.]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify features of Glover, So, Griera to include the additional features of So. A person in the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to sign the asset transaction with the minting asset as taught by Glover using the signing technique taught by So. Glover, So, Griera discloses minting and transacting with digital assets. So further teaches signing transaction. Because both Glover, So, Griera, as well as So are in the flied of cryptocurrency transaction and the signing technique as taught by So would have used the minted asset of Glover, So, Griera to complete the transaction. Moreover, since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 12. Glover, So, Griera discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Glover further discloses: wherein the consensus protocol rejects any transaction that attempts to append only one of the pair of involved digital-asset subchains. [see at least (0059) the consensus protocol may be based on Byzantine Fault Tolerance (BFT). The consensus protocol may require a plurality of nodes (e.g. 104, 106, 108, 114) to be in communication with each other. In some embodiments, the nodes 104 may be connected by a well-defined communications protocol and may each run a mining client program. The communications protocol may include TCP, UDP, or some other communication protocol.]
Note: The above combination of Long, Green, So does not expressly disclose the consensus protocol rejects any transaction that attempts to append only one of the pair of involved digital-asset subchains. However this limitation represents non-functional descriptive material and does not affect how the claimed method functions (i.e., the descriptive material does not have any claim function in the claimed method; see MPEP 2106.01). A “wherein” clause does not function to actively limit the claim language. Therefore, the claim element is considered, but given no patentable weight. (MPEP 2111.05). The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Regarding Claim 13. Glover, So, Griera discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Glover further discloses:
observing and real-time auditing of activity of the minting nodes operated by anchor-of-trust organizations, and recording corresponding audit events on the distributed ledger. [see at least (0078) in order to reach a consensus regarding which block of transactions to add to the blockchain, the unconventional consensus algorithm does not use an energy-inefficient proof-of-work algorithm but uses the unconventional components of energy-efficient mining tokens, a proposer node, and one or more validator nodes to determine the next block in the blockchain.]
Regarding Claim 16. Glover, So, Griera discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Glover further discloses: wherein the user wallet data broadcast to the distributed ledger is verifiable at any time by any node against transaction histories recorded in the corresponding digital-asset subchains. [see at least (69/53-62) In S6656, the digital asset exchange system will analyze and verify that the request can be properly processed. In step S6656-a, the digital asset exchange system, as the SVCoin issuer, may verify that the user has sufficient SVCoin to cover the transaction as well as any transaction fees that may be charged. In embodiments, the digital asset exchange system may perform verification of the SVCoin balance by checking the token balance of the digital asset address against the SVCoin Token ledger as maintained by the digital asset blockchain.]
Regarding Claim 17. Glover, So, Griera discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Glover further discloses: wherein the exchange rate is obtained automatically from an exchange-rate service that provides current exchange rates of digital assets based on overall market data. [see at least Fig. 1 (0020) the proposer node 114 determines the variable quantities of the asset tokens to be minted, the removal of variable quantities of the asset tokens, and assembles the block of trading activity received from various nodes, such as the user 104. (0034) the system 100 may include a second token type apart from the asset token type that tracks the price of a unit of the target asset. The second token type may include a mining token. The asset token of the blockchain may be associated with a mining token. (0069) Sender A may send a first transaction amount 210 in a transaction to Recipient A. Sender B may send a second transaction amount 212 in a transaction to Recipient B. A transaction in the system may comprise a transaction record that includes the transaction amount (210, 212), the stability fee (214, 216), the compute fee (211, 213), and other transaction data.]
Note: The above combination of Glover, So, Griera does not expressly disclose exchange rate is obtained automatically from an exchange-rate service. However this limitation represents non-functional descriptive material and does not affect how the claimed method functions (i.e., the descriptive material does not have any claim function in the claimed method; see MPEP 2106.01). A “wherein” clause does not function to actively limit the claim language. Therefore, the claim element is considered, but given no patentable weight. (MPEP 2111.05). The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Regarding Claim 18. Glover, So, Griera discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Glover further discloses: wherein minting and redemption activities of the minting nodes are public, visible, and immutable on the distributed ledger to enable audits. [see at least (51/17-23) custodial wallets may be segregated custodial wallets, in which digital assets for a specific client is held using one or more unique digital asset addresses maintained by the custodial service. For segregated custodial wallets, the amount of digital assets held in such wallet(s) may be verified and audited on their respective blockchain.]
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glover in view of So, in further view of Griera as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fletcher (US 20200074450 A1).
Regarding Claim 5. Glover, So, Griera discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Glover further discloses:
wherein the distributed ledger system is based on a blockchain and the information on digital assets and user wallets is stored as ledger data …[see at least (0043) a block of the blockchain for the asset token may include zero or more transactions. The blockchain may be distributed across multiple nodes that are synchronized such that each node contains consistent blockchain data 120. For example, in some embodiments, the blockchain data of a node may include a copy of the blockchain ledger. In some embodiments, a node may include an entity with an address for the asset token.]
The combination of Glover in view of So, in further view of Griera discloses performing transaction and signing transaction, however, the above combination of Glover, So, Griera does not disclose:
propagated by messages in accordance with a Digital Ledger Technology, DLT, protocol wherein the information on the user wallet comprises one or more entries defining an asset type and currently owned amount of that asset in the wallet.
Nonetheless, Fletcher discloses storing data:
propagated by messages in accordance with a Digital Ledger Technology, DLT, protocol wherein the information on the user wallet comprises one or more entries defining an asset type and currently owned amount of that asset in the wallet. [see at least (0132) (0132) The nodes 102 a, 102 b of the first blockchain network 900 maintain a global ledger of all transactions on a first blockchain. (0135) The second blockchain network 902 also includes a number of nodes 102 b, 102 c which are coupled together using suitable communication technologies. These nodes 102 b, 102 c maintain the global ledger for the second blockchain network 902]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify features of Glover, So, Griera to include the features of Fletcher. A person in the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to securely store asset with the blockchain data as taught by Glover, So, Griera using the storing technique taught by Fletcher. Glover, So, Griera discloses minting and transacting with digital assets. Fletcher teaches storing data in a ledger. Because both Glover, So, Griera as well as Fletcher are in the flied of cryptocurrency transaction and the storing technique as taught by Fletcher would have used the minted asset of Glover, So, Griera to complete the transaction. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Fletcher, as well as Glover would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Glover, So, Griera/Fletcher.
Note: The above combination of Glover, So, Griera, Fletcher does not expressly disclose the information on the user wallet comprises one or more entries defining an asset type and currently owned amount of that asset in the wallet. However this limitation represents non-functional descriptive material and does not affect how the claimed method functions (i.e., the descriptive material does not have any claim function in the claimed method; see MPEP 2106.01). A “wherein” clause does not function to actively limit the claim language. Therefore, the claim element is considered, but given no patentable weight. (MPEP 2111.05). The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Regarding Claim 6. Glover, So, Griera, Fletcher discloses the limitations of Claim 5. Glover further discloses:
terminating digital assets by removing digital assets from the circulation on the DLT. [see at least (0071) The system may also send a portion of the stability fees 214, 216 to a dead-end address 222 to be burned and taken out of circulation.]
Claim 8, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glover in view of So as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Sliwka et al (US 20210082044 A1).
Regarding Claim 8. Glover, So, Griera discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Glover further discloses:
at the minting nodes, upon deposition of blockchain-based assets, updating the data of the primary blockchain of the deposited assets… [see at least (0076) first mining token-owning node (e.g. 508) registering the mining token on the block reward roster, and the block reward roster indicating that a cryptographic address associated with the second node (e.g. 504) is to receive at least a portion of the variable quantity of minted asset tokens.]
The combination of Glover in view of So, in further view of Griera discloses performing transaction and signing transaction, however, the above combination of Glover, So, Griera does not disclose:
… upon deposition of blockchain-based assets, updating the data of the primary blockchain of the deposited assets to indicate the minting node as the new owner of the deposited assets, and
upon redemption of blockchain-based assets, updating the data of the primary blockchain of the redeemed assets to indicate the user as the new owner of the redeemed assets and removing the corresponding redeemed minted assets from the distributed ledger system.
Nonetheless, Sliwka discloses updating database data:
… upon deposition of blockchain-based assets, updating the data of the primary blockchain of the deposited assets to indicate the minting node as the new owner of the deposited assets, and [see at least (0156) the ledger bridging system 416 updates (or initiate the update of) the distributed ledger upon a new tokenized token being minted … the distributed ledger is updated to reflect the existence of the new tokenized token and the ownership of the token]
upon redemption of blockchain-based assets, updating the data of the primary blockchain of the redeemed assets to indicate the user as the new owner of the redeemed assets and removing the corresponding redeemed minted assets from the distributed ledger system. [see at least (0317) receiving a request to redeem a collateral item indicated by a collateral token 2042 from a user device; verifying the user that is attempting to redeem the collateral token 2042 is the rightful owner of the collateral token 2042 based on ownership data 2052 stored on a distributed ledger 2016 … the redemption workflow may include additional or alternative steps, such as receiving feedback from the redeeming owner of the collateral item indicating that the collateral item has been returned in satisfactory condition and/or updating a distributed ledger 2016 to indicate the occurrence and content of such feedback events (which may be used to update analytics and/or a rating of the safekeeper)]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify features of Glover, So, Griera to include the features of Sliwka. A person in the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to securely update the ledger asset with the minted asset as taught by Glover, So, Griera using the updating technique taught by Sliwka. Glover, So, Griera discloses minting and transacting with digital assets. Sliwka teaches updating the ledger when new token are minted. Because both Glover, So, Griera as well as Sliwka are in the flied of cryptocurrency transaction and the updating technique as taught by Sliwka would have used the minted asset of Glover, So, Griera to complete the transaction. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Glover, So, Griera, as well as Sliwka would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Glover, So, Griera/Sliwka.
Regarding Claim 14. Glover, So, Griera discloses the limitations of Claim 1. The combination of Glover in view of So, in further view of Griera discloses performing transaction and signing transaction, however, the above combination of Glover, So, Griera does not disclose:
wherein redemption and termination are performed by a clearing agent module that verifies, prior to removal from circulation, each digital asset's subchain and signatures.
Nonetheless, Sliwka discloses updating database data:
wherein redemption and termination are performed by a clearing agent module that verifies, prior to removal from circulation, each digital asset's subchain and signatures. [see at least (0317) receiving a request to redeem a collateral item indicated by a collateral token 2042 from a user device; verifying the user that is attempting to redeem the collateral token 2042 is the rightful owner of the collateral token 2042 based on ownership data 2052 stored on a distributed ledger 2016 … the redemption workflow may include additional or alternative steps, such as receiving feedback from the redeeming owner of the collateral item indicating that the collateral item has been returned in satisfactory condition and/or updating a distributed ledger 2016 to indicate the occurrence and content of such feedback events (which may be used to update analytics and/or a rating of the safekeeper)]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify features of Glover, So, Griera to include the features of Sliwka. A person in the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to securely update the ledger asset with the minted asset as taught by Glover, So, Griera using the updating technique taught by Sliwka. Glover, So, Griera discloses minting and transacting with digital assets. Sliwka teaches updating the ledger when new token are minted. Because both Glover, So, Griera as well as Sliwka are in the flied of cryptocurrency transaction and the updating technique as taught by Sliwka would have used the minted asset of Glover, So, Griera to complete the transaction. Moreover, since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 15. Glover, So, Griera discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Glover further discloses:
wherein the minting node connects to the distributed ledger system ... [see at least (0016) variable minting of quantities of a cryptocurrency, variable removal of units of the cryptocurrency from circulation, and deterministic selection of a block-proposing node for a block in a blockchain system allows, for example, an asset-tracking cryptocurrency to maintain a generally stable value. (0043) the blockchain data of a node may include a copy of the blockchain ledger]
The combination of Glover in view of So, in further view of Griera discloses performing transaction and signing transaction, however, the above combination of Glover, So, Griera does not disclose:
wherein … node connects … via a firewall.
Nonetheless, Sliwka discloses updating database data:
wherein … node connects … via a firewall. [see at least (0374) may be deployed in part or in whole through a machine that executes computer software on a server, client, firewall]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify features of Glover, So, Griera to include the features of Sliwka. A person in the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to securely update the ledger asset with the minted asset as taught by Glover, So, Griera using the updating technique taught by Sliwka. Glover, So, Griera discloses minting and transacting with digital assets. Sliwka teaches updating the ledger when new token are minted. Because both Glover, So, Griera as well as Sliwka are in the flied of cryptocurrency transaction and the updating technique as taught by Sliwka would have used the minted asset of Glover, So, Griera to complete the transaction. Moreover, since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Relevant Prior Art Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon which, however, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20090310777 A1 Moreau; Thierry Trust Anchor Key Cryptogram and Cryptoperiod Management Method - In the field of public key cryptography, e.g. a public key infrastructure, the distribution of trust anchor keys to end-user systems is difficult when the time comes to change the public key, either because a compromise of the private key counterpart is suspected, or as a cryptoperiod policy enforcement. With the present invention, the central organization (from which the trust anchor key originates) is given the opportunity to distribute at once a number of trust anchor keys, in advance of their respective intended period of use, and without exposing the individual public keys to brute force attacks before their actual period of use. At a later time, the central organization distributes unlocking information that enables the use of a public key distributed according to the present invention. The preferred embodiment makes use of an hidden selection of a cryptographic function among a function family.
US 20160072626 A1 Kouladjie; Kambiz CRYPTOGRAPHICALLY-VERIFIABLE ATTESTATION LABEL - A label includes a first readable object encoding a trust anchor. The trust anchor is encrypted with a cryptographic key. The attestation label further includes a second readable object encoding attestation service information and encoding an identification code. The identification code is encrypted using the trust anchor. The attestation label further includes a non-encoded representation of the identification code.
US 20240177145 A1 Miele; Andrea et al. COMPUTER IMPLEMENTED TECHNIQUES FOR FACILITATING PROMOTIONAL CAMPAIGNS, MARKET-MAKING, AND REGULATORY COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES RELATING TO BLOCKCHAIN-BASED DIGITAL ASSETS - Various aspects described herein for implementing computer implemented techniques for facilitating promotional campaigns, market-making, and regulatory compliance activities relating to blockchain-based digital assets. At least one aspect of the present disclosure is directed to techniques for managing and facilitating transactions in digital assets and physical collectibles using blockchain technology, including minting, revealing, and offering automated buyback functionalities for Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) and Physical Collectibles (RWAs).
US 20230289791 A1 Zarick; Ryan et al. TRUSTLESS OMNICHAIN COMMUNICATION PROTOCOL PLATFORMS IMPLEMENTING RESOURCE BALANCING - Operations include receiving a request to transfer an amount of a digital asset from a source blockchain having a unified liquidity pool to a destination blockchain of a set of non-source blockchains, wherein the amount of the digital asset defines a transfer size of the transfer, determining whether to initiate the transfer by comparing the transfer size to a balance parameter for the destination blockchain, wherein the balance parameter for the destination blockchain is included within a set of state parameters associated with the source blockchain, in response to determining to initiate the transfer, updating the set of state parameters associated with the source blockchain, and sending, to a destination node maintaining the destination blockchain, a message indicative of a subset of state parameters of the updated set of state parameters. The subset of state parameters includes the transfer size and a credit parameter for the destination blockchain.
US 20220138760 A1 DIPASQUALE; Nick Dynamic Ledger Address Masking - A ledger based dynamic digital address masking solution for reducing vulnerability of private cryptographic keys used during digital transactions. Tokenized digital transaction addresses may be stored in association with an actual distributed ledger reference address. The tokenized transaction address, or recipient token, may be used to complete a variety of transactions for digital asset exchange without exposing the transaction address's actual reference address on the distributed ledger.
US 11069000 B1 Serrano; Sebastian et al. Payment processing service utilizing a distributed ledger digital asset - Systems, methods, and computer-readable media for a payment processing service utilizing a distributed ledger digital asset are provided. A payment processing service subsystem may provide payment processing services for merchants that wish to receive customer payments as a distributed ledger digital asset rather than as a fiat money asset.
US 20210027281 A1 2021-01-28 Kilroe; James Alexander Gibson et al CRYPTOCURRENCY SYSTEM - A computer-implemented method for managing cryptocurrency is disclosed. A plurality of users are provided with an in-marketplace wallet suitable for storing linked digital tokens that are linked in value to cryptocurrency tokens and are required to transact on a digital marketplace platform. A cryptocurrency reserve is provided for storing cryptocurrency tokens. Responsive to a user purchasing linked digital tokens from a marketplace store, linked digital tokens are transferred to the in-marketplace wallet an equivalent value of cryptocurrency tokens are transferred to the cryptocurrency reserve. Responsive to a user withdrawing a number of linked digital tokens from the in-marketplace wallet, the desired number of linked digital tokens are removed from the user's in-marketplace wallet and an equivalent value of cryptocurrency tokens are transferred from the cryptocurrency reserve to an out-of-marketplace wallet of the user for storing cryptocurrency tokens outside of the marketplace platform.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Applicant submits: “The amended claim 1 recites particular computer functionality: - a non-conventional digital-asset data structure stored as an asset-specific subchain with explicit required fields and signatures, including two distinct minting-node signatures (one generated inside an HSM) and a first owner signature; and a validity rule requiring at least those three signatures. - a specific commit/update mechanism: the ledger treats the exchange as a single update unit and appends both participating subchains only upon successful verification of required signatures and otherwise appends neither (prevents partial updates/divergence). - concrete validations at the user nodes: wallet sufficiency from ledger-resident wallet subchains, and signature checks, including verifying that the HSM-generated prove key signature corresponds to a hardware-bound public key distinct from the minting node's first signing key. These are not aspirational "results"; they are structural and operational constraints on the ledger.”
Examiner response: Examiner has fully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s argument persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant, the applicant argument are geared towards amended claim language. Additionally, the applicant argues the amended language recites “non-conventional digital asset structure … a specific commit/update …concreate validation”, however the claim language describes how it is implemented as a tool, but does not point to the improvement on technology. See MPEP 2106.04 and see updated rejection above. Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits: “Under MPEP 2106.05(a), (b), (d), (f), and (h), the claim is integrated into a practical application: - improvement to the functioning of the computer/ledger itself (MPEP 2106.05(a)): the claim improves integrity, auditability, and consistency by requiring (i) a multi-signature genesis with an HSM-generated signature and (ii) an atomic, paired-subchain append rule. This reduces fraud surface and prevents partial-commit divergence-a technical problem in distributed systems. - particular machine / technologically rooted solution (2106.05(b),(d)): the method is tied to a specific distributed-ledger architecture with minting nodes equipped with an HSM (Fig. 2, 115) producing a different signature than the minting node's first key (Fig. 5), and user nodes that validate/append to asset and wallet subchains. This is far beyond "do it on a computer." - meaningful limitations (2106.05(f),(h)): the claim does not merely state "exchange assets on a blockchain." It requires concrete fields and signature relationships, hardware-anchored keying, defined validation steps, and a both-or-none atomic append at the data-structure level. - no preemption: asset exchanges can be implemented using countless ledger designs that do not use an HSM-anchored dual-signature genesis plus atomic paired-subchain append. The claim is cabined to a particular implementation.”
Examiner response: Examiner has fully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s argument persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant, the MPEP 2106.04(d) discloses that “an important consideration to evaluate when determining whether the claim as a whole integrates a judicial exception into a practical application is whether the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or other technology In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology. the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement.” (Emphasis added) “That is, the claimed invention may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by demonstrating that it improves the relevant existing technology although it may not be an improvement over well-understood, routine, conventional activity.” (Emphasis added). Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits: “Even assuming arguendo the claim recites an abstract idea, the ordered combination is not well-understood, routine, or conventional, by: - requiring, at minting, that each asset's genesis include two different minting-node signatures: one produced inside an HSM (prove key (507)), and a first owner signature (509) as a validity prerequisite is not conventional in distributed ledgers, as taught in the application (Fig. 5 & text: "Only the digital asset that has at least three signatures 506, 507, 509 is a valid digital asset in the system 100."). enforcing a both-or-none atomic append that writes both the previous-owner and current- owner entries to the pair of involved subchains is a ledger-level commit protocol expressly disclosed (Fig. 7, 707-714) and now claimed. The present record contains no evidence that this particular HSM-anchored dual- signature genesis + atomic paired-subchain append was routine or conventional. The specification teaches these as new mechanisms addressing technical shortcomings (trust, auditability, consistency). Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of independent claims 1, 9, and 10 (and dependent claims 2-8) … Each of the dependent claims stands on its own patent-eligibility analysis; at least claims 11-18 recite additional concrete technical limitations that independently satisfy Step 2A prong two and Step 2B.”
Examiner response: Examiner has fully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s argument persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant, the combination of “HSM-anchored dual- signature genesis + atomic paired-subchain append was routine or conventional” merely instruct the one in the ordinary skill in the art to apply the knowledge of cryptographic and ledger to tool to apply the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any technological improvement that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, the independent claims 1, 9, 10 and its dependent claims 2-8, 11-18 does not comply with 35 U.S.C. § 101. See response above. Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 112(b).
Applicant submits: “Claim 1 now consistently recites "exchange transaction" and expressly states "confirming that the exchange transaction can be performed". Ambiguity is therefore removed. "Terminating activity of the mining node" (claim 7). Claim 7 has been canceled. Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).”
Examiner response: Examiner has fully considered applicant’s arguments, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC § 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 103.
Applicant submits: “1. Dual Signatures from a Minting Node (Blockchain Key & HSM-Generated Key) … Atomic Commitment of Paired Digital-Asset Subchains in an Exchange … Validation Requiring Both Minting-Node Signatures and Owner Signatures for Asset Validity”
Examiner response: Examiner has fully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s argument persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant, the applicant’s arguments are directed towards the amended claim language and not original set of claims. Additionally, the newly cited reference So, teaches requiring two signature, see So Col. 32, lines35-38. The combination of Glover, So, Griera discloses the claim language of claims 1, 9, and 10. Furthermore, see the updated rejection above. Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits: “Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over of Fletcher et al. (US 2020/0074450 A1) in view of Glover et al. (US 2019/0095880 A1), in further view of Sliwka et al (US 2021082044 Al). Claim 8 is non-obvious over that combination for its dependency on amended claim 1. Applicant therefore respectfully requests withdrawal of the §103 rejection of all claims in light of the above.”
Examiner response: Examiner has fully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s argument persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant, the applicant’s arguments are directed towards the amended claim language and not original set of claims. The combination of Glover, So, Griera discloses the claim language of claims 1, 9 and 10, therefore, claims 2-8, 11-18 are still rejected based on dependency. Additionally, the combination of Glover, So, Griera, and Sliwka discloses the claim limitation of claim 8. See the updated art rejection above. Thus the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD S HYDER whose telephone number is (571)270-1820. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 6:00pm.
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.
/M.S.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3698 02/06/2026
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698