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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination. Applicant filed a response to a non-final Office action on 09/15/2025 amending claims 1-20. In light of Applicant’s amendments, Examiner has withdrawn the previous objection of claims 17-20; previous § 101 rejection of claims 1-20; and previous grounds of § 103 rejection of claims 1-20. Examiner has, however, established new objections for claims 9, 11-12, 14-17, and 19-20; new § 101 rejection for claims 1-20; and new grounds of § 103 rejection for claims 1-20 in the instant Office action. Since the new § 101 rejection and the new grounds of § 103 rejection were necessitated by Applicant’s amendments, the instant rejection of claims 1-20 is FINAL rejection of the claims.
Examiner’s Remarks
§ 101 Rejection: Applicant argues that instant claims 1-20 are patent eligible under § 101.
First, Applicant argues in pages 16-24 of Applicant’s Remarks:
Analysis Under Step 2A, Prong 2: The Claims Integrate the Alleged Judicial Exception into a Practical Application or Improvement to Technology
Amended independent claim 1 without markup is included above in the Amended Independent Claim 1 section, herein. Certain limitations are emphasized; at least these limitations recite at least the integration of generated audit trails as part of digital currency tokens, which are stored on the blockchain. Amended independent claim 1 further describes at least a first audit trail tracing a transaction chain of a first digital currency token as described, independently of any third-party intermediary server configured for signing or validating the first digital currency token. At least these limitations of amended independent claim 1 represent an integration of the alleged abstract idea into the practical application described above in excerpts from the Applicant's as-filed Specification. That is, similar to examples in MPEP 2106.04(d)(1), including but not limited to Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., TLI Communications, and Finjan Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, the recited features of amended independent claim 1 reflect a technical improvement in technology, including an improvement in computer capabilities [].
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Federal Circuit Court, in Electric Power Group, also distinguished the claims at issue from the claims in Enfish: “In Enfish, we applied the distinction to reject the § 101 challenge at stage one because the claims at issue focused not on asserted advances in uses to which existing computer capabilities could be put, but on specific improvement–a particular database technique–in how computers could carry out one of their basic functions of storage and retrieval of data. Enfish, 822 F.3d 1335-36 …The present case is different: the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools.” (8). This is similar to the instant claims 1-20 which focus on abstract idea of chaining transactions for fraud prevention using computer as a tool instead of improving computer as a tool. Thus, instant claims recite no technological improvement. Therefore, the instant claims 1-20 are not patent eligible under § 101 in view of Enfish.
Second, Applicant further argues in pages 24-27 of Applicant’s Remarks:
Analysis Under Step 2B: The Claims are not Well-Understood, Routine, or Conventional
Applicant respectfully submits even if certain elements of amended independent claim 1 are known, that amended independent claim 1 is eligible under Step 2B based on the Federal Circuit analysis in Bascom Global Intemet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC (Fed. Cir. 2016; "Bascom"). In Bascom (slip op., pages 15, 16), the Federal Circuit found that:
"As is the case here, an inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces. ... Filtering content on the Internet was already a known concept, and the patent describes how its particular arrangement of elements is a technical improvement over prior art ways of filtering such content. As explained earlier, prior art filters were either susceptible to hacking and dependent on local hardware and software, or confined to an inflexible one-size- fits-all scheme. BASCOM asserts that the inventors recognized there could be a filter implementation versatile enough that it could be adapted to many different users' preferences while also installed remotely in a single location. Thus, construed in favor of the nonmovant-BASCOM-the claims are 'more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].' Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357. Instead, the claims may be read to 'improve[ ] an existing technological process.' Id. at 2358 (discussing the claims in Diehr, 450 U.S. 175)." (Internal double-quotes converted to single-quotes.).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Federal Circuit Court, in Electric Power Group, distinguished the claims at issue from the claims in Bascom explaining: “Nor do the claims here require an arguably inventive distribution of functionality within a network, thus distinguishing the claims at issue from those in Bascom . . . The claims in this case specify what information in the power-grid field it is desirable to gather, analyze, and display, including in “real time”; but they do not include any requirement for performing the claimed functions of gathering, analyzing, and displaying in real time by use of anything but entirely conventional, generic technology.” (10-11). Similarly here, the instant claims 1-20 focus on gathering and analyzing information, but do not use anything besides entirely conventional and generic technology of a processor executing instructions stored in a memory. While the Federal Circuit Court in Bascom found non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the additional elements, no such non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the additional elements is present with the instant claims. Thus, the instant claims 1-20 are not patentable under § 101 in view of Bascom.
§ 103 Rejection: Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments directed to the previous grounds of § 103 rejection but finds them moot in view of Applicant’s amendment of independent claims 1, 9, and 17.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected because of informalities in the following recitation:
. . . the initial sending wallet or at least one intermediate wallet digitally appending an element of a digital credential of the initial sending wallet or the at least one intermediate wallet to each digital currency token of the one or more digital currency tokens and cryptographically signing each digital currency token of the one or more digital currency tokens prior to transferring the one or more digital currency tokens to the final receiving wallet, and
each digital currency token maintaining an audit trail of digital wallets that each digital currency token transacted through before being received by the final receiving wallet;
There should be definite article “the” in front of each bolded elements because both “at least one intermediate wallet” and “each digital currency token” have occurred in the claim before. Applicant could amend claim 9 to recite:
. . . the initial sending wallet or the at least one intermediate wallet digitally appending an element of a digital credential of the initial sending wallet or the at least one intermediate wallet to each digital currency token of the one or more digital currency tokens and cryptographically signing the each digital currency token of the one or more digital currency tokens prior to transferring the one or more digital currency tokens to the final receiving wallet, and
the each digital currency token maintaining an audit trail of digital wallets that the each digital currency token transacted through before being received by the final receiving wallet;
Claim 11 is objected because of informality in the following recitation:
. . . wherein the audit trail associated with each digital currency token of the one or more digital currency tokens is encrypted and attached to the digital currency token.
There should be definite article “the” in front of “each digital currency token” because it has occurred in the claims before. Applicant could amend claim 11 to recite:
. . . wherein the audit trail associated with the each digital currency token of the one or more digital currency tokens is encrypted and attached to the digital currency token.
Claim 12 is objected because of informality in the following recitation:
. . . wherein an encryption key used to encrypt the audit trail associated with each digital currency token of the one ore more digital currency tokens is issued by one or more issuer servers.
There should be definite article “the” in front of “each digital currency token” and the word “ore” should be “or.” Applicant could amend claim 12 to recite:
. . . wherein an encryption key used to encrypt the audit trail associated with the each digital currency token of the one or[[e]] more digital currency tokens is issued by one or more issuer servers.
Claim 14 is objected because of informality in the following recitation:
. . . wherein a decryption key for decrypting the encrypted audit trail associated with each digital currency token of the one or more digital currency tokens is encrypted with encryption keys of at least one audit trail decryption key holder.
There should be definite article “the” in front of “each digital currency token” because it has occurred in the claims before. Applicant could amend claim 14 to recite:
. . . wherein a decryption key for decrypting the encrypted audit trail associated with the each digital currency token of the one or more digital currency tokens is encrypted with encryption keys of at least one audit trail decryption key holder.
Claim 15 is objected because of informality in the following recitation:
. . . wherein the audit trail associated with each digital currency token of the one or more digital currency tokens is stored multiple times with each associated digital currency token, wherein each copy of the audit trail associated with each digital currency token of the one or more digital currency tokens is encrypted with one or more audit trail encryption keys.
There should be definite article “the” in front of both bolded instances of “each digital currency token” because it has occurred in the claims before. Applicant could amend claim 15 to recite:
. . . . . wherein the audit trail associated with the each digital currency token of the one or more digital currency tokens is stored multiple times with each associated digital currency token, wherein each copy of the audit trail associated with the each digital currency token of the one or more digital currency tokens is encrypted with one or more audit trail encryption keys.
Claim 16 is objected because of informality in the following recitation:
. . . wherein the audit trail associated with each digital currency token of the one or more digital currency tokens is stored in a different blockchain.
There should be definite article “the” in front of “each digital currency token” because it has occurred in the claims before. Applicant could amend claim 16 to recite:
. . . wherein the audit trail associated with the each digital currency token of the one or more digital currency tokens is stored in a different blockchain.
Claim 17 is objected because of informality in the following recitation:
the initial sending wallet or at least one intermediate wallet digitally appending an element of a digital credential of the initial sending wallet or the at least one intermediate wallet to each digital currency token of the one or more digital currency tokens and cryptographically signing each digital currency token of the one or more digital currency tokens prior to transferring the one or more digital currency tokens to the final receiving wallet, and
each digital currency token maintaining an audit trail of digital wallets that each digital currency token transacted through before being received by the final receiving wallet;
There should be definite article “the” in front of both bolded instances of “each digital currency token” because it has occurred in the claim before. Applicant could amend claim 17 to recite:
the initial sending wallet or at least one intermediate wallet digitally appending an element of a digital credential of the initial sending wallet or the at least one intermediate wallet to each digital currency token of the one or more digital currency tokens and cryptographically signing the each digital currency token of the one or more digital currency tokens prior to transferring the one or more digital currency tokens to the final receiving wallet, and
each digital currency token maintaining an audit trail of digital wallets that the each digital currency token transacted through before being received by the final receiving wallet;
Claim 19 is objected because of informality in the following recitation:
. . . wherein the audit trail associated with each digital currency token of the one or more digital currency tokens is encrypted and attached to the digital currency token.
There should be definite article “the” in front of “each digital currency token” because it has occurred in the claims before. Applicant could amend claim 19 to recite:
. . . . . wherein the audit trail associated with the each digital currency token of the one or more digital currency tokens is encrypted and attached to the digital currency token.
Claim 20 is objected because of informality in the following recitation:
. . . wherein the audit trail associated with each digital currency token of the one or more digital currency tokens is stored in a different blockchain.
There should be definite article “the” in front of “each digital currency token” because it has occurred in the claim before. Applicant could amend claim 11 to recite:
. . . wherein the audit trail associated with the each digital currency token of the one or more digital currency tokens is stored in a different blockchain.
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 USC § 101 because they are directed to non-statutory subject matter. The rationale for this finding is explained below.
The Supreme Court in Mayo laid out a framework for determining whether an applicant is seeking to patent a judicial exception itself or a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception. See Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355,110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961). This framework, which is referred to as the Mayo test or the Alice/Mayo test (“the test”), is described in detail in Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (”MPEP”) (see MPEP § 2106(III) for further guidance). The step 1 of the test: It need to be determined whether the claims are directed to a patent eligible (i.e., statutory) subject matter under 35 USC § 101. Step 2A of the test: If the claims are found to be directed to a statutory subject matter, the next step is to determine whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea (Prong 1). If the claims are found to be directed to an abstract idea, it needs to be determined whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong 2). Step 2B of the test: If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the next and final step is to determine whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1 of the Test:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 USC § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Here, the claimed invention of claims 1-8 is a system and, thus, one of the statutory categories of invention. Further, the claimed invention of claims 9-16 is a series of steps, which is method (i.e., a process), which is also one of the statutory categories of invention. Still further, the claimed invention of claims 17-20 is a non-transitory computer-readable medium, which is also one of the statutory categories of invention.
Conclusion of Step 1 Analysis: Therefore, claims 1-20 are statutory under 35 USC § 101 in view of step 1 of the test.
Step 2A of the Test:
Prong 1: Claims 1-20, however, recite an abstract idea of chaining transactions for fraud prevention. The creation of chaining transactions for fraud prevention, as recited in the independent claims 1, 9, and 17, belongs to certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., fundamental economic principles or practices including mitigating risk) that are found by the courts to be abstract ideas. The limitations in independent claims 1, 9, and 17, which set forth or describe the recited abstract idea, are found in the following steps:
“based at least on analyzing the first audit trail, detect wallet cloning or value manipulation in the first digital currency token associated with the first transaction” (claim 1);
“based on detecting the wallet cloning or value manipulation, designate the first transaction as the fraud transaction” (claim 1);
“generating one or more audit trails associated with a chain of transactions to transfer digital currency from an initial sending wallet via at least one intermediate wallet to a final receiving wallet on a blockchain, the digital currency being divided into one or more digital currency tokens, the one or more digital currency tokens including a first digital currency token associated with a first transaction of the chain of transactions and having a first audit trail of the generated one or more audit trails, the initial sending wallet or at least one intermediate wallet digitally appending an element of a digital credential of the initial sending wallet or the at least one intermediate wallet to each digital currency token of the one or more digital currency tokens and cryptographically signing each digital currency token of the one or more digital currency tokens prior to transferring the one or more digital currency tokens to the final receiving wallet, and each digital currency token maintaining an audit trail of digital wallets that each digital currency token transacted through before being received by the final receiving wallet” (claims 9 and 17);
“based at least on analyzing the first audit trail, detecting wallet cloning or value manipulation in the first digital currency token associated with the first transaction” (claims 9 and 17); and
“based on detecting the wallet cloning or value manipulation, designating the first transaction as the fraud transaction” (claims 9 and 17).
Prong 2: In addition to abstract steps recited above in Prong 1, independent claims 1 and 17 recite additional elements (note: claim 9 does not recite additional elements):
“a processor” (claim 1);
“a memory storing instructions that are operative upon execution by the processor” (claim 1);
“a computer storage medium storing computer-executable instructions” (claim 17); and
“a processor” (claim 17).
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Also, following additional limitations recite insignificant extra solution activity (for example, data gathering):
“receive a request to identify whether a chain of transactions to transfer digital currency from an initial sending wallet via at least one intermediate wallet to a final receiving wallet on a blockchain is the fraud transaction, the digital currency comprising a first digital currency token associated with a first transaction and having a first audit trail” (claim 1);
“retrieve the first audit trail associated with the first digital currency token associated with the first transaction, the first transaction being a part of the chain of transactions and associated with the first digital currency token, the first audit trail being a part of the first digital currency token stored on the blockchain, and the first audit trail tracing, independently of a third-party intermediary server configured to validate or sign the first digital currency token, a transaction chain of the first digital currency token comprising at least: the initial sending wallet, the at least one intermediate wallet through which the first digital currency token traveled before being received by the final receiving wallet, and the final receiving wallet” (claim 1);
“receiving a request to identify whether the first transaction is a fraud transaction” (claims 9 and 17); and
“in response to receiving the request: retrieving the first audit trail associated with the first digital currency token associated with the first transaction, the first audit trail being a part of the first digital currency token stored on the blockchain, and the first audit trail tracing, independently of a third-party intermediary server configured to validate or sign the first digital currency token, a transaction chain of the first digital currency token comprising at least the initial sending wallet, the at least one intermediate wallet through which the first digital currency token traveled before being received by the final receiving wallet, and the final receiving wallet” (claims 9 and 17).
These additional elements/limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The additional limitations of independent claims 1, 9, and17, here do not render improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), nor do they integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under MPEP § 2106.05(b) (particular machine); MPEP § 2106.05(c) (particular transformations); or MPEP § 2106.05(e) (other meaningful limitations). Further, the combination of these additional elements/limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements/ limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Conclusion of Step 2A Analysis: Therefore, independent claims 1, 9, and 17, are non-statutory under 35 USC § 101 in view of step 2A of the test.
Step 2B of the Test: The additional elements of independent claims 1 and 17 (see above under Step 2A - Prong 2 are individually well-understood, routine, and conventional elements that amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The Applicant’s Specification describes these additional elements in following terms:
[0048] The present disclosure is operable with a computing apparatus according to an embodiment as a functional block diagram 600 in FIG. 6. In an example, components of a computing apparatus 618 are implemented as a part of an electronic device according to one or more embodiments described in this specification. The computing apparatus 618 comprises one or more processors 619 which may be microprocessors, controllers, or any other suitable type of processors for processing computer executable instructions to control the operation of the electronic device. Alternatively, or in addition, the processor 619 is any technology capable of executing logic or instructions, such as a hard-coded machine. In some examples, platform software comprising an operating system 620 or any other suitable platform software is provided on the apparatus 618 to enable application software 621 to be executed on the device. In some examples, detecting fraud transactions in peer-to-peer payments without an intermediary as described herein is accomplished by software, hardware, and/or firmware.
[0049] In some examples, computer executable instructions are provided using any computer-readable media that is accessible by the computing apparatus 618. Computer-readable media include, for example, computer storage media such as a memory 622 and communications media. Computer storage media, such as a memory 622, include volatile and non-volatile, removable, and non-removable media implemented in any method or technology for storage of information such as computer readable instructions, data structures, program modules or the like. Computer storage media include, but are not limited to, Random Access Memory (RAM), Read-Only Memory (ROM), Erasable Programmable Read-Only Memory (EPROM), Electrically Erasable Programmable Read-Only Memory (EEPROM), persistent memory, phase change memory, flash memory or other memory technology, Compact Disk Read-Only Memory (CD-ROM), digital versatile disks (DVD) or other optical storage, magnetic cassettes, magnetic tape, magnetic disk storage, shingled disk storage or other magnetic storage devices, or any other non-transmission medium that can be used to store information for access by a computing apparatus. In contrast, communication media may embody computer readable instructions, data structures, program modules, or the like in a modulated data signal, such as a carrier wave, or other transport mechanism. As defined herein, computer storage media does not include communication media. Therefore, a computer storage medium does not include a propagating signal. Propagated signals per se are not examples of computer storage media. Although the computer storage medium (the memory 622) is shown within the computing apparatus 618, it will be appreciated by a person skilled in the art, that, in some examples, the storage is distributed or located remotely and accessed via a network or other communication link (e.g., using a communication interface 623).
This is a description of general-purpose computer. Further, the additional limitations of “receiving” and “retrieving” information amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. For the same reason these limitations are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. The additional limitations of “receiving” and “retrieving” information were considered insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A - Prong 2. Re-evaluating here in Step 2B, they are also determined to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. Similarly to OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network), and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network), the additional elements of independent claims 1, 9, and 17, receive or transmit data over a network in a merely generic manner. Further, similarly to Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, the additional elements of independent claims 1, 9, and 17, retrieve information. The courts have recognized “receiving” and “retrieving” information functions as well-understood, routine and conventional when claimed in a merely generic manner. Therefore, the additional elements/ limitations of independent claims 1, 9, and 17, are well-understood, routine, and conventional. Further, taken as combination, the additional elements/limitations add nothing more than what is present when the additional elements/limitations are considered individually. There is no indication that the combination provides any effect regarding the functioning of the computer or any improvement to another technology.
Conclusion of Step 2B Analysis: Therefore, independent claims 1, 9, and 17, are non-statutory under 35 USC § 101 in view of step 2B of the test.
Dependent Claims: Dependent claims 2-8 depend on independent claim 1; dependent claims 10-16 depend on independent claim 9; and dependent claims 18-20 depend on independent claim 17. The elements in dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20, which set forth or describe the abstract idea, are:
“analyzing the first audit trail comprises: analyzing token value manipulation in the first digital currency token, analyzing whether the first digital currency token is a clone of a second digital currency token, or analyzing whether the first digital currency token is a counterfeit token” (claims 2, 10, and 18: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the first audit trail is encrypted and attached to the first digital currency token” (claims 3, 11, and 19: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“an encryption key used to encrypt the first audit trail is issued by one or more issuer servers” (claims 4 and 2: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the first audit trail is encrypted multiple times using at least two encryption keys” (claims 5 and 13: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“a decryption key for decrypting the encrypted audit trail is encrypted with encryption keys of at least one audit trail decryption key holder” (claims 6 and 14: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the first audit trail is stored multiple times with the first digital currency token, wherein each copy of the first audit trail is encrypted with one or more audit trail encryption keys” (claims 7 and 15: further narrowing the recited abstract idea); and
“prior to receiving the request to identify the fraud transaction, the initial sending wallet or the at least one intermediate wallet: generating the first audit trail; and storing the first audit trail as the part of the first digital currency token” (claims 8, 16, and 20: further narrowing the recited abstract idea).
Conclusion of Dependent Claims Analysis: Dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20, do not correct the deficiencies of independent claims 1, 9, and 17, and they are, thus, rejected on the same basis.
Conclusion of the 35 USC § 101 Analysis: Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected as directed to an abstract idea without “significantly more” under 35 USC § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 § 102 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mu (CN 115471227 A) in view of Mallela (US 2019/0385157 A1).
As to independent claims 1, 9, and 17
Mu shows:
a processor, and a computer storage medium storing instructions that are operative upon execution by the processor (Mu: page 4 - disclosing: “[A]n electronic device, comprising: a processor, a memory and a computer program stored on the memory and capable of running on the processor, when the computer program is executed by the processor, realizing the step of a digital currency transaction method.”) to:
receive a request to identify whether a chain of transactions to transfer digital currency from an initial sending wallet to a final receiving wallet on a blockchain is the fraud transaction, the digital currency comprising a first digital currency associated with a first transaction and having a first audit trail (Mu: page 2 - disclosing: “[I]n the process of using the first digital currency wallet for digital currency transaction, determining a second digital currency wallet for auditing current transaction service; sending the information to be audited for the current transaction service to the second digital currency wallet, and obtaining the auditing result; according to the auditing result, determining whether to pay the transaction account corresponding to the current transaction service.”; and page 9: “[A]fter the first digital currency wallet passes through and signature, the transaction information of the current transaction service and all the signature information (including the signature of the first digital currency wallet for two times, and/or the signature of all the second digital currency wallet) to each second digital currency wallet for storage, or uploading to the private chain of the block chain for storing as stub.”);
retrieve the first audit trail associated with the first digital currency token associated with the first transaction, the first transaction being a part of the chain of transactions and associated with the first digital currency token, the first audit trail being a part of the first digital currency stored on the blockchain, and the first audit trail tracing, independently of a third-party intermediary server configured to validate or sign the first digital currency token, a transaction chain of the first digital currency (Mu: page 2 - disclosing: “[S]ending the information to be audited for the current transaction service to the second digital currency wallet.”; and page 9: “[A]fter the first digital currency wallet passes through and signature, the transaction information of the current transaction service and all the signature information (including the signature of the first digital currency wallet for two times, and/or the signature of all the second digital currency wallet) to each second digital currency wallet for storage, or uploading to the private chain of the block chain for storing as stub.”);
based at least on analyzing the first audit trail, detect wallet cloning or value manipulation in the first digital currency token associated with the first transaction (Mu: page 2 - disclosing: “[A]ccording to the auditing result, determining whether to pay the transaction account corresponding to the current transaction service.”); and
based on detecting the fraud, designate the first transaction as the fraud transaction (Mu: page 3 - disclosing: “[I]f one of the second digital currency wallet verification is not passed, and/or, wherein one of the second digital currency wallet signature is failed, generating a transaction failure message for the current transaction service, and sending the transaction failure message to the second digital currency wallet.”).
Mu does not show:
transfer digital currency from an initial sending wallet via at least one intermediate wallet to a final receiving wallet;
a transaction chain of the first digital currency token comprising at least: the initial sending wallet, the at least one intermediate wallet through which the first digital currency token traveled before being received by the final receiving wallet, and the final receiving wallet; and
the digital currency comprising a first digital currency token associated with a first transaction.
Mallela shows:
transfer digital currency from an initial sending wallet via at least one intermediate wallet to a final receiving wallet (Mallela: page 1, ¶ 4);
a transaction chain of the first digital currency token comprising at least: the initial sending wallet, the at least one intermediate wallet through which the first digital currency token traveled before being received by the final receiving wallet, and the final receiving wallet (Mallela: page 1, ¶ 4); and
the digital currency comprising a first digital currency token associated with a first transaction (Mallela: page 1, ¶ 4).
Motivation to combine Mu and Mallela:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, the method, and the non-transitory computer readable medium of Mu by transferring digital currency from an initial sending wallet via at least one intermediate wallet to a final receiving wallet; a transaction chain of the first digital currency token comprising at least: the initial sending wallet, the at least one intermediate wallet through which the first digital currency token traveled before being received by the final receiving wallet, and the final receiving wallet; and the digital currency comprising a first digital currency token associated with a first transaction of Mallela in order to mitigate risk (Mallela: page 1, ¶ 3).
As to claims 3, 11, and 19: Mu in view of Mallela shows all the elements of claims 1, 9, and 17. Mu also shows that the first audit trail is encrypted and attached to the first digital currency token (Mu: page 3 - disclosing: “[T]he queue verification information comprises the signature information of each second digital currency wallet; wherein the signature information of the nth second digital currency wallet is a preset hash algorithm, the signature information of the n1 second digital currency wallet before the information to be audited and the nth second digital currency wallet is carried out the hash operation, and the hash result obtained by the operation is generated by encrypting the private key.”).
As to claims 4 and 12: Mu in view of Mallela shows all the elements of claims 3 and 11.
Mu also shows that an encryption key used to encrypt the first audit trail is issued by one or more issuer servers (Mu: page 3 - disclosing: “[T]he queue verification information comprises the signature information of each second digital currency wallet; wherein the signature information of the n-th second digital currency wallet is a preset hash algorithm, the signature information of the n-1 second digital currency wallet before the information to be audited and the nth second digital currency wallet is carried out the hash operation, and the hash result obtained by the operation is generated by encrypting the private key.”).
As to claims 5 and 13: Mu in view of Mallela shows all the elements of claims 3 and 11.
Mu also shows that the first audit trail is encrypted multiple times using at least two encryption keys (Mu: page 3 - disclosing: “[T]he queue verification information comprises the signature information of each second digital currency wallet; wherein the signature information of the nth second digital currency wallet is a preset hash algorithm, the signature information of the n1 second digital currency wallet before the information to be audited and the nth second digital currency wallet is carried out the hash operation, and the hash result obtained by the operation is generated by encrypting the private key.”).
As to claims 6 and 14: Mu in view of Mallela shows all the elements of claims 3 and 11. Mu also shows that a decryption key for decrypting the encrypted audit trail is encrypted with encryption keys of at least one audit trail decryption key holder (Mu: page 3 - disclosing: “[U]sing the public key of each second digital currency wallet to decrypt the signature information of each second digital currency wallet.”).
As to claims 7 and 15: Mu in view of Mallela shows all the elements of claims 1 and 9. Mu also shows that the first audit trail is stored multiple times with the first digital currency token, wherein each copy of the first audit trail is encrypted with one or more audit trail encryption keys (Mu: page 3 - disclosing: “[T]he queue verification information comprises the signature information of each second digital currency wallet; wherein the signature information of the n-th second digital currency wallet is a preset hash algorithm, the signature information of the n-1 second digital currency wallet before the information to be audited and the nth second digital currency wallet is carried out the hash operation, and the hash result obtained by the operation is generated by encrypting the private key.”).
As to claims 8, 16, and 20: Mu in view of Mallela shows all the elements of claims 1, 9, and 17. Mu also shows that prior to receiving the request to identify the fraud transaction, the initial sending wallet or the at least one intermediate wallet: generating the first audit trail; and storing the first audit trail as the part of the first digital currency token (Mu: page 9 - disclosing: “[A]fter the first digital currency wallet passes through and signature, the transaction information of the current transaction service and all the signature information (including the signature of the first digital currency wallet for two times, and/or the signature of all the second digital currency wallet) to each second digital currency wallet for storage, or uploading to the private chain of the block chain for storing as stub.”).
Claims 2, 10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mu in view of Mallela, and further in view of Jacobson (US 2023/0086191 A1)
As to claims 2, 10, and 18: Mu in view of Mallela shows all the elements of claims 1, 9, and 17. Mu in view of Mallela does not show that analyzing the first audit trail comprises: analyzing token value manipulation in the first digital currency token, analyzing whether the first digital currency token is a clone of a second digital currency token, or analyzing whether the first digital currency token is a counterfeit token. Jacobson shows that analyzing the first audit trail comprises: analyzing token value manipulation in the first digital currency token, analyzing whether the first digital currency token is a clone of a second digital currency token, or analyzing whether the first digital currency token is a counterfeit token (Jacobson: page 39, ¶ 392). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, the method, and the non-transitory computer readable medium of Mu in view of Mallela by analyzing the first audit trail comprises: analyzing token value manipulation in the first digital currency token, analyzing whether the first digital currency token is a clone of a second digital currency token, or analyzing whether the first digital currency token is a counterfeit token of Jacobson in order to provide digital rights management for content associated with tokens in a distributed computing environment (Jacobson: page 3, ¶ 52).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dao (US 2020/0193431 A1) discloses: “Systems and methods for wallet, token, and transaction management using distributed ledgers are disclosed. According to one embodiment, in node of a distributed ledger network comprising an information processing apparatus having at least one computer processor, a method for card or token parameter management using a distributed ledger may include: (1) receiving, from an electronic wallet, a token state change for a payment token associated with electronic wallet, wherein the token state change is encrypted with a public key associated with the electronic wallet; (2) validating the encrypted token state change; and (3) committing the encrypted token state change to a distributed ledger.”
Chen (CN 113570364 A) discloses: “The method involves determining (101) a second digital currency wallet for reviewing current transaction services in the process of using a first digital currency wallet for digital currency transactions. The pending review information for the current transaction business is sent (102) to the second digital currency wallet, and review result is obtained. A determination (103) is made to check whether to perform payment delivery to the transaction account corresponding to the current transaction business according to the review result. The transaction amount of the current transaction business is obtained. A determination is made that the current transaction business is a transaction business that needs to be reviewed when the transaction amount is greater than the preset transaction amount threshold.”
E. M. S. W. Balagolla, W. P. C. Fernando, R. M. N. S. Rathnayake, M. J. M. R. P. Wijesekera, A. N. Senarathne and K. Y. Abeywardhana, "Credit Card Fraud Prevention Using Blockchain," 2021 6th International Conference for Convergence in Technology (I2CT), Maharashtra, India, 2021, pp. 1-8.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIRPI H. KANERVO whose telephone number is 571-272-9818. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 10 am – 6 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Abhishek Vyas can be reached on 571-270-1836. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/VIRPI H KANERVO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691