DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013 is being examined under the AIA first inventor to file provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/17/2026 has been entered with the RCE filed on 5/19/2026.
Status of Claims
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendments filed on 04/17/2026.
a. Claims 1, 5, 8, 10, 12, 15-17, and 19 are amended
Overall, Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered below.
Priority
The application claims priority to provisional application 63/583,003, filed on 09/15/2023. The priority is acknowledged.
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 1-5, 8, 10-17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bleznak (US 20220318907 A1), in view of James (US 11200569 B1).
Regarding Claims 1, 8, 15. Bleznak discloses:
a non-transitory memory; and [ (0007) the system may generate, for a first user device of a plurality of user devices]
one or more hardware processors coupled with the non-transitory memory and configured to read instructions from the non-transitory memory to cause the system to perform operations comprising: [(0007) the system may generate, for a first user device of a plurality of user devices]
determining, from a plurality of computer nodes associated with a blockchain network, a first subset of computer nodes to be targeted for processing a blockchain transaction based on computer configurations associated with the plurality of computer nodes,[see at least Fig. 2, (0038) a user interface may comprise a way a user interacts with an application or website using an MPC key system, and the user interface may display content related to performing blockchain operations (reads on: blockchain transaction)]
wherein the blockchain transaction is associated with transferring a first set of tokens from a first digital wallet; [see at least Fig. 2, (0041) a blockchain operation may comprise the creation, modification, exchange, and/or review of a token (e.g., a digital asset-specific blockchain), including a nonfungible token. A nonfungible token may comprise a token that is associated with a good, a service, a smart contract, and/or other content that may be verified by, and stored using, blockchain technology.]
distributing a set of encryption keys to the first subset of computer nodes but not to a second subset of computer nodes from the plurality of computer nodes, wherein the distributing the set of encryption keys comprises providing each computer node from the subset of computer nodes with a distinct encryption key from the set of encryption keys: [see at least (0033) The system may generate one group decryption key ciphertext for each cosigner (e.g., for each user device). The asymmetric algorithm key pair (e.g., a Paillier encryption key pair) may comprise an asymmetric algorithm encryption key and an asymmetric algorithm decryption key. (0045) system 200 may use cryptographic systems for conducting blockchain operations based on MPC key systems … system 200 may use the digital signature to prove to every node in the system that it is authorized to conduct the blockchain operations]
Note: MPEP 2144.01 sets forth that it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. Here, it is reasonable to infer that only selective node receives the encryption keys, one with the ordinary skill in the art would need to prove if the selected node is authorized. And, therefore one of skill in the art would have understood the reference to teach the limitation.
generating, for the blockchain transaction, a transaction record that targets the first subset of computer nodes, [(0049) The user device that is successful aggregates and records blockchain operations from a mempool (e.g., a collection of all valid blockchain operations waiting to be confirmed by the blockchain network) into the next block]
wherein the transaction record comprises a first transaction output that indicates an address corresponding to the second digital wallet and a second transaction output that indicates a set of addresses corresponding to the first subset of computer nodes, [see at least (0041) blockchain operations may include conducting transactions, querying a distributed ledger, generating additional blocks for a blockchain. (0079) Upon deployment of the smart contract, the bytecode is stored on the blockchain and is associated with an address]
generating, for the blockchain transaction, a smart contract executable by the blockchain network, … [(0041) , a blockchain operation may comprise the creation, modification, detection, and/or execution of a smart contract or program stored on a blockchain.]
broadcasting the transaction record to the blockchain network. [(0041) blockchain operations may include conducting transactions, querying a distributed ledger, generating additional blocks for a blockchain, transmitting communications-related nonfungible tokens, performing encryption/decryption, exchanging public/private keys, and/or other operations related to blockchains and blockchain technology. (0042) blockchain operations may also comprise actions related to mechanisms that facilitate other blockchain operations (e.g., actions related to metering activities for blockchain operations on a given blockchain network).]
Bleznak discloses broadcasting record, however, Bleznak does not disclose:
… wherein the smart contract comprises a condition of requiring any one encryption key from the set of encryption keys for executing the smart contract, and
wherein a second set of tokens associated with the blockchain network are released upon an execution of the smart contract; incorporating the smart contract into the transaction record and
Nonetheless, James discloses:
… wherein the smart contract comprises a condition of requiring any one encryption key from the set of encryption keys for executing the smart contract, and [see at least Fig. 25C (30/44-47) a designated key pair … authorized by smart contract and assigned by such a key pair to a designated address associated with on on-line public key for transactions as necessary.]
wherein a second set of tokens associated with the blockchain network are released upon an execution of the smart contract; incorporating the smart contract into the transaction record and [see at least (32/17-22) a more elaborate smart contract can be set up to allow token issuers to have hybrid control over which key pairs have authority to affect the token supply and distribution. In embodiments, a hybrid combination of on-line and off-line key pairs can be used to control the supply and distribution of tokens.]
Note: MPEP 2144.01 sets forth that it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. Here, it is reasonable to infer that for the token to be released, one with the ordinary skill in the art would need the correct key to control token distribution. And, therefore one of skill in the art would have understood the reference to teach the limitation.
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 the features of Bleznak to include the features of James. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to authorize the release of token using the asset (i.e. token) of Bleznak using the smart contract and keys of James. Bleznak discloses exchange of asset. James teaches using smart contract with keys to control the distribution of token. Because both Bleznak as well as James are implemented through field of distributing assets (i.e. token) in a blockchain and both references addresses a secure method of distributing token. Moreover, since the features disclosed by Bleznak as well as James 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 Bleznak/James.
Regarding Claim 2. Bleznak, James discloses the limitations of Claim 1. James further discloses:
wherein the first transaction output further indicates a transaction fee. [see at least (23/60-67)-(24/1-11) validators may perform such services in exchange for some consideration such as an upfront fee (e.g., a set amount of digital math-based assets), a payment of transaction fees (e.g., a fixed amount or set percentage of the transaction) from users whose transactions are recorded in the block being added]
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 the features of Bleznak, James to include the additional features of James. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to authorize the release of token using the asset (i.e. token) of Bleznak, James using the smart contract and keys of James. Bleznak, James discloses exchange of asset. James teaches using smart contract with keys to control the distribution of token. Because both Bleznak, James as well as James are implemented through field of distributing assets (i.e. token) in a blockchain and both references addresses a secure method of distributing token. Moreover, since the subject matter is merely a combination of old features, 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 3. Bleznak, James discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Bleznak further discloses:
receiving, from a user device, a transaction request associated with the blockchain transaction, wherein the transaction record is generated based on the cryptocurrency transaction request. [see at least (0103) At step 704, process 700 … may receive a first user request from a first user device … the system may receive, at the remote server from a first user device, a first user request to initiate a blockchain operation. (0041) blockchain operations may include conducting transactions, querying a distributed ledger, generating additional blocks for a blockchain. (0079) Upon deployment of the, the bytecode is stored on the blockchain and is associated with an address]
Regarding Claims 4, 20. Bleznak, James discloses the limitations of Claims 2, 19. Bleznak further discloses:
wherein the second transaction output further indicates a second transaction that is larger than the first transaction fee. [see at least (23/60-67)-(24/1-11) validators may perform such services in exchange for some consideration such as an upfront fee (e.g., a set amount of digital math-based assets), a payment of transaction fees (e.g., a fixed amount or set percentage of the transaction) from users whose transactions are recorded in the block being added]
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 the features of Bleznak to include the features of James. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to authorize the release of token using the asset (i.e. token) of Bleznak using the smart contract and keys of James. Bleznak discloses exchange of asset. James teaches using smart contract with keys to control the distribution of token. Because both Bleznak as well as James are implemented through field of distributing assets (i.e. token) in a blockchain and both references addresses a secure method of distributing token. Moreover, since the subject matter is merely a combination of old features, 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.
Note: The above combination of Bleznak, James does not expressly disclose a second transaction that is larger than the first transaction fee. 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 5. Bleznak, James discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Bleznak further discloses:
accessing the plurality of computer nodes;[see at least (0046) system 200 may comprise a plurality of nodes for the blockchain network.]
determining, for each computer node in the plurality of computer nodes, computer resource usage associated with processing blockchain transactions for the blockchain network; and [(0164) the system may select a digital signing process based on the processing power and/or geographic location of the first user device. For example, some devices may suffer from low processing power and/or low connectivity. As such, the system may determine a characteristic of a user device and select a signature scheme based on the characteristic. (The applicant’s specification states “The set of criteria may be associated with attributes of the computer nodes (e.g., a processor type of the computer node, an amount of memory in the computer node, a location of the computer node, etc.), efficiency characteristics associated with processing a cryptocurrency transaction (e.g., a power consumption required for processing a cryptocurrency transaction, a computer memory usage required for processing a cryptocurrency transaction, etc.)” (see para 00019). Thus, Bleznak’s processing power and geographic location read on the broadest reasonable interpretation “resource usage” consistent with the processor type, amount of memory, or location disclosed at 0019.)]
deriving, for each computer node in the plurality of computer nodes, a computer resource usage metric based on the computer resource usage, wherein the subset of computer nodes is determined from the plurality of computer nodes based on the computer resource usage metric derived for each computer node in the plurality of computer nodes. [see at least (0164) the system may select a digital signing process based on the processing power and/or geographic location of the first user device. For example, some devices may suffer from low processing power and/or low connectivity. As such, the system may determine a characteristic of a user device and select a signature scheme based on the characteristic. (The applicant’s specification states “The set of criteria may be associated with attributes of the computer nodes (e.g., a processor type of the computer node, an amount of memory in the computer node, a location of the computer node, etc.), efficiency characteristics associated with processing a cryptocurrency transaction (e.g., a power consumption required for processing a cryptocurrency transaction, a computer memory usage required for processing a cryptocurrency transaction, etc.)” (see para 00019). Thus, Bleznak’s processing power and geographic location read on the broadest reasonable interpretation “resource usage” consistent with the processor type, amount of memory, or location disclosed at 0019.)]
Regarding Claims 10, 19. Bleznak, James discloses the limitations of Claims 8, 15. James further discloses:
wherein the transaction fee is a secondary transaction fee available only to the first subset of computer nodes, and wherein the method further comprises: indicating, in the transaction record, a primary transaction fee below the secondary transaction fee. [see at least (23/60-67)-(24/1-11) validators may perform such services in exchange for some consideration such as an upfront fee (e.g., a set amount of digital math-based assets), a payment of transaction fees (e.g., a fixed amount or set percentage of the transaction) from users whose transactions are recorded in the block being added]
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 the features of Bleznak to include the features of James. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to authorize the release of token using the asset (i.e. token) of Bleznak using the smart contract and keys of James. Bleznak discloses exchange of asset. James teaches using smart contract with keys to control the distribution of token. Because both Bleznak as well as James are implemented through field of distributing assets (i.e. token) in a blockchain and both references addresses a secure method of distributing token. Moreover, since the subject matter is merely a combination of old features, 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.
Note: The above combination of Bleznak, James does not expressly a primary transaction fee below the secondary transaction fee. 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 11. Bleznak, James discloses the limitations of Claim 8. Bleznak further discloses:
wherein the set of criteria comprises at least one of a power usage threshold or a power source for processing a single blockchain transaction. [see at least (0164) the system may select a digital signing process based on the processing power and/or geographic location of the first user device. For example, some devices may suffer from low processing power and/or low connectivity. As such, the system may determine a characteristic of a user device and select a signature scheme based on the characteristic. (The applicant’s specification states “The set of criteria may be associated with attributes of the computer nodes (e.g., a processor type of the computer node, an amount of memory in the computer node, a location of the computer node, etc.), efficiency characteristics associated with processing a cryptocurrency transaction (e.g., a power consumption required for processing a cryptocurrency transaction, a computer memory usage required for processing a cryptocurrency transaction, etc.)” (see para 00019). Thus, Bleznak’s processing power and geographic location read on the broadest reasonable interpretation “set of criteria” consistent with the processor type, amount of memory, or location disclosed at 0019.)]
Regarding Claim 12. Bleznak, James discloses the limitations of Claim 8. Bleznak further discloses:
wherein the transaction record is a first transaction record, and wherein the second transaction output in the first transaction record enables one of the first subset of computer nodes to generate a second transaction record for transferring the transaction fee to a digital wallet associated with the one of the first subset of computer nodes. [see at least (0041) blockchain operations may include conducting transactions, querying a distributed ledger, generating additional blocks for a blockchain, transmitting communications-related nonfungible tokens, performing encryption/decryption, exchanging public/private keys, and/or other operations related to blockchains and blockchain technology. (0152) the threshold approval metric may be based on a respective network-imposed processing load for a call operation to a blockchain node … the system may determine a current network-imposed processing load for the call operation to the blockchain node. The system may then compare the current network-imposed processing load to the threshold approval metric]
Regarding Claim 13. Bleznak, James discloses the limitations of Claim 12. James further discloses:
wherein the first transaction record and the second transaction record are stored in a single transaction block recorded in a blockchain maintained by the blockchain network. [see at least (23/64-67)-(24/1-11) administrative nodes (e.g. an association of validators or a group of trusted entities) can execute one or more transactions (e.g. blocks of transactions) causing records to be added to a transaction ledger (for example, adding another block to a blockchain, or leaf (or leaves) to a Merkel Tree)]
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 the features of Bleznak, James to include the additional features of James. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to authorize the release of token using the asset (i.e. token) of Bleznak, James using the smart contract and keys of James. Bleznak, James discloses exchange of asset. James teaches using smart contract with keys to control the distribution of token. Because both Bleznak, James as well as James are implemented through field of distributing assets (i.e. token) in a blockchain and both references addresses a secure method of distributing token. Moreover, since the subject matter is merely a combination of old features, 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 14. Bleznak, James discloses the limitations of Claim 8. James further discloses:
providing a transaction fee corresponding to the transaction fee in the second transaction output of the transaction record. [see at least (23/60-67)-(24/1-11) validators may perform such services in exchange for some consideration such as an upfront fee (e.g., a set amount of digital math-based assets), a payment of transaction fees (e.g., a fixed amount or set percentage of the transaction) from users whose transactions are recorded in the block being added]
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 the features of Bleznak, James to include the additional features of James. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to authorize the release of token using the asset (i.e. token) of Bleznak, James using the smart contract and keys of James. Bleznak, James discloses exchange of asset. James teaches using smart contract with keys to control the distribution of token. Because both Bleznak, James as well as James are implemented through field of distributing assets (i.e. token) in a blockchain and both references addresses a secure method of distributing token. Moreover, since the subject matter is merely a combination of old features, 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 16. Bleznak, James discloses the limitations of Claim 15. Bleznak further discloses:
determining that a set of computer nodes from the plurality of computer nodes satisfies the set of criteria; [see at least (0164) the system may determine a characteristic of the first user device. the system may select a digital signing process based on the processing power and/or geographic location of the first user device. For example, some devices may suffer from low processing power and/or low connectivity. As such, the system may determine a characteristic of a user device and select a signature scheme based on the characteristic. (The applicant’s specification states “The set of criteria may be associated with attributes of the computer nodes (e.g., a processor type of the computer node, an amount of memory in the computer node, a location of the computer node, etc.), efficiency characteristics associated with processing a cryptocurrency transaction (e.g., a power consumption required for processing a cryptocurrency transaction, a computer memory usage required for processing a cryptocurrency transaction, etc.)” (see para 00019). Thus, Bleznak’s processing power and geographic location read on the broadest reasonable interpretation “computer processing characteristics” consistent with the processor type, amount of memory, or location disclosed at 0019.)]
dividing the set of computer nodes into a plurality of subsets of computer nodes; and selecting, from the plurality of subsets of computer nodes, the first subset of computer nodes for the blockchain transaction. [(0164) the system may determine a characteristic of the first user device. the system may select a digital signing process based on the processing power and/or geographic location of the first user device. For example, some devices may suffer from low processing power and/or low connectivity. As such, the system may determine a characteristic of a user device and select a signature scheme based on the characteristic.]
Regarding Claim 17. Bleznak, James discloses the limitations of Claim 16. Bleznak further discloses:
wherein the operations further comprise: selecting, from the plurality of subsets of computer nodes, a third subset of computer nodes for a second blockchain transaction; and [see at least (0164) the system may select a digital signing process based on the processing power and/or geographic location of the first user device. For example, some devices may suffer from low processing power and/or low connectivity. As such, the system may determine a characteristic of a user device and select a signature scheme based on the characteristic. (The applicant’s specification states “The set of criteria may be associated with attributes of the computer nodes (e.g., a processor type of the computer node, an amount of memory in the computer node, a location of the computer node, etc.), efficiency characteristics associated with processing a cryptocurrency transaction (e.g., a power consumption required for processing a cryptocurrency transaction, a computer memory usage required for processing a cryptocurrency transaction, etc.)” (see para 00019). Thus, Bleznak’s processing power and geographic location read on the broadest reasonable interpretation “computer processing characteristics” consistent with the processor type, amount of memory, or location disclosed at 0019.)]
generating, for the third blockchain transaction, a second transaction record that targets the second subset of computer nodes. [see at least (0041) blockchain operations may include conducting transactions, querying a distributed ledger, generating additional blocks for a blockchain. (0079) Upon deployment of the smart contract, the bytecode is stored on the blockchain and is associated with an address]
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bleznak (US 20220318907 A1), in view of James (US 11200569 B1), as applied to claim 5 above, in further view of Motylinski (US 20200074424 A1).
Regarding Claim 6. Bleznak, James discloses the limitations of Claim 5. Bleznak further discloses:
wherein the set of criteria … for processing a single cryptocurrency transaction. [see at least (0164) the system may select a digital signing process based on the processing power and/or geographic location of the first user device. For example, some devices may suffer from low processing power and/or low connectivity. As such, the system may determine a characteristic of a user device and select a signature scheme based on the characteristic. (reads on: The applicant’s specification states “The set of criteria may be associated with attributes of the computer nodes (e.g., a processor type of the computer node, an amount of memory in the computer node, a location of the computer node, etc.), efficiency characteristics associated with processing a cryptocurrency transaction (e.g., a power consumption required for processing a cryptocurrency transaction, a computer memory usage required for processing a cryptocurrency transaction, etc.)” (see para 00019). The specification states one of the characteristic is power consumption, and the cited references discloses, selecting process based on the processing power. )]
The combination of Bleznak in view of James discloses processing blockchain transaction. The above combination of Bleznak, James does not disclose:
wherein the set of criteria comprises a computer processing threshold for processing a single cryptocurrency transaction.
However, Motylinski discloses:
wherein the set of criteria comprises a computer processing threshold for processing a single cryptocurrency transaction. [see at least (0078) To prevent some forms of attack on the computational resources of the node, a threshold T can be set. If cj>T for any transaction j, the node can determine that is will not validate the block. The value of T may be made directly proportional to the computational power of an individual processing unit in the local validation node, measured in hertz or instructions per second.]
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 Bleznak, James to include the elements of Motylinski. A person having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to efficiently process blockchain transaction using the asset of Bleznak, James and using the efficiency characteristic for processing transaction of Motylinski. Bleznak, James discloses processing blockchain transaction. Motylinski teaches efficiency characteristic of processing transaction. Because both Bleznak, James as well as Motylinski are implemented in the field of processing transaction and both reference addresses an efficient method processing transaction. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Bleznak, James, as well as Motylinski 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 Bleznak, James/Motylinski.
Regarding Claim 7. Bleznak, James discloses the limitations of Claim 5. Bleznak further discloses:
wherein the set of criteria … for processing a single cryptocurrency transaction. [see at least (0164) the system may select a digital signing process based on the processing power and/or geographic location of the first user device. For example, some devices may suffer from low processing power and/or low connectivity. As such, the system may determine a characteristic of a user device and select a signature scheme based on the characteristic. (reads on: The applicant’s specification states “The set of criteria may be associated with attributes of the computer nodes (e.g., a processor type of the computer node, an amount of memory in the computer node, a location of the computer node, etc.), efficiency characteristics associated with processing a cryptocurrency transaction (e.g., a power consumption required for processing a cryptocurrency transaction, a computer memory usage required for processing a cryptocurrency transaction, etc.)” (see para 00019). The specification states one of the characteristic is power consumption, and the cited references discloses, selecting process based on the processing power. )]
The combination of Bleznak in view of James discloses processing blockchain transaction. The above combination of Bleznak, James does not disclose:
wherein the set of criteria comprises a memory usage threshold for processing a single cryptocurrency transaction.
However, Motylinski discloses:
wherein the set of criteria comprises a memory usage threshold for processing a single cryptocurrency transaction. [see at least (0078) To prevent some forms of attack on the computational resources of the node, a threshold T can be set. If cj>T for any transaction j, the node can determine that is will not validate the block. The value of T may be made directly proportional to the computational power of an individual processing unit in the local validation node, measured in hertz or instructions per second.]
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 Bleznak, James to include the elements of Motylinski. A person having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to efficiently process blockchain transaction using the asset of Bleznak, James and using the efficiency characteristic for processing transaction of Motylinski. Bleznak, James discloses processing blockchain transaction. Motylinski teaches efficiency characteristic of processing transaction. Because both Bleznak, James as well as Motylinski are implemented in the field of processing transaction and both reference addresses an efficient method processing 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.
Claims 9, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bleznak (US 20220318907 A1), in view of James (US 11200569 B1), as applied to claims [8, 15] above, in further view of Lamesh (US 20210049591 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, 18. Bleznak, James discloses the limitations of Claims 8, 15. Bleznak further discloses:
wherein the smart contract …. [see at least (0041) a smart contract may comprise a program stored on a blockchain that is executed (e.g., automatically, without any intermediary's involvement or time loss) when one or more predetermined conditions are met.]
The combination of Bleznak in view of James discloses processing blockchain transaction. The above combination of Bleznak, James does not disclose:
wherein the smart contract is a multi-signature digital contract.
However, Lamesh discloses:
wherein the smart contract is a multi-signature digital contract. [see at least (0127) digital wallet device 100 creates (optionally by processor 103) transaction rules and/or definitions, for example, rules for creating a smart contract … a policy for multi-signature scheme may include for example standard blockchain multi-signature rules (for example using Bitcoin script) or policy for encryption key splitting mechanism such as multiparty computation (MPC) based multi-signature.]
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 Bleznak, James to include the elements of Lamesh. A person having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to securely process blockchain transaction using the asset of Bleznak, James and multi signature feature of Lamesh. Bleznak, James discloses processing blockchain transaction. Lamesh teaches multi-signature smart contract. Because both Bleznak, James as well as Lamesh are implemented in the field of processing transaction and both reference addresses a secure method processing transaction. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Bleznak, James as well as Lamesh 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 Bleznak, James/Lamesh.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 112(b).
Applicant submits: “Claims 6-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention. Applicant respectfully submits that the rejection is overcome in view of the amendments presented herein. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) be reconsidered and withdrawn.”
Examiner response: Examiner has fully considered applicant’s arguments, have been fully considered and in light of applicant’s amendment to the claim 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: “In particular, Bleznak teaches that "written contract states may also include an encoded 'data' field indicating the contract method and parameters to call, which is parsed by nodes and miners for the blockchain" (Bleznak, paragraph [0122]), but fails to teach at least the limitations set forth above. James teaches that "validators... may perform such services in exchange for some consideration such as an upfront fee" (James, col. 24 In. 2-5), but fails to cure the deficiencies of Bleznak as discussed above. Applicant further submits that while Motylinski and Lamesh were cited in the Office Action as allegedly disclosing various features from dependent claims, they do not cure the deficiencies of Bleznak and James, even assuming that a motivation to combine the references exists (which Applicant does not concede). Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the cited references do not render claim 1 obvious. Independent claims 8 and 15 also include limitations similar to those described above by reference to claim 1. As such, the cited references also do not render claims 8 and 15 obvious for similar reasons discussed above by reference to claim 1. Thus, independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are submitted as patentable over the cited references.”
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 previous set of claims. Furthermore, the combination of Bleznak, in view of James discloses the claim limitations of claims 1, 8, 15. Additionally, the Bleznak reference discloses on [0033]-[0045] “The system may generate one group decryption key ciphertext for each cosigner (e.g., for each user device). The asymmetric algorithm key pair (e.g., a Paillier encryption key pair) may comprise an asymmetric algorithm encryption key and an asymmetric algorithm decryption key … system 200 may use cryptographic systems for conducting blockchain operations based on MPC key systems … system 200 may use the digital signature to prove to every node in the system that it is authorized to conduct the blockchain operations.” One of skill in the art under broadest reasonable interpretation can conclude that only certain nodes (i.e., after verification) will receive keys to conduct the blockchain operation. Thus the combination of Bleznak, in view of James discloses the claim limitations of the amended claims 1, 8, and 15. Furthermore, the dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-20 remain rejected based on at least virtue of dependency an prior art rejections.
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 20190305956 A1 Irani, III; Zack INTEGRATING BIOMETRIC DATA ON A BLOCKCHAIN SYSTEM - A method of initiating a transaction in a blockchain system includes receiving, by a processing device, biometric data associated with a first party of a transaction to be added to a block of a blockchain system. The method further includes providing the biometric data to a validation node of the blockchain system. The method further includes determining that the biometric data has been validated by the validation node. The method further includes, in response to determining that the biometric data has been validated, recording, by the processing device, the biometric data in the block of the blockchain system.
US 20240152925 A1 Edwards; Joshua et al. METHODS AND ARRANGEMENTS FOR CREDIT CARD LOCK - Logic may provide a lock for a credit card that may, e.g., prevent or attenuate fraudulent transactions. Logic may include one or more user interaction mechanisms to physically interact with a user to change a user-configurable circuit to create an unlock pattern with the user-configurable circuit to allow the payment instrument to authorize transactions and one or more lock patterns to prevent the payment instrument from authorizing transactions. The one or more user interaction mechanisms may comprise moveable conductors to connect or disconnect circuits of the user-configurable circuit to create the unlock pattern and the lock patterns. The logic may comprise a processor to process transactions and be coupled with memory. The logic may receive power from a point of sale (POS) terminal to process a transaction, apply the power to the user-configurable circuit, and determine an output of the user-configurable circuit to determine if the transaction succeeds or fails.
US 20190199516 A1 Carver; David C. et al. High performance distributed system of record with cryptographic service support - A high-performance distributed ledger and transaction computing network fabric over which large numbers of transactions (involving the transformation, conversion or transfer of information or value) are processed concurrently in a scalable, reliable, secure and efficient manner. In one embodiment, the computing network fabric or “core” is configured to support a distributed blockchain network that organizes data in a manner that allows communication, processing and storage of blocks of the chain to be performed concurrently, with little synchronization, at very high performance and low latency, even when the transactions themselves originate from distant sources. This data organization relies on segmenting a transaction space within autonomous but cooperating computing nodes that are configured as a processing mesh. Each computing node typically is functionally-equivalent to all other nodes in the core. The nodes operate on blocks independently from one another while still maintaining a consistent and logically-complete view of the blockchain as a whole. According to another feature, secure transaction processing is facilitated by storing cryptographic key materials in secure and trusted computing environments associated with the computing nodes to facilitate construction of trust chains for transaction requests and their associated responses.
US 20220166616 A1 Manevich; Yacov et al. KEY RECLAMATION IN BLOCKCHAIN NETWORK VIA OPRF - An example operation may include one or more of encrypting a private key with an encryption key, generating a plurality of keys based on the encryption key and converting the plurality of keys into a plurality of key shares based on a secret input value, storing the encrypted private key on a blockchain, and distributing the plurality of key shares to a plurality of blockchain peers of the blockchain, where the distributing comprises transmitting a different key share from among the plurality of key shares to each blockchain peer among the plurality of blockchain peers.
US 11157898 B2 Mutter; Zachary Systems and methods for peer-to-peer transmission of digital assets - This disclosure relates to transaction systems and particularly to transaction systems of a peer-to-peer nature for digital assets. The asset transfer system may store user, user accounts, and transaction information in associated logic tables within a memory of a server hosting the asset transfer system. Through the use of, but limited to, curl functions, the asset transfer system may communicate with remote servers housing user wallets and user wallet information to perform transactions of digital assets between users. Before verification and proof of work can be established to complete the transfer of digital assets, the asset transfer system may report to the users of a transaction the details of the transaction. Users of the asset transfer system need not know encrypted or random keys to perform such digital asset transactions and may transfer digital assets only by identification of a username stored within the asset transfer system.
US 20240330927 A1 ABDELRAHMAN; AHMED M. et al. SMART CONTRACT GENERATION AND VALIDATION - A method for generating and validating a smart contract is disclosed. The method may include receiving text input describing a desired operation of a smart contract and processing the text input with a language model to output a smart contract logic description and synthetic data for validating the smart contract. The method may further include processing the smart contract logic description with a generative artificial intelligence model to generate smart contract code, validating the smart contract code using the synthetic data to simulate transactions with the smart contract, and deploying the smart contract code on a blockchain upon successful validation of the smart contract code.
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
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights