DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on December 11, 2025 has been entered. Applicant has amended claims 1, 6, 9, 14 and 16. Claims 1-20 are now pending, have been examined and currently stand rejected.
Claim Interpretation
Intended use/ Result language
Regarding claim 1, 9 and 16:
The portion which recites, “to execute a transaction of the user operation” constitutes intended use/result language because it merely states the purpose or outcome of the accounting step without limiting how the step is performed.
The applicant is reminded that these portions, i.e., intended use/result, do not further limit the scope of the claim as the limitations, or portions thereof, do not claim the functions as being positively recited actions or functions, and/or they do not add any meaning or purpose to the associated manipulative step(s). See MPEP 2103 C and 2111.04. Simply because the limitation recites something as being "for ... [performing a specific functionality]", etc. does not mean that the functions are required to be performed, or are actually performed.
Non-Functional Language:
Regarding claims 3, 11 and 18:
The phrase “wherein a cross-chain fee abstraction contract triggers burning of the number of tokens on the source chain based on a permit signature provided by a user that owns the number of tokens on the source chain.” does not positively recite method steps.
Regarding claims 4, 12 and 19:
The phrase “wherein the cross-chain fee abstraction contract transfers tokens of the cryptocurrency from an account of the user on the source chain to account for computing resources expended on the source chain.” is non-functional descriptive material that describes, at least in part, characteristics a contract of the source chain.
It has been held that non-functional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.
Examiner has provided prior art, where available, for these intended use and/or non-functional phrases/limitations, however, these phrases/limitations will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. Accordingly, the prior art is only provided in the interest of compact prosecution.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites, in part, “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium coupled to one or more processors […]: receiving a user operation that indicates a paymaster […];”. The claim further disclose “triggering, by the paymaster […], receiving, by the paymaster […], accounting, by the paymaster[…]”.
The structural relationship between these elements is not clear, making the scope of the claimed storage medium indefinite. As best understood, the paymaster is part of the destination chain (see Applicant’s disclosure, Fig. 2 and Fig. 2B (where 300b) is signal flow diagram 300b for the destination chain), which is outside of the scope of the claimed storage medium of claim 9. Therefore, steps attributed to “the paymaster” do not have patentable weight.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner is considering the scope set by the preamble of the claims, i.e. claim 9 as being directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium coupled to one or more processors.
Claim 16 is substantially similar to claim 9 and is being rejected under the same rationale. Likewise, for compact prosecution purposes, Examiner is considering the scope set by the preamble of the claimed system (i.e. a computing device and a computer-readable storage device).
Claims 10-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 112(b) at least for being dependent claims to claims 9 and 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites and is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., an abstract idea) and does not provide an integration of the recited abstract idea into a practical application nor include an inventive concept that is “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea to which the claim is directed. MPEP §2106.
In determining subject matter eligibility in an Alice rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101, it is first determined as Step 1 whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of an invention (i.e., a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter). MPEP §2106.03.
Here, the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process (Claims 1-8) a system (claims 9-16) and a manufacture (claims 17-20). Therefore, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong 1. MPEP §2106.
Under a Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more enumerated categories of patent ineligible subject matter that amounts to a judicial exception to patentability. MPEP §2106.04. Independent Claim 1 is selected as being representative of the independent claims in the instant application. Claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented method for cryptocurrency abstraction using a cross-chain transfer protocol (CCTP) between a source chain network and a destination chain network, comprising:
receiving a user operation that indicates a paymaster and that comprises an attestation and;
in response to the attestation;
triggering, by the paymaster, minting of a number of tokens of a cryptocurrency on a destination chain, the number of tokens corresponding to a number of tokens of the cryptocurrency burned on a source chain attested to by the attestation;
receiving, by the paymaster, the number of tokens of the cryptocurrency minted on the destination chain; and
accounting, by the paymaster and using at least a portion of the number of tokens of the cryptocurrency, for computing resources expended on the destination chain to execute a transaction of the user operation.
Here, the claims recite an abstract idea, or combination of abstract ideas of managing and accounting the exchange of tokens. The claims achieves this by receiving a user operation that indicates an attestation and minting tokens, transferring and accounting tokens. This concept/abstract idea, which is identified in the bolded sections seen above, falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping because it describes a commercial or legal interactions (e.g., managing and accounting transfers).
Accordingly, it is determined that the claims recite an abstract idea since they fall within one or more of the three enumerated categories of patent ineligible subject matter. MPEP §2106.04.
Since it is determined that the claim(s) contain a judicial exception, it must then be determined, under Step 2A, Prong 2, whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of the exception. MPEP §2106.04. In order to make this determination, the additional element(s) are analyzed to determine if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. Here claim 1 recite the additional elements of a paymaster and a destination and source account. Independent claim 9 recite the additional elements of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, one or more processors, a paymaster and a destination and source account. Independent claim 16 recite the additional elements of a system, a computing device, a computer-readable storage device, a paymaster and a destination and source account. These additional elements are all recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception, or a portion thereof, using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, Examiner finds no indication in the Specification, that the operations recited in the independent claims require any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, invoke any allegedly inventive programming, or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions. Furthermore, there is no indication in the claim(s) that the use of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, one or more processors, a system, a computing device, a paymaster and a destination and source account in combination with the abstract idea leads to an improvement of the processor, memory, another technology, or to a technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Examiner further notes that even though the claims may not preempt all forms of the abstraction, this alone, does not make them any less abstract.
When analyzed under step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a generic computing component (e.g., a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, one or more processors, a system, a computing device, a paymaster and a destination and source account) to implement the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept or significantly more than the judicial exception. Considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements recited in the claim(s) add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately.
Therefore, claim 1, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 and are not patent eligible. Dependent claims 2-8, 10-15 and 17-20 when analyzed are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2, 10 and 17 further refine the abstract idea by collecting and delivering data. These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 3, 11 and 18 further refine the abstract idea by describing how tokens are burned. These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 4, 12 and 19 further refine the abstract idea by describing a tokens transfer for resources expenses. These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 5, 13 and 20 further refine the abstract idea by describing how attestation is generated (e.g., by an attestation service) These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 6 and 14 further refine the abstract idea by indicating the user receives attestation and transmits user operation. These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 7 and 15 further refine the abstract idea by indicating that tokens are provided to the user. These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 8 further refine the abstract idea by transferring tokens in response to a validation. This claim fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
In summary, the dependent claims considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas itself. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Accordingly, it is determined that all claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 and are ineligible.
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 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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 9-11 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kleniewski (WO 2021/019398 A1), hereinafter “Kleniewski” in view of Vitalik Buterin (ERC-4337: Account Abstraction Using Alt Mempool [DRAFT]) hereinafter “Buterin”.
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 16: Kleniewski disclose:
Claim 1: A computer-implemented method for cryptocurrency abstraction using a cross-chain transfer protocol (CCTP) between a source chain network and a destination chain network, comprising:
Claim 9: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (See Kleniewski, [0077] computer readable program) coupled to one or more processors (See Kleniewski, [0077] processor) and having instructions stored thereon which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations for cryptocurrency abstraction using a cross-chain transfer protocol (CCTP) between a source chain network and a destination chain network, the operations comprising:
Claim 16: A system, (See Kleniewski, [0077]; system) comprising: a computing device; and a computer-readable storage device coupled to the computing device and having instructions stored thereon which, when executed by the computing device, cause the computing device to perform operations for cryptocurrency abstraction using a cross-chain transfer protocol (CCTP) between a source chain network and a destination chain network, the operations comprising:
receiving a user operation that indicates a paymaster and that comprises an attestation; (See at least Kleniewski, [0004-0005]; [0009-0010]; [0021]; where a user operation (i.e., transfer/issuing transaction) that indicates a paymaster (i.e., transfer conditions) and comprises an attestation (i.e., successful verification of the annihilating of the at least one source token in the source blockchain).);
in response to the attestation; (See at least Kleniewski, [0021] may agree to the same form of data record providing a set of transfer conditions to be used for verifying a proper annihilation of tokens to be done by Alice in the source blockchain and for verifying a proper issuing of tokens to be done by the Bob in the target blockchain.)
triggering, by the paymaster, minting of a number of tokens of a cryptocurrency on a destination chain, the number of tokens corresponding to a number of tokens of the cryptocurrency burned on a source chain attested to by the attestation; (See at least Kleniewski, [0021-0022]; where is triggered minting (i.e., issued) of a number of tokens of a cryptocurrency (i.e., tokens) on a destination chain (i.e., target blockchain), the number of tokens corresponding to a number of tokens of the cryptocurrency burned on a source chain (i.e., A number of the tokens created by Bob may the same as the number of tokens to be annihilated by Alice) attested to by the attestation (i.e., verifying a proper annihilation of tokens).);
receiving, by the paymaster, the number of tokens of the cryptocurrency minted on the destination chain; and (See at least Kleniewski, [0022] tokens may be issued in the target blockchain by Bob.);
Kleniewski disclose transferring at least one source token of a source set of tokens from a source blockchain of a source blockchain network to a target blockchain of a target blockchain network and successful verification of the annihilating of the at least one source token in the source blockchain. (See Kleniewski, [0003-0005].
However, Kleniewski does not explicitly disclose; accounting, by the paymaster and using at least a portion of the number of tokens of the cryptocurrency, for computing resources expended on the destination chain to execute a transaction of the user operation.
Buterin, on the other hand teaches accounting, by the paymaster and using at least a portion of the number of tokens of the cryptocurrency, for computing resources expended on the destination chain to execute a transaction of the user operation. (See at least Buterin, p.12 “Extension: Paymasters”; // return the deposit of an account; // add to the deposit of the given account // withdraw from the deposit” functions; The paymaster must also have a deposit, which the entry point will charge UserOperation costs from. The deposit (for paying gas fees) is separate from the stake (which is locked).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kleniewski and include Buterin’s teachings in order to ensure that expenses/gas fees are reliably paid.
Regarding claims 2, 10 and 17: The combination of Kleniewski and Buterin disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1, the medium of claim 9 and the system of claim 16. The combination further disclose wherein a bundler retrieves the user operation from an alternative memory pool and provides the user operation to an entrypoint. (See at least Buterin, p. 3 Specification; Users send UserOperation objects to a dedicated user operation mempool. A specialized class of actors called bundlers (either block builders running special-purpose code, or users that can relay transactions to block builders e.g. through a bundle marketplace such as Flashbots that can guarantee next-block-or-never inclusion) listen in on the user operation mempool, and create bundle transactions. A bundle transaction packages up multiple UserOperation objects into a single handleOps call to a pre-published global entry point contract.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination and include Buterin’s teachings in order to ensure uniform validation and fee accounting.
Regarding claims 3, 11 and 18: The combination of Kleniewski and Buterin disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1, the medium of claim 9 and the system of claim 16. The combination further disclose wherein a cross-chain fee abstraction contract triggers burning of the number of tokens on the source chain based on a permit signature provided by a user that owns the number of tokens on the source chain. (See at least Kleniewski, [0026-0028] According to embodiments, the receiver approval comprises a receiver nonce signed with a receiver private cryptographic key assigned to the receiver. The signature with the receiver private cryptographic key is verifiable using a receiver public cryptographic key counterpart of the receiver private cryptographic key. Embodiments may have the beneficial effect of providing a cryptographically secure and efficiently verifiable approval.)
Regarding claims 7 and 15: The combination of Kleniewski and Buterin disclose the computer implemented method of claim 1 and the medium of claim 9. The combination further disclose comprising providing, by the paymaster, one or more tokens to a user account of a user on the destination chain. (See at least Kleniewski, [0021-0025] where one or more tokens (i.e., tokens) are provided to a user account on the destination chain (i.e., target blockchain).)
Regarding claim 8: The combination of Kleniewski and Buterin disclose the computer implemented method of claim 1. The combination further disclose wherein the paymaster triggers minting of the number of tokens of a cryptocurrency on the destination chain in response to a validate paymaster function called by an entrypoint. See at least Kleniewski, [0005]; [0010]; [0021-0022]; [0031]; where is triggered minting (i.e., issued) of a number of tokens of a cryptocurrency (i.e., tokens) on a destination chain (i.e., target blockchain) in response to a validate paymaster function (i.e., conditions) called by an entrypoint (i.e., request for transferring the at least one source token from the source blockchain network to the target blockchain network).)
Claims 4, 12, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kleniewski and Buterin as applied to claims 3, 11 and 18 above, and further in view of Kaplan et al. (US 2025/0069064 A1), hereinafter “Kaplan’064”.
Regarding claims 4, 12 and 19: The combination of Kleniewski and Buterin disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 3, the medium of claim 11 and the system of claim 18. However, the combination does not explicitly disclose; wherein the cross-chain fee abstraction contract transfers tokens of the cryptocurrency from an account of the user on the source chain to account for computing resources expended on the source chain.
Kaplan’064, on the other hand teaches wherein the cross-chain fee abstraction contract transfers tokens of the cryptocurrency from an account of the user on the source chain to account for computing resources expended on the source chain. (See at least Kaplan, Abs.; Fig. 4; [0046]; [0029]; [0091-0092] Periodically report the number of tokens burned in transaction fees to the external chain.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination and include Kaplan’064 teachings in order to In order to prevent the amount of unredeemable collateral held in token source contracts from continually growing over time. (Kaplan’064, [0029])
Claims 5-6, 13-14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kleniewski and Buterin as applied to claims 1, 9 and 16 above, and further in view of Kaplan et al. (US 2023/0026873 A1), hereinafter “Kaplan’873”.
Regarding claims 5, 13 and 20: The combination of Kleniewski and Buterin disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1, the medium of claim 9 and the system of claim 16. However, the combination does not explicitly disclose; wherein the attestation is generated by an attestation service in response to a message event provided from the source chain.
Kaplan’873, on the other hand teaches ; wherein the attestation is generated by an attestation service in response to a message event provided from the source chain. (See at least Kaplan’873, [0031]; [0046] attestation techniques to verify integrity of the enclave and any smart contracts being performed within the enclave. Since only the enclave, instead of a plurality of nodes, runs or executes smart contract transactions, it can become more feasible to have that enclave support transfers between different blockchains (e.g., networks). The enclave 110, when started up by the operator, can be verified using remote attestation to ensure that he right and secure code is being run by the right operator.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination and include Kaplan’873’s teachings in order to ensure to users that no entity has access to manipulate the bridge or assets that are being transferred across the bridge, except for the code itself running in the enclave. Secure transactions can be performed and the users can trust the enclave using the disclosed techniques. (See Kaplan’873, [0031])
Regarding claims 6 and 14: The combination of Kleniewski and Buterin disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1 and the medium of claim 9. The combination further disclose transmits the user operation to the alternative memory pool. (See at least Buterin, Simulation, Simulation rationale, Alternative Mempools; In order to add a UserOperation into the mempool (and later to add it into a bundle) we need to “simulate” its validation to make sure it is valid; These UserOperations can be bundled together with UserOperations from the main mempool; o prevent abuse, we throttle down (or completely ban for a period of time) an entity that causes invalidation of large number of UserOperations in the mempool.; debug_bundler_dumpMempool.)
However, the combination does not explicitly disclose wherein a user wallet of the user receives the attestation from an attestation service.
Kaplan’873, on the other hand teaches wherein a user wallet of the user receives the attestation from an attestation service. (See at least Kaplan’873, [0147]; [0026] In some implementations, a user or other entity at a client computing device can also initiate remote attestation. Accordingly, the enclave can validate instructions that cause the corresponding quantity of tokens in the bridge wallet on the first blockchain to be released back to the user wallet on the first blockchain. The enclave may manage one address on each of the blockchains that a bridge is built between. One address can therefore be used to identify the user's wallet on both blockchains. One address can also be used to identify the bridge's address on both blockchains. Using one address to identify the user's wallet on both blockchains can be advantageous to ensure that quantities of tokens or other assets are being transferred to the correct wallet.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination and include Kaplan’873’s teachings in order to increases security of the disclosed techniques and increases trust that the users may have in the disclosed technology. (See Kaplan’873, [0026]).
Response to Arguments
Claim Interpretation
Applicant argues that the phrase "for computing resources expended on the destination chain to execute a transaction of the user operation" is not properly interpreted as intended use. Examiner agrees in part. Specifically, Examiner agrees that the portion “for computing resources expended on the destination chain” is not intended use but rather limits the accounting step. However, the portion which recites, “to execute a transaction of the user operation” constitutes intended use/result language because it merely states the purpose or outcome of the accounting step without limiting how the step is performed.
Applicant argues that “none of claims 3, 4, 11, 12, 18, 19 recites nonfunctional descriptive material. More particularly, claims 3, 4, 11, 12, 18, 19 each recites functionality executed by a cross-chain fee abstraction contract”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to claims 3 and 4 (method claims), the claims do not recite any method steps that further limit the steps of claim 1. Regarding claims 11, 12, 18 and 19, Examiner contends that the description of a cross-chain fee abstraction contract is non-functional descriptive material because it describes a contract that is not part of the claimed storage medium and system.
Claim Objections
Applicant’s amendments has corrected the previous identified claim objection. Accordingly, the claim objection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections 35 USC § 112
Applicant argues that there is nothing in the instant application to even suggest that the paymaster, as being executed on the destination chain, is outside the scope of the non-transitory storage medium of either of claims 9 or 16 (Amendment pp. 9-10). Examiner respectfully disagrees. For example claims 9 recites that comprises “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium coupled to one or more processors…, the one or more processors to perform operations for cryptocurrency abstraction using a cross-chain transfer protocol (CCTP) between a source chain network and a destination chain network, the operations comprising…”. The claims further says “receiving a user operation that indicates a paymaster”. Therefore, is not clear if the user operation is received from an outside entity or from an entity within the system. Accordingly, steps attributed to the paymaster, are outside of the scope of the claims 9 and 16.
Claim Rejections 35 USC § 101
Applicant argues that the claims amount to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea and provided case law example. (Amendment pp. 10-17). Applicant is reminded that the Office has shifted its approach from the case-comparison approach in determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea and instead uses numerated groupings of abstract ideas. MPEP 2106.04(a). Examiner has used the MPEP to evaluate the instant claims, and has not, and will not, evaluate the claims based on individual case law. Furthermore, examiner was unable to find an improvement/solution in cryptocurrency networks or any technical field. For these reasons, and the reasons described above in the 101 section, the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C 101 are maintained.
Claim Rejections- 35 USC § 103
In response to the Applicant’s assertions that the office action mis-states what is actually recited in each of claims 1, 9, and 16 (i.e., receiving the paymaster in the user operation, and the paymaster for receiving attestation ...”). Amendment pp. 17-18. Examiner maintains that the prior art still applies to the claims limitations. The rejection has been updated to clarify the interpretation of the claim language and the manner in which prior art reads on the claims. Accordingly, the claims remain rejected under the same grounds of rejections.
Applicant argues that Kleniewski, however, fails to teach "triggering, by the paymaster, minting of a number of tokens of a cryptocurrency on a destination chain, the number of tokens corresponding to a number of tokens of the cryptocurrency burned on a source chain attested to by the attestation." Amendment pp. 19-20. Examiner respectfully disagrees. See Kleniewski, [0021-0022]where in response to the attestation (i.e., may agree to the same form of data record providing a set of transfer conditions to be used for verifying a proper annihilation of tokens to be done by Alice in the source blockchain and for verifying a proper issuing of tokens to be done by the Bob in the target blockchain) is triggered minting (i.e., issued) of a number of tokens of a cryptocurrency (i.e., tokens) on a destination chain (i.e., target blockchain), the number of tokens corresponding to a number of tokens of the cryptocurrency burned on a source chain (i.e., A number of the tokens created by Bob may the same as the number of tokens to be annihilated by Alice) attested to by the attestation (i.e., verifying a proper annihilation of tokens).).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KARLYANNIE M GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)272-6950. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 4:30-pm.
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.
/K.G.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/EDUARDO CASTILHO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3698