DETAILED ACTION
Notice of AIA Status
The present application, filed on 02/20/2024, is being examined under the AIA first inventor to file provisions.
Status of Claims
The following is a FINAL Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendments filed on 08/19/2025.
a. Claims 1-17, 19-20 are amended
Overall, Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered below.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/06/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, such IDS is being considered by Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informality: "… computer processing characteristics associated with plurality of computer nodes". Claim 8 objected to because of the following informality: “set of criteria associated with plurality of computer nodes”. Claim 8 objected to because of the following informality: “set of criteria associated with plurality of computer nodes”. Claim 15 objected to because of the following informality: "... set of criteria associated with plurality of computer nodes”. The inconsistencies between “characteristic” and “criteria” creates confusion, and further confuses the examiner as whether “characteristic” and “criteria” represents the same thing or are they different. . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
i. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
ii. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
iii. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
iv. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-10, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bleznak(US 20220318907 A1), in view of Navon (US 20230186290 A1), in further view of Choi (US 20240154805 A1).
Regarding Claim 1. Bleznak discloses:
a non-transitory memory; and [see at least (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: [see at least (0007) the system may generate, for a first user device of a plurality of user devices]
in response to receiving a request for processing a first cryptocurrency transaction associated with a blockchain network comprising a plurality of computer nodes, selecting, from the plurality of computer nodes, a set of targeted computer nodes for processing the first cryptocurrency transaction based on computer processing characteristics associated with 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 00028). 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 0028.)]
subsequent … broadcasting a first cryptocurrency transaction record associated with the first cryptocurrency transaction to the blockchain network [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.]
Bleznak discloses processing crypto currency transaction, however, Bleznak does not disclose:
detecting a transaction block that includes the first cryptocurrency transaction record on a blockchain associated with the blockchain network;
extracting encrypted data corresponding to a Layer Two invoice from a Coinbase transaction record in the transaction block;
determining, from the set of targeted computer nodes, a particular targeted computer node that processed the first cryptocurrency transaction on the blockchain based on a particular encryption key used to decrypt the encrypted data in the Coinbase transaction record; and
transferring a secondary transaction fee to the particular targeted computer node over a Layer Two cryptocurrency computer network based on the Layer Two invoice.
Nonetheless, Navon discloses validating transaction:
detecting a transaction block that includes the first cryptocurrency transaction record on a blockchain associated with the blockchain network; [see at least (0030) The blockchain 300 comprises a first block (not shown), sometimes referred to as the genesis block. Each of the blocks 305 may comprise a record of one or a plurality of submitted and validated transactions (reads on: the block includes one or more transaction record)]
extracting encrypted data corresponding to a Layer Two invoice from a Coinbase transaction record in the transaction block; [see at least (0042) A result of the decryption may include hashed transaction data 540 and transaction data 530. The node 205 may generate hashed transaction data 550 based on applying a hash function 545 to the transaction data 530. The node 205 may perform a comparison 565 between the first hashed transaction data 540 and the second hashed transaction data 550. If the result 570 of the comparison 565 indicates a match, then the data integrity of the transaction 502 may be established and node 205 may indicate that the transaction 502 has been successfully validated.]
Note: The claim element “from a Coinbase transaction” consists of language disclosing at most a reason to have performed earlier method steps (intended use or field of use), but which imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed method, so it is considered but given no patentable weight. (see MPEP 2111.05, MPEP 2114).
determining, from the set of targeted computer nodes, a particular targeted computer node that processed the first cryptocurrency transaction on the blockchain based on a particular encryption key used to decrypt the encrypted data in the Coinbase transaction record; and [see at least (0042) A result of the decryption may include hashed transaction data 540 and transaction data 530. The node 205 may generate hashed transaction data 550 based on applying a hash function 545 to the transaction data 530. The node 205 may perform a comparison 565 between the first hashed transaction data 540 and the second hashed transaction data 550. If the result 570 of the comparison 565 indicates a match (reads on: determining if the particular key was used to decrypt the data), then the data integrity of the transaction 502 may be established and node 205 may indicate that the transaction 502 has been successfully validated.]
Note: The claim element “Coinbase transaction record” consists of language disclosing at most a reason to have performed earlier method steps (intended use or field of use), but which imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed method, so it is considered but given no patentable weight. (see MPEP 2111.05, MPEP 2114). transferring a secondary transaction fee to the particular targeted computer node over a Layer Two cryptocurrency computer network based on the Layer Two invoice. [see at least (0051) A node 205 may be selected to publish its block as the next block in the blockchain based on a consensus model. For example, the selected or winning node 205 may receive a reward, such as a transaction fee. (0085) At step 615, upon receiving the transaction, a node 205 may choose to validate the transaction, for example, based on transaction fees associated with the 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 Bleznak to include the elements of Navon. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to process cryptocurrency transaction securely. Bleznak discloses processing cryptocurrency transaction. Navon teaches the functionality of performing a encryption and decryption of data and determination of the validity of data. Because Bleznak, Navon are implemented in a blockchain environment, and the devices the devices of Bleznak are analogous to the devices of Navon that performing encryption and decryption and could themselves be programmed to carry out the function as taught by Navon. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Bleznak as well as Navon 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/Navon.
The combination of Bleznak in view of Navon discloses processing transaction, however, the above combination of Bleznak, Navon does not disclose:
performing a computational handshake with the set of targeted computer nodes, wherein the performing the computational handshake comprises exchanging corresponding encryption keys with the set of targeted computer nodes;
subsequent to the performing the computational handshake with the set of targeted computer nodes …
However, Choi discloses performing handshake:
performing a computational handshake with the set of targeted computer nodes, wherein the performing the computational handshake comprises exchanging corresponding encryption keys with the set of targeted computer nodes; [see at least (0008) The SSL/TLS handshake protocol may include using asymmetric cryptography to authenticate information associated with the devices and/or negotiate a symmetric key that is used to encrypt data that is exchanged between the devices.]
subsequent to the performing the computational handshake with the set of targeted computer nodes … [see at least (0008) he SSL/TLS handshake protocol may include using asymmetric cryptography to authenticate information associated with the devices and/or negotiate a symmetric key that is used to encrypt data that is exchanged between the devices.]
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, Navon to include the elements of Choi. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to process cryptocurrency transaction securely. Bleznak, Navon discloses processing cryptocurrency transaction. Choi teaches the functionality of performing a handshake to secure the data. Because the devices of Bleznak, Navon are analogous to the devices in Choi that perform the handshake and could themselves be programmed to carry out that function as taught by Choi. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Bleznak, Navon as well as Choi 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, Navon/Choi.
Regarding Claim 2. Bleznak, Navon, Choi discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Bleznak further discloses:
wherein the computer processing characteristics comprise a blockchain transaction processing efficiency characteristic. [see at least (0076) system 400 may need to be able to generate accounting entries reflecting changes of balances. However, while changes of balances can be tracked by examining blockchain 410, this requires additional processing and computational power. (reads on: additional tasks such as balance tracking require additional power. As stated in claim 1, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Bleznak’s processing power and geographic location read on the interpretation “efficiency characteristic”. )]
Regarding Claim 3. Bleznak, Navon, Choi discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Bleznak further discloses:
wherein the first cryptocurrency transaction record comprises a transaction output that indicates an address corresponding to the system. [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]
Regarding Claim 4. Bleznak, Navon, Choi discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Bleznak further discloses:
wherein the computer processing characteristics comprise a power consumption efficiency characteristic. [see at least (0076) system 400 may need to be able to generate accounting entries reflecting changes of balances. However, while changes of balances can be tracked by examining blockchain 410, this requires additional processing and computational power. (reads on: The applicant’s specification recites power consumption is an example of an efficiency characteristics (see paragraph 00028). The cited reference recites additional processing require more power which reads on power consumption.)]
Regarding Claim 5. Bleznak, Navon, Choi discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Bleznak further discloses:
generating the corresponding encryption keys for the set of targeted computer nodes; [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]
distributing the corresponding encryption keys to the set of targeted computer nodes. [see at least Fig. 2, (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]
Regarding Claim 6. Bleznak, Navon, Choi discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Bleznak further discloses:
wherein the encrypted data comprises a hashed value, and wherein the operations further comprise: accessing the Layer Two invoice using a lookup table based on the hashed value. [(0122) Each user_id may be mapped to a unique “pool” and “private_key,” as part of the account creation process. The system may receive a signed transaction hash from the digital signing process. The system may send the signed transaction hash to a blockchain node (e.g., using the “eth_sendTransaction” method)]
Regarding Claim 7. Bleznak, Navon, Choidiscloses the limitations of Claim 1. Bleznak further discloses:
performing a decryption process on the encrypted data using a plurality of encryption keys associated with the subset set of targeted computer nodes; and [see at least (0026) The device encryption key pair may be used to generate encryption keys for digital signing policies. The key pairs may also include a device authentication key pair. (0030) the use of any asymmetric algorithm for public key cryptography may be used for key generation, encryption, and/or decryption]
determining that the data is decrypted using the particular encryption key, from the plurality of encryption keys, that is associated with the particular targeted computer node. [(0030) The device encryption key pair may be used to generate encryption keys for digital signing policies. The key pairs may also include a device authentication key pair. (0029) the use of any asymmetric algorithm for public key cryptography may be used for key generation, encryption, and/or decryption]
Regarding Claim 8. Bleznak discloses:
selecting, by a computer system and from a plurality of computer nodes associated with a blockchain network, a subset of computer nodes for processing a first transaction based on a set of criteria associated with 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. (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 00028). The specification states one of the characteristic is power consumption, and the cited references discloses, selecting process based on the processing power. )]
broadcasting, by the computer system, a first transaction record corresponding to the first transaction to the blockchain network; [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.]
Bleznak discloses processing crypto currency transaction, however, Bleznak does not disclose:
detecting a transaction block that includes the first cryptocurrency transaction record on a blockchain associated with the blockchain network;
extracting encrypted data corresponding to a Layer Two invoice from a Coinbase transaction record in the transaction block;
identifying, by the computer system and from the subset of computer nodes, a particular computer node that processed a transaction associated with the first transaction record on the blockchain based on a particular encryption key usable to decrypt the encrypted data; and
transferring, by the computer system, one or more tokens to the particular computer node over a Layer Two computer network corresponding to the blockchain based on the digital invoice.
Nonetheless, Navon discloses validating transaction:
detecting, by the computer system, that a transaction block that includes the first transaction record has been added to a blockchain associated with the blockchain network; [see at least (0030) The blockchain 300 comprises a first block (not shown), sometimes referred to as the genesis block. Each of the blocks 305 may comprise a record of one or a plurality of submitted and validated transactions (reads on: the block includes one or more transaction record)]
extracting, from a second transaction record included in the transaction block, encrypted data corresponding to a digital invoice;
[see at least (0042) A result of the decryption may include hashed transaction data 540 and transaction data 530. The node 205 may generate hashed transaction data 550 based on applying a hash function 545 to the transaction data 530. The node 205 may perform a comparison 565 between the first hashed transaction data 540 and the second hashed transaction data 550. If the result 570 of the comparison 565 indicates a match, then the data integrity of the transaction 502 may be established and node 205 may indicate that the transaction 502 has been successfully validated.]
identifying, by the computer system and from the subset of computer nodes, a particular computer node that processed a transaction associated with the first transaction record on the blockchain based on a particular encryption key usable to decrypt the encrypted data; and [see at least (0042) A result of the decryption may include hashed transaction data 540 and transaction data 530. The node 205 may generate hashed transaction data 550 based on applying a hash function 545 to the transaction data 530. The node 205 may perform a comparison 565 between the first hashed transaction data 540 and the second hashed transaction data 550. If the result 570 of the comparison 565 indicates a match (reads on: determining if the particular key was used to decrypt the data), then the data integrity of the transaction 502 may be established and node 205 may indicate that the transaction 502 has been successfully validated.]
transferring, by the computer system, one or more tokens to the particular computer node over a Layer Two computer network corresponding to the blockchain based on the digital invoice. [see at least (0051) A node 205 may be selected to publish its block as the next block in the blockchain based on a consensus model. For example, the selected or winning node 205 may receive a reward, such as a transaction fee. (0085) At step 615, upon receiving the transaction, a node 205 may choose to validate the transaction, for example, based on transaction fees associated with the 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 Bleznak to include the elements of Navon. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to process cryptocurrency transaction securely. Bleznak discloses processing cryptocurrency transaction. Navon teaches the functionality of performing a encryption and decryption of data and determination of the validity of data. Because Bleznak, Navon are implemented in a blockchain environment, and the devices the devices of Bleznak are analogous to the devices of Navon that performing encryption and decryption and could themselves be programmed to carry out the function as taught by Navon. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Bleznak as well as Navon 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/Navon.
The combination of Bleznak in view of Navon discloses processing transaction, however, the above combination of Bleznak, Navon does not disclose:
performing, by the computer system, a computational handshake with the subset of computer nodes, wherein the performing the computational handshake comprises exchanging corresponding encryption keys with the subset of computer nodes;
However, Choi discloses performing handshake:
performing, by the computer system, a computational handshake with the subset of computer nodes, wherein the performing the computational handshake comprises exchanging corresponding encryption keys with the subset of computer nodes; [see at least (0008) The SSL/TLS handshake protocol may include using asymmetric cryptography to authenticate information associated with the devices and/or negotiate a symmetric key that is used to encrypt data that is exchanged between the devices.]
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, Navon to include the elements of Choi. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to process cryptocurrency transaction securely. Bleznak, Navon discloses processing cryptocurrency transaction. Choi teaches the functionality of performing a handshake to secure the data. Because the devices of Bleznak, Navon are analogous to the devices in Choi that perform the handshake and could themselves be programmed to carry out that function as taught by Choi. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Bleznak, Navon as well as Choi 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, Navon/Choi.
Regarding Claim 9. Bleznak, Navon, Choi discloses the limitations of Claim 8. Bleznak further discloses:
generating the first transaction record for a cryptocurrency the first transaction. [see at least (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]
Regarding Claim 10. Bleznak, Navon, Choi discloses the limitations of Claim 8. Bleznak further discloses:
receiving, via a user interface provided on a device, one or more user inputs related to the first transaction, wherein the first transaction record is generated based on the one or more user inputs. [see at least Fig. 2, (0038) User device 202 may include a user interface. As referred to herein, a “user interface” may comprise a mechanism for human-computer interaction and communication on a device and may include inputs devices… the user interface may display content related to performing blockchain operations based on an MPC key system and/or a digital signing process using an MPC key system. (0041) “blockchain operations” may comprise any operations including and/or related to blockchains and blockchain technology. For example, blockchain operations may include conducting transactions, querying a distributed ledger]
Regarding Claim 12. Bleznak, Navon, Choi discloses the limitations of Claim 8. Bleznak further discloses:
generating the corresponding encryption keys for the subset of computer nodes; and [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]
distributing the corresponding encryption keys to the subset of computer nodes. [see at least Fig. 2, (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]
Regarding Claim 13. Bleznak, Navon, Choi discloses the limitations of Claim 8. Bleznak further discloses:
attempting to decrypt the encrypted data using a plurality of encryption keys associated with the subset of computer nodes. [see at least (0033) The asymmetric algorithm encryption key and the asymmetric algorithm decryption key may be encrypted to generate an asymmetric algorithm decryption key ciphertext.]
Regarding Claim 14. Bleznak, Navon, Choi discloses the limitations of Claim 8. Bleznak further discloses:
wherein the set of criteria comprises power efficiency characteristics associated with the plurality of computer nodes. [see at least (0076) system 400 may need to be able to generate accounting entries reflecting changes of balances. However, while changes of balances can be tracked by examining blockchain 410, this requires additional processing and computational power. (reads on: The applicant’s specification recites power consumption is an example of an efficiency characteristics (see paragraph 00028). The cited reference recites additional processing require more power which reads on power consumption.)]
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bleznak, in view of Navon, in further view of Choi, as applied to claim 8 above, in further view of Pauker (US 20150294308 A1).
Regarding Claim 11. Bleznak, Navon, Choi discloses the limitations of Claim 8. The combination of Bleznak, in view of Navon, in further view of Choi discloses processing transaction data, however, the above combination of Bleznak, Navon, Choi does not disclose:
determining a code usable to indicate that the first transaction record targets the subset of computer nodes; and
incorporating the code into the first transaction record.
However, Pauker discloses maintaining transaction record:
determining a code usable to indicate that the first transaction record targets the subset of computer nodes; and [see at least Fig. 9, (0027) Nodes 10 may communicate over paths 12 according to the Bitcoin protocol in maintaining the cryptocurrency. For example, nodes 10 may communicate to maintain a global ledger of all official transactions. Each node 10 may store a copy of the global ledger]
incorporating the code into the first transaction record. [see at least (0027) Transactions added to the global ledger by each node 10 may be verified by other nodes 10 to help ensure validity of the ledger]
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, Navon Choi to include the elements of Pauker. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to process cryptocurrency transaction securely. Bleznak, Navon, Choi discloses processing cryptocurrency transaction. Pauker teaches the functionality of disclosing code to indicate transactions record by communicating between nodes. Because the devices of Bleznak, Navon, Choi are analogous to the devices of Pauker that execute program to communicate between nodes and could themselves be programmed to carry out the function as taught by Pauker. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Bleznak, Navon, Choi as well as Pauker 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, Navon, Choi/Pauker.
Claims 15-17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bleznak (US 20220318907 A1), in view of Navon (US 20230186290 A1)
Regarding Claim 15. Bleznak discloses:
in response to receiving a request for processing a cryptocurrency transaction associated with a blockchain network comprising a plurality of computer nodes, selecting, from the plurality of computer nodes, a subset of computer nodes for processing the cryptocurrency transaction based on a set of criteria associated with 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 00028). 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 0028.)
distributing a set of encryption keys to the subset of computer nodes; [see at least Fig. 2, (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]broadcasting a first transaction record corresponding to the cryptocurrency transaction to the blockchain network; [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. (0058) broadcasting signing rounds, a cosigner may also transmit abort messages that are sent to the coordinator if signing proof verification fails or a message fails to decrypt]
Bleznak discloses processing crypto currency transaction, however, Bleznak does not disclose:
subsequent to the broadcasting, detecting that a transaction block that includes the first transaction record has been added to a blockchain associated with the blockchain network;
extracting, from a second transaction record included in the transaction block, encrypted data corresponding to a digital invoice;
identifying, from the subset of computer nodes, a particular computer node that processed a transaction associated with the first transaction record on the blockchain based on the encrypted data; and
transferring, by the computer system, a secondary transaction fee to the particular computer node over a Layer Two cryptocurrency computer network corresponding to the blockchain based on the digital invoice.
Navon discloses validating transaction:
subsequent to the broadcasting, detecting that a transaction block that includes the first transaction record has been added to a blockchain associated with the blockchain network; [see at least (0030) The blockchain 300 comprises a first block (not shown), sometimes referred to as the genesis block. Each of the blocks 305 may comprise a record of one or a plurality of submitted and validated transactions (reads on: the block includes one or more transaction record)]
extracting, from a second transaction record included in the transaction block, encrypted data corresponding to a digital invoice; [see at least (0042) A result of the decryption may include hashed transaction data 540 and transaction data 530. The node 205 may generate hashed transaction data 550 based on applying a hash function 545 to the transaction data 530. The node 205 may perform a comparison 565 between the first hashed transaction data 540 and the second hashed transaction data 550. If the result 570 of the comparison 565 indicates a match, then the data integrity of the transaction 502 may be established and node 205 may indicate that the transaction 502 has been successfully validated.]
identifying, from the subset of computer nodes, a particular computer node that processed a transaction associated with the first transaction record on the blockchain based on the encrypted data; and[see at least (0042) A result of the decryption may include hashed transaction data 540 and transaction data 530. The node 205 may generate hashed transaction data 550 based on applying a hash function 545 to the transaction data 530. The node 205 may perform a comparison 565 between the first hashed transaction data 540 and the second hashed transaction data 550. If the result 570 of the comparison 565 indicates a match (reads on: determining if the particular key was used to decrypt the data), then the data integrity of the transaction 502 may be established and node 205 may indicate that the transaction 502 has been successfully validated.] transferring, by the computer system, a secondary transaction fee to the particular computer node over a Layer Two cryptocurrency computer network corresponding to the blockchain based on the digital invoice. [see at least (0051) A node 205 may be selected to publish its block as the next block in the blockchain based on a consensus model. For example, the selected or winning node 205 may receive a reward, such as a transaction fee. (0085) At step 615, upon receiving the transaction, a node 205 may choose to validate the transaction, for example, based on transaction fees associated with the 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 Bleznak to include the elements of Navon. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to process cryptocurrency transaction securely. Bleznak discloses processing cryptocurrency transaction. Navon teaches the functionality of performing a encryption and decryption of data and determination of the validity of data. Because Bleznak, Navon are implemented in a blockchain environment, and the devices the devices of Bleznak are analogous to the devices of Navon that performing encryption and decryption and could themselves be programmed to carry out the function as taught by Navon. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Bleznak as well as Navon 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/Navon.
Regarding Claim 16. Bleznak, Navon discloses the limitations of Claim 15. Bleznak further discloses:
wherein the set of criteria comprises a transaction processing efficiency criterion. [see at least (0076) system 400 may need to be able to generate accounting entries reflecting changes of balances. However, while changes of balances can be tracked by examining blockchain 410, this requires additional processing and computational power. (reads on: The applicant’s specification recites power consumption is an example of an efficiency characteristics (see paragraph 00028). The cited reference recites additional processing require more power which reads on power consumption.)]
Regarding Claim 17. Bleznak, Navon discloses the limitations of Claim 15. Bleznak further discloses:
wherein the operations further comprise: generating the first transaction record for the cryptocurrency transaction based on the request, wherein the first transaction record comprises a first transaction output that specifies a recipient digital wallet in the cryptocurrency transaction. [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]
Regarding Claim 19. Bleznak, Navon discloses the limitations of Claim 15. Bleznak further discloses:
wherein the set of criteria comprises a power consumption efficiency criterion. [see at least (0076) system 400 may need to be able to generate accounting entries reflecting changes of balances. However, while changes of balances can be tracked by examining blockchain 410, this requires additional processing and computational power. (reads on: The applicant’s specification recites power consumption is an example of an efficiency characteristics (see paragraph 00028). The cited reference recites additional processing require more power which reads on power consumption.)]
Regarding Claim 20. Bleznak, Navon discloses the limitations of Claim 15. Bleznak further discloses:
performing a decryption process on the encrypted data using a plurality of encryption keys associated with the subset of computer nodes; and [see at least (0026) The device encryption key pair may be used to generate encryption keys for digital signing policies. The key pairs may also include a device authentication key pair. (0030) the use of any asymmetric algorithm for public key cryptography may be used for key generation, encryption, and/or decryption]
determining that the encrypted data is decrypted using a particular key from the plurality of encryption keys, wherein the particular computer node is identified based on the particular key.[see at least (0030) The device encryption key pair may be used to generate encryption keys for digital signing policies. The key pairs may also include a device authentication key pair. (reads on: only the specific key can be used to decrypt the data) (0029) the use of any asymmetric algorithm for public key cryptography may be used for key generation, encryption, and/or decryption ]
Claim 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bleznak, in view of Navon, in further view of Koh (US 20230169510 A1).
Regarding Claim 18. Bleznak, Navon discloses the limitations of Claim 17. The combination of Bleznak, Navon, discloses processing transaction, however, the above combination of Bleznak, Navon does not disclose:
distributing a code for the cryptocurrency transaction to the subset of computer nodes; and incorporating the code into a second transaction output of the first transaction record.
However, Koh discloses maintaining transaction record:
distributing a code for the cryptocurrency transaction to the subset of computer nodes; and incorporating the code into a second transaction output of the first transaction record. [see at least (0125) data record can indicate a smart contract associated with the proposed transaction … a smart contract is a computer program or a transaction protocol that is configured to automatically execute, control, and/or record legally relevant events and actions according to the terms of a contract or an agreement (e.g., as a part of the 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 Bleznak, Navon to include the elements of Koh. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to process cryptocurrency transaction. Bleznak, Navon discloses broadcasting and extracting transaction data. Koh teaches distributing and incorporating code to transaction record using smart contract. Because the devices of Bleznak, Navon are analogous to the devices of Koh that execute program to communicate between nodes and could themselves be programmed to carry out the function as taught by Koh. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Bleznak, as well as Koh 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, Navon/Koh.
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 20200220717 A1 Alness; Andrew E. et al. PRIVATE KEY DECRYPTION SYSTEM AND METHOD OF USE - A key ceremony application creates bundles for custodians encrypted with their passphrases. Each bundle includes master key share. The master key shares are combined to store an operational master key. The operational master key is used for private key encryption during a checkout process. The operational private key is used for private key decryption for transaction signing in a payment process. The bundles further include TLS keys for authenticated requests to create an API key for a web application to communicate with a service and to unfreeze the system after it has been frozen by an administrator.
US 20200084027 A1 DUCHON; Lubomir et al. SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ENCRYPTION OF DATA ON A BLOCKCHAIN - Methods and systems for encrypting and decrypting data on a blockchain may comprise, upon receiving a request to encrypt data elements of a first data block of a blockchain to only be accessible to a subset of nodes of the blockchain, generating an encryption key configured to encrypt the data elements of the first data block; encrypting the data elements of the first data block using the encryption key; retrieving a public key corresponding to each node within the subset of nodes; encrypting the encryption key using the public key corresponding to each node within the subset of nodes, generating an encrypted encryption key for each node within the subset of nodes; generating a second data block comprising the encrypted encryption key for each node and the encrypted data elements of the first data block; and appending the second data block to the blockchain.
US 20190220858 A1 Weight; Joel et al. MULTI-APPROVAL SYSTEM USING M OF N KEYS TO PERFORM AN ACTION AT A CUSTOMER DEVICE - A computing system that includes at least one processor and at least one memory communicatively coupled to the at least one processor is disclosed. The computing system also includes at least one network interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor and configured to communicate with at least one vault system, each of the at least one vault system storing a respective one of N private keys or key components associated with a customer. The at least one processor is configured to receive, from each of at least one vault system, a respective private key or key component. The at least one processor is also configured to perform at least one action based on at least M of the N private keys or key components.
US 20160300222 A1 Yang; Danny OFF NETWORK IDENTITY TRACKING IN ANONYMOUS CRYPTOCURRENCY EXCHANGE NETWORKS - Various embodiments include a method of facilitating identity information exchange in a cryptocurrency transaction. An information compliance computer system can receive a pending cryptocurrency transaction from a transmitter wallet service system for managing one or more user wallet accounts, each associated with one or more cryptographically verifiable addresses in a cryptocurrency exchange network. The information compliance computer system can identify a recipient wallet service system associated with a destination address indicated by the pending cryptocurrency transaction. Information compliance computer system can exchange identity information between the transmitter wallet service system and the recipient wallet service system. The information compliance computer system can publish the pending cryptocurrency transaction to the cryptocurrency exchange network for inclusion into a block chain of the cryptocurrency network.
US 20220044229 A1 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
Response to Amendments/Arguments
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims objection.
Applicant submits: “Claim Objections Claim 15 was objected to due to certain informalities. Claim 15 has been amended to address the informalities. As such, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the objection to claim 15.”
Examiner responds: Examiner has carefully considered, but does find Applicant’s arguments persuasive. The objection to claim 15 has been withdrawn. The examiner would like to emphasize that new claim objection was added to the current office action.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 101.Examiner responds: In light of applicant’s amendments, the examiner withdraws the 35 USC § 101 rejection.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 103.
Applicant submits: “Bleznak teaches "the use of multi-party computation ('MPC') key systems that involve the use of multiple parties, each of which hold respective private data that may be used to evaluate a computation without ever revealing any of the private data held by each party to perform blockchain operations" (Bleznak, Abstract), but fails to teach at least the limitations set forth above.”
Examiner Response: Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive. Applicant argues reference(s) fails to teach the amended language. Although the Bleznak reference does not disclose “computational handshake”, however, the newly cited Choi reference does disclose the limitation. Furthermore, the combination of Bleznak, Navon and Choi discloses the limitation of claim 1, 8. Furthermore, amended claim 15 does not recite any limitation about performing computational handshake. Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits: “… while Pauker and Koh were cited in the Office Action as allegedly disclosing various features from dependent claims, they do not cure the deficiencies of Bleznak, even assuming that a motivation to combine the references exists 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. Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are also patentable by virtue of their dependencies of their respective independent claims. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 with respect to claims 1-20.”
Examiner Response: Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive. Applicant argues reference(s) fails to teach the amended language. Examiner emphasizes the newly Choi reference discloses the amended language of performing computational handshake. And the combination of Bleznak, Navon and Choi discloses the limitation of claim 1 and 8. See the 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 12/26/2025
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights