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 .
DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Acknowledgements
The Amendment of claims 1-2, 7, 12, 14 and 16, filed on 11/24/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim 6, is cancelled, therefore
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are hereby examined.
Examiner’s Response to Amendment/Remarks
35 USC § 112
The amendment to claims 7 and 8 has rendered these claims indefinite as they depend on canceled claim 6. Applicant is advised by the Examiner to address the dependency of these claims appropriately.
35 USC § 102
The Applicant’s amendment/remarks filed on 11/24/2025 is acknowledged and Examiner has found the argument persuasive. The argument is summarily based on the newly added limitation of :
Claim 1 “… wherein the set of contract blueprints is stored in a blockchain
protocol for the blockchain;” and
Claim 12 “…wherein the set of contract blueprints is stored in a blockchain protocol for the cryptographic network;", see page 7 of 10 of the response.
Upon further search consideration, Examiner is introducing a new prior art Borne-Pons et al., (US Pat. 10250394 B1) to teach this newly added limitations as disclosed below. Therefore, the 102 rejection has now become an obviousness rejection, a 103 rejection, as disclosed below.
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.
Claims 7 and 8 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.
Claims 7 and 8 recites “The blockchain system of claim 6…”, but claim 6 is presently canceled, thereby rendering claims 7 and 8, indeterminate. Therefore, the scope of these claims, 7 and 8, is unclear, as they cannot depend on a canceled claim.
U.S.C. § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 7 and 8 recites “The blockchain system of claim 6…”, but claim 6 is presently canceled. This is not proper, because a claim cannot depend on a canceled claim. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 5 and 7-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borne-Pons et al., (US Pat. 10250394 B1) in view of Brenton John Gunning (US Pat. 11398911 B1 ).
With respect to claims 1 and 12, Borne-Pons teaches a blockchain system {see at least c1:18-19}, comprising:
Claim 1
a set of contract blueprints, each comprising a set of attributes and a set of methods. wherein the set of contract blueprints is stored in a blockchain protocol for the blockchain; and {see at least col 1 lines 56-57 “A distributed ledger technology (DLT) may apply an agreed upon protocol for interaction with a blockchain”, and also col 12 lines 13-21 “The smart contract factory 802 (i.e., contract blueprint) may generate the interoperability smart contract 304 tailored with logic, instruction, parameters, and other information that is compliant with a particular DLT or multiple DLTs. … The DLT repository 804 may include various 30 sets of logic, rules, criteria, and/or parameters that are compliant with the respective DLTs. (i.e., the contract blueprints are stored within the agreed upon rules for interacting with a blockchain, in other words, a “blockchain protocol”}.
a set of contracts on a blockchain ledger, wherein each contract comprises an instance of a contract blueprint, wherein executing a method of a contract comprises: {see at least col 12 lines 13–39 “The smart contract factory 802 (i.e., contract blueprint) may generate the interoperability smart contract 304 tailored with logic, instruction, parameters, and other information that is compliant with a particular DLT or multiple DLTs … The smart contract factory may further include an interoperability smart contract (ESC) generator 806. The ESC generator 806 may access the DLT repository 804 to generate custom tailored interoperability smart contracts”}.
Borne-Pons does not explicitly disclose receiving a cryptographic transaction identifying the contract, the method, a set of input unspent transaction outputs (UTXOs), and a set of output UTXOs; and
validating the cryptographic transaction using the blockchain protocol, comprising:
determining logic for the method from the contract blueprint;
executing the logic; and
adding the validated cryptographic transaction to the blockchain ledger using the blockchain protocol
However, Gunning discloses receiving a cryptographic transaction identifying the contract, the method, a set of input unspent transaction outputs (UTXOs), and a set of output UTXOs {see at least col 8 line 64-col 9 line 40“…UTXO-based blockchains store their chainstate differently. FIG. 6 illustrates an example transaction on the UTXO-based blockchain according to some embodiments. Transactions in UTXO-based blockchains have inputs and outputs, which represent control over some particular data. In Bitcoin, that data would generally be coin amounts, but it could be other data too. A transaction spends outputs by including them as inputs, which effectively destroys them because they cannot be spent again. Spending an output requires proof of control over that output, such as a cryptographic signature, and this is used to own coins and other state in the system. For example, if Alice owns an output with 10 coins and she needs to pay Bob 8, she might create a transaction that spends her 10 coins as an input 602 and then generates two new outputs, one to Bob for 8 604, and another back to herself for 2 606. UTXOs stands for unspent transaction outputs, and refers to all of the outputs available to spend at the current time… The chainstate of the node is simply the set of unspent transaction outputs, or UTXOs, in the system. When a transaction is received by a node, the node removes the spent UTXOs from its chainstate and adds the new UTXOs created. Because users on UTXO-based blockchains do not have accounts, users use wallet software to manage the UTXOs they control and create new transactions…”, and also col 12 lines 1-14, col 14 lines 40-57 “FIG. 13 illustrates an example of many users 1302, 1304, 1306, 1308 interacting with shared smart contracts 1310 according to some embodiments. In this embodiment, a smart contract in an account-based blockchain is an object stored on the blockchain that many different users call methods on to update. The code for the smart contract enforces what kinds of updates are possible. Nodes run the code for the smart contract and store its state in their node chainstate. Users call methods on smart contracts by sending transactions to nodes that include their authentication and the methods they wish to call. Generally, smart contract transactions include the following properties: Sender—The account address or public key performing the action Signature—Proof of the sender's identity Target—The target smart contract Action—Usually the method and arguments to call on the smart contract”}, and
validating the cryptographic transaction using the blockchain protocol, comprising: determining logic for the method from the contract blueprint {see at least col
14 lines 42-50 “…a smart contract in an account-based blockchain is an object stored on the blockchain that many different users call methods on to update. The code for the smart contract enforces what kinds of updates are possible. Nodes run the code for the smart contract and store its state in their node chainstate. Users call methods on smart contracts by sending transactions to nodes that include their authentication and the methods they wish to call”}.
executing the logic {see at least col 14 lines 42-50} and
adding the validated cryptographic transaction to the blockchain ledger using the blockchain protocol. {see at least col 14 lines 42-50, col 25 line 65-col 26 line 10 “FIG. 22 illustrates inputs, outputs, and validations for UTXO-based transactions according to some embodiments. UTXO-based transactions have inputs 2202 and outputs 2204. Outputs may be spent or unspent and when they are unspent, they are called UTXOs. Outputs usually store two properties: a number of unspent coins and an owner in the form of a public key or locking script. Inputs are references to previous outputs via their transaction ID (txid) and output index (vout), sometimes called an outpoint, and they also have some proof-of-ownership required to spend that output, usually in the form of a signature in an unlocking script. A very simple UTXO-based transaction then might be the following data structure…”}.
Therefore, 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 Borne-Pons to include the elements of Gunning. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to create a generally-programmable token system that is native to UTXO-based blockchains. Furthermore, Borne-Pons discloses a smart contract imbedded in the protocol of a blockchain. Gunning is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of creating a generally-programmable token system that is native to UTXO-based blockchains, in the same or similar context. Because both having a smart contract imbedded in the protocol of a blockchain, as well as creating a generally-programmable token system that is native to UTXO-based blockchains, are implemented through well-known computer technologies, would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Borne-Pons in view of Gunning 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
Borne-Pons/Gunning.
Claim 12 Borne-Pons discloses A smart contract management method, {see at least c1:18-19} comprising:
confirming the transaction, comprising:
executing a method, identified by the method identifier, of a smart contract identified by the smart contract address, wherein the smart contract comprises an instance of a smart contract blueprint from a set of contract blueprints, wherein the set of contract blueprints is stored in a blockchain protocol for the cryptographic network […] {see at least col 1 lines 56-57, col 12 lines 13–39 “The smart contract factory 802 (i.e., contract blueprint) may generate the interoperability smart contract 304 tailored with logic, instruction, parameters, and other information that is compliant with a particular DLT or multiple DLTs … The smart contract factory may further include an interoperability smart contract (ESC) generator 806. The ESC generator 806 may access the DLT repository 804 to generate custom tailored interoperability smart contracts”}.
Borne-Pons does not explicitly disclose confirming the transaction, comprising: […]
receiving a transaction broadcast to a cryptographic network, the transaction comprising a smart contract address, a method identifier, a set of input unspent transaction output (UTXO) identifiers, and a set of output utxo identifiers;
validating the set of input UTXOs; and
creating the set of output UTXOs on the cryptographic network;
However, Gunning discloses:
receiving a transaction broadcast to a cryptographic network, the transaction comprising a smart contract address, a method identifier, a set of input unspent transaction output (UTXO) identifiers, and a set of output utxo identifiers {see at least col 8 line 64-col 9 line 40, col 12 lines 1-14, col 14 line 40-col 15 line 29}, and
confirming the transaction, comprising: […]
changing a state of the smart contract based on the method execution {col 12 lines 1-14, col 14 lines 40-57}.
validating the set of input UTXOs {col 12 lines 1-14, col 14 lines 40-57}, and
creating the set of output UTXOs on the cryptographic network { col 14 line 40-col 15 line 29, col 25 line 65-col 26 line 10}.
Therefore, 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 Borne-Pons to include the elements of Gunning. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to create a generally-programmable token system that is native to UTXO-based blockchains. Furthermore, Borne-Pons discloses a smart contract imbedded in the protocol of a blockchain. Gunning is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of creating a generally-programmable token system that is native to UTXO-based blockchains, in the same or similar context. Because both having a smart contract imbedded in the protocol of a blockchain, as well as creating a generally-programmable token system that is native to UTXO-based blockchains, are implemented through well-known computer technologies, would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Borne-Pons in view of Gunning 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
Borne-Pons/Gunning.
With respect to claim 2, the combination of Borne-Pons in view of Gunning
teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 1 above.
Furthermore, Gunning discloses wherein validating the cryptographic transaction further comprises validating the set of input UTXOs and creating the set of output UTXOs using the blockchain protocol {see at least col 25 line 65-col 26 line 10 “FIG. 22 illustrates inputs, outputs, and validations for UTXO-based transactions according to some embodiments. UTXO-based transactions have inputs 2202 and outputs 2204. Outputs may be spent or unspent and when they are unspent, they are called UTXOs. Outputs usually store two properties: a number of unspent coins and an owner in the form of a public key or locking script. Inputs are references to previous outputs via their transaction ID (txid) and output index (vout), sometimes called an outpoint, and they also have some proof-of-ownership required to spend that output, usually in the form of a signature in an unlocking script. A very simple UTXO-based transaction then might be the following data structure…”}.
Therefore, 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 Borne-Pons to include the elements of Gunning. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to create a generally-programmable token system that is native to UTXO-based blockchains. Furthermore, Borne-Pons discloses a smart contract imbedded in the protocol of a blockchain. Gunning is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of creating a generally-programmable token system that is native to UTXO-based blockchains, in the same or similar context. Because both having a smart contract imbedded in the protocol of a blockchain, as well as creating a generally-programmable token system that is native to UTXO-based blockchains, are implemented through well-known computer technologies, would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Borne-Pons in view of Gunning 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
Borne-Pons/Gunning.
With respect to claim 3, the combination of Borne-Pons in view of Gunning
teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 1 above.
Furthermore, Gunning discloses wherein the identifier for the contract
comprises a UTXO address {col 14 lines 40-57, col 68 lines 6-18 “ … the blockchain has five methods: broadcast—broadcast that is passed a transaction and submits it to the corresponding blockchain. fetch—fetch is passed a transaction hash and returns the associated transaction if it exists. spends—that is passed a transaction hash and output index and returns the transaction hash of the transaction that spends the output specified. (optional) utxos—Returns the UTXOs for a particular owner in the form of an address, public key, locking script, or locking script hash…”}.
Therefore, 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 Borne-Pons to include the elements of Gunning. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to create a generally-programmable token system that is native to UTXO-based blockchains. Furthermore, Borne-Pons discloses a smart contract imbedded in the protocol of a blockchain. Gunning is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of creating a generally-programmable token system that is native to UTXO-based blockchains, in the same or similar context. Because both having a smart contract imbedded in the protocol of a blockchain, as well as creating a generally-programmable token system that is native to UTXO-based blockchains, are implemented through well-known computer technologies, would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Borne-Pons in view of Gunning 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
Borne-Pons/Gunning.
With respect to claim 5, the combination of Borne-Pons in view of Gunning
teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 1 above.
Furthermore, Gunning discloses, wherein executing the method of the contract
comprises, at each of a set of consensus nodes of the blockchain ledger:
• determining a contract state for the contract by executing the method; and
• arriving at consensus with a remainder of the set of consensus nodes on the contract state {see at least col 7 line 14-col 8 line 17 “FIG. 1 illustrates an example of a blockchain transaction by a user 101 via nodes 104A, 104B, 104C and the blockchain ledger 106A, 106B, 106C of the blockchain network according to some embodiments. A blockchain system is a distributed network of computers, also called nodes, running node software that allows them to interact together to produce a data structure called a blockchain. The blockchain, also called the ledger, is the record of transactions (or events) relevant to that system. The blockchain grows over time as new transactions are added to it… nodes on the network usually store a complete copy of the blockchain. Through a mechanism called consensus, they come to agree with other nodes about what this blockchain contains… Transactions are what cause the state of the system to change. Users create transactions and send them to nodes on the network, and nodes create blocks that include those transactions. Users may be individuals, applications, or services… Different blockchain systems have different rules for what is allowed in a transaction. For example, one rule is that in order to send coins, the current owner of them may prove ownership with a cryptographic signature. systems have different rules for what is allowed in a transaction. When a user sends a transaction to a node 302, the node may first determine if the transaction follows those rules. If it does, that node first inserts the transaction into its mempool 304, which is a local data structure containing transactions that are not yet in a block. Transactions that are not yet in blocks are called unconfirmed transactions 306A, 306B, 306C. Transactions in blocks are called confirmed transactions 308A, 308B… through a process called consensus, nodes agree on blocks to be added to the chain. In general, one of the nodes can produce the next block 308 and add it to its local blockchain 312 and then notify the other nodes about their new block. A consensus mechanism is used between other nodes to accept or reject that block. On proof-of-work blockchains like Bitcoin, the consensus mechanism involves mining a rare number but there are other possible consensus mechanisms. Once a transaction is in a block accepted by other nodes, that transaction is considered confirmed. Changing historical blocks after they have been confirmed becomes increasingly expensive, which in practice makes the blockchain immutable”}.
Therefore, 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 Borne-Pons to include the elements of Gunning. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to create a generally-programmable token system that is native to UTXO-based blockchains. Furthermore, Borne-Pons discloses a smart contract imbedded in the protocol of a blockchain. Gunning is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of creating a generally-programmable token system that is native to UTXO-based blockchains, in the same or similar context. Because both having a smart contract imbedded in the protocol of a blockchain, as well as creating a generally-programmable token system that is native to UTXO-based blockchains, are implemented through well-known computer technologies, would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Borne-Pons in view of Gunning 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
Borne-Pons/Gunning.
With respect to claims 7 and 16, the combination of Borne-Pons in view of
Gunning teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claims 6 and 15 above, respectively.
Furthermore, Gunning discloses, wherein the set of contract blueprints is stored by a client operating a node of the blockchain ledger wherein the node stores and executes the blockchain protocol {col 12 1-14 “Smart contract: A program stored and executed on a blockchain system that has both state (data) and behavior (code), and which any user of that blockchain system may interact with. The author of a smart contract writes code to determine which users may call the smart contract, what they may do, and how the data changes as a result. As an example, one popular smart contract on Ethereum is ERC-20. ERC-20 stores numerical balances of tokens for its users as data and contains behavior that allows users to send their tokens to other users. The term smart contract has other definitions too, but the preceding definition specifically describes an Ethereum-style smart contract, which is the most popular type today and is also the type referred to in this document”, and also Fig. 13 and 14 col 14 lines 40-57}.
Therefore, 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 Borne-Pons to include the elements of Gunning. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to create a generally-programmable token system that is native to UTXO-based blockchains. Furthermore, Borne-Pons discloses a smart contract imbedded in the protocol of a blockchain. Gunning is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of creating a generally-programmable token system that is native to UTXO-based blockchains, in the same or similar context. Because both having a smart contract imbedded in the protocol of a blockchain, as well as creating a generally-programmable token system that is native to UTXO-based blockchains, are implemented through well-known computer technologies, would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Borne-Pons in view of Gunning 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
Borne-Pons/Gunning.
With respect to claim 8, the combination of Borne-Pons in view of Gunning
teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 6 above.
Furthermore, Gunning discloses, wherein a blockchain node validates the cryptographic transaction, wherein the blockchain node determines the logic by retrieving the logic from the contract blueprint stored by the client {see at least Fig. 13 and 14 col 14 line 40-col 15 line 9}.
Therefore, 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 Borne-Pons to include the elements of Gunning. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to create a generally-programmable token system that is native to UTXO-based blockchains. Furthermore, Borne-Pons discloses a smart contract imbedded in the protocol of a blockchain. Gunning is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of creating a generally-programmable token system that is native to UTXO-based blockchains, in the same or similar context. Because both having a smart contract imbedded in the protocol of a blockchain, as well as creating a generally-programmable token system that is native to UTXO-based blockchains, are implemented through well-known computer technologies, would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Borne-Pons in view of Gunning 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
Borne-Pons/Gunning.
With respect to claim 9, the combination of Borne-Pons in view of Gunning
teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 1 above.
Furthermore, Gunning discloses, wherein a state of the contract is stored as part of a chain state of the blockchain ledge {see at least Fig. 13 and 14 col 14 line 40-col 15 line 9}.
Therefore, 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 Borne-Pons to include the elements of Gunning. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to create a generally-programmable token system that is native to UTXO-based blockchains. Furthermore, Borne-Pons discloses a smart contract imbedded in the protocol of a blockchain. Gunning is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of creating a generally-programmable token system that is native to UTXO-based blockchains, in the same or similar context. Because both having a smart contract imbedded in the protocol of a blockchain, as well as creating a generally-programmable token system that is native to UTXO-based blockchains, are implemented through well-known computer technologies, would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Borne-Pons in view of Gunning 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
Borne-Pons/Gunning.
With respect to claims 10 and 13, the combination of Borne-Pons in view of
Gunning teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claims 1 and 12 above,
respectively.
Furthermore, Gunning discloses, wherein executing the logic comprises updating
a balance of the contract, wherein the balance is stored by a set of nodes of the blockchain {see at least Fig. 13 and 14 col 15 line 1-16 “FIG. 14 illustrates an example smart contract 1402 that include objects with states 1404 and methods 1406 according to some embodiments. The most popular use case for smart contracts is to create and store fungible tokens. For example, a smart contract may store the numeric token balances for all its accounts and its methods may allow accounts to transfer tokens from one to another. The code for the smart contracts protects that only the owners of the tokens being sent may send those tokens…”}.
Therefore, 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 Borne-Pons to include the elements of Gunning. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to create a generally-programmable token system that is native to UTXO-based blockchains. Furthermore, Borne-Pons discloses a smart contract imbedded in the protocol of a blockchain. Gunning is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of creating a generally-programmable token system that is native to UTXO-based blockchains, in the same or similar context. Because both having a smart contract imbedded in the protocol of a blockchain, as well as creating a generally-programmable token system that is native to UTXO-based blockchains, are implemented through well-known computer technologies, would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Borne-Pons in view of Gunning 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
Borne-Pons/Gunning.
With respect to claim 11, the combination of Borne-Pons in view of Gunning
teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 1 above.
Furthermore, Gunning discloses, wherein at least one of the set of input UTXOs or the set of output UTXOs comprise custom tokens { col 12 line 42-col 43 line 13 “…One advantage of using an existing UTXO-based blockchain as a backbone for an auxiliary token system like colored coins is that the underlying blockchain can ensure various properties about the tokens including ownership and tracing that otherwise would otherwise need to be recreated in a separate blockchain for those tokens with likely less security…”}.
Therefore, 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 Borne-Pons to include the elements of Gunning. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to create a generally-programmable token system that is native to UTXO-based blockchains. Furthermore, Borne-Pons discloses a smart contract imbedded in the protocol of a blockchain. Gunning is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of creating a generally-programmable token system that is native to UTXO-based blockchains, in the same or similar context. Because both having a smart contract imbedded in the protocol of a blockchain, as well as creating a generally-programmable token system that is native to UTXO-based blockchains, are implemented through well-known computer technologies, would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Borne-Pons in view of Gunning 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
Borne-Pons/Gunning.
With respect to claim 14, the combination of Borne-Pons in view of Gunning
teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 12 above.
Furthermore, Gunning discloses, wherein the smart contract blueprint, comprises a set of blueprint methods, and wherein executing the method comprises executing a blueprint method from the smart contract blueprint that is identified by the method identifier {see at least col 14 lines 40-67 “…In some embodiments, this data may be encoded in various ways and may also include additional information like the nonce, the gas price, and more. The action may also be a special deploy action for when a smart contract is first being created. When a node receives a method call transaction, it runs the method on the smart contract which updates the contract's state. The code for the smart contract determines what methods may be called and how the object can change by calling those methods. Smart contracts may be programmed for many applications”}.
Therefore, 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 Borne-Pons to include the elements of Gunning. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to create a generally-programmable token system that is native to UTXO-based blockchains. Furthermore, Borne-Pons discloses a smart contract imbedded in the protocol of a blockchain. Gunning is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of creating a generally-programmable token system that is native to UTXO-based blockchains, in the same or similar context. Because both having a smart contract imbedded in the protocol of a blockchain, as well as creating a generally-programmable token system that is native to UTXO-based blockchains, are implemented through well-known computer technologies, would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Borne-Pons in view of Gunning 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
Borne-Pons/Gunning.
With respect to claim 15, the combination of Borne-Pons in view of Gunning
teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 14 above.
Furthermore, Gunning discloses, wherein the set of contract blueprints is stored off-chain {see at least Fig. 1 “nodes”, col 17 lines 16-20 “This reversal in thinking around digital assets, from top-down planning in smart contracts to bottom-up interactions through tokens, and a mixture between on-chain and off-chain logic to scale, is the general idea behind building with jigs}.
Therefore, 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 Borne-Pons to include the elements of Gunning. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to create a generally-programmable token system that is native to UTXO-based blockchains. Furthermore, Borne-Pons discloses a smart contract imbedded in the protocol of a blockchain. Gunning is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of creating a generally-programmable token system that is native to UTXO-based blockchains, in the same or similar context. Because both having a smart contract imbedded in the protocol of a blockchain, as well as creating a generally-programmable token system that is native to UTXO-based blockchains, are implemented through well-known computer technologies, would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Borne-Pons in view of Gunning 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
Borne-Pons/Gunning.
Claims 4 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borne-Pons et al., (US Pat. 10250394 B1) in view of Brenton John Gunning (US Pat. 11398911 B1 ), and further in view of Peter Geoffrey Hunn (US 20180005186 A1).
With respect to claims 4 and 17, the combination of Borne-Pons in view of
Gunning teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claims 1 and 12 above, respectively.
Furthermore, Gunning discloses wherein the blockchain ledger comprises […]
transactions, wherein the set of input UTXOs reference the output UTXOs of parent
transactions […] {see at least col 14 line 40-col 15 line 29, col 25 line 65-col 26 line 10}, but this transactions are not directed acyclic graph (DAG) transactions, however, Hunn discloses wherein the blockchain ledger comprises a directed acyclic graph (DAG) transaction {Fig. 2-5 and 7, ¶ 0067 “…Preferably, the object components are committed and/or compiled into a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) or a Merkle tree structure where hash links connect or establish associations of linked object components. In a preferred variation, the object components are formed into content-addressed object components with Merkle links as a form of Merkle Directed Acyclic Graph (MDAG). Use of an MDAG data structure may be particularly applicable in some variations. With respect to BDL applications, the MDAG structure can enable an end-to-end cryptographically secure environment between the contract and a blockchain/distributed ledger. In one implementation, assembling the COG comprises structuring the contract in a tree-like/hierarchical graph organized by object components corresponding to sections, clauses, and/or sub-clauses”}.
Therefore, 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 Borne-Pons in view of Gunning to include the elements of Hunn. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have a method for forming, storing, managing, and executing contracts using a graph structure (COG) in a blockchain. Furthermore, Borne-Pons discloses a smart contract imbedded in the protocol of a blockchain. Gunning discloses creating a generally-programmable token system that is native to UTXO-based blockchains. Hunn is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of having a method for forming, storing, managing, and executing contracts using a graph structure (COG) in a blockchain, in the same or similar context. Because both having a smart contract imbedded in the protocol of a blockchain, and creating a generally-programmable token system that is native to UTXO-based blockchains, as well as having a method for forming, storing, managing, and executing contracts using a graph structure (COG) in a blockchain, are implemented through well-known computer technologies, would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Borne-Pons in view of Gunning, and in view of Hunn 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
Borne-Pons/Gunning/Hunn.
With respect to claim 18, the combination of Borne-Pons in view of Gunning, and
in view of Hunn teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 17 above.
Furthermore, Hunn discloses wherein the contract is created by a second transaction within the DAG of transactions {Fig. 2-5 and 7, ¶ 0067}.
Therefore, 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 Borne-Pons in view of Gunning to include the elements of Hunn. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have a method for forming, storing, managing, and executing contracts using a graph structure (COG) in a blockchain. Furthermore, Borne-Pons discloses a smart contract imbedded in the protocol of a blockchain. Gunning discloses creating a generally-programmable token system that is native to UTXO-based blockchains. Hunn is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of having a method for forming, storing, managing, and executing contracts using a graph structure (COG) in a blockchain, in the same or similar context. Because both having a smart contract imbedded in the protocol of a blockchain, and creating a generally-programmable token system that is native to UTXO-based blockchains, as well as having a method for forming, storing, managing, and executing contracts using a graph structure (COG) in a blockchain, are implemented through well-known computer technologies, would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Borne-Pons in view of Gunning, and in view of Hunn 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 Borne-Pons/Gunning/Hunn.
With respect to claim 19, the combination of Borne-Pons in view of Gunning, and
in view of Hunn teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 17 above.
Furthermore, Hunn discloses wherein a transaction in the DAG of transactions references a set of unspent transaction outputs (UTXOs) output by a set of parent transactions in the DAG of transactions {Fig, 11, 24A & B, ¶¶ 0067, 0296 “Any suitable BDL protocol or implementation may be used for the object ledger (with any suitable consensus mechanism/algorithm or without a consensus mechanism/algorithm); which may depend upon, or be informed by, the type and application for which the contract is to be used. Certain protocols or implementations may be better suited to a given type of contract. BDLs may be permissioned, private, public, use an Unspent Transaction Output (‘UTXO’) model and/or an ‘account’ model, a separate Merkle DAG structure as
shown in FIG. 11, and/or any other appropriate form, and also ¶ 0297}.
Therefore, 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 Borne-Pons in view of Gunning to include the elements of Hunn. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have a method for forming, storing, managing, and executing contracts using a graph structure (COG) in a blockchain. Furthermore, Borne-Pons discloses a smart contract imbedded in the protocol of a blockchain. Gunning discloses creating a generally-programmable token system that is native to UTXO-based blockchains. Hunn is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of having a method for forming, storing, managing, and executing contracts using a graph structure (COG) in a blockchain, in the same or similar context. Because both having a smart contract imbedded in the protocol of a blockchain, and creating a generally-programmable token system that is native to UTXO-based blockchains, as well as having a method for forming, storing, managing, and executing contracts using a graph structure (COG) in a blockchain, are implemented through well-known computer technologies, would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Borne-Pons in view of Gunning, and in view of Hunn 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 Borne-Pons/Gunning/Hunn.
With respect to claim 20, the combination of Borne-Pons in view of Gunning, and
in view of Hunn teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 17 above.
Furthermore, Hunn discloses wherein a child transaction in the DAG of
transactions spends unspent transaction outputs (UTXOs) output by parent transactions in the DAG of transactions {¶¶ 0067, 0296-0297}.
Therefore, 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 Borne-Pons in view of Gunning to include the elements of Hunn. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have a method for forming, storing, managing, and executing contracts using a graph structure (COG) in a blockchain. Furthermore, Borne-Pons discloses a smart contract imbedded in the protocol of a blockchain. Gunning discloses creating a generally-programmable token system that is native to UTXO-based blockchains. Hunn is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of having a method for forming, storing, managing, and executing contracts using a graph structure (COG) in a blockchain, in the same or similar context. Because both having a smart contract imbedded in the protocol of a blockchain, and creating a generally-programmable token system that is native to UTXO-based blockchains, as well as having a method for forming, storing, managing, and executing contracts using a graph structure (COG) in a blockchain, are implemented through well-known computer technologies, would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Borne-Pons in view of Gunning, and in view of Hunn 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 Borne-Pons/Gunning/Hunn.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon:
(US 20180285837 A1) – Hao WU, Blockchain-Based Transaction
Processing Method and Apparatus - relates to the field of blockchain technologies and information processing technologies, and in particular, to blockchain-based transaction processing methods and apparatuses.
2) (US Pat. 10373158 B1) – James et al., System, Method and Program Product for Modifying a Supply of Stable Value Digital Asset Tokens – relates to a method, system, and program product relating to modifying a supply of digital asset tokens on an underlying blockchain.
3) (US 20190018888 A1) – Madisetti et al., Method and System for Tuning Blockchain Scalability, Decentralization, and Security for Fast And Low-Cost Payment and Transaction Processing – relates to blockchain-scalability, fast and low-cost payment and transaction processing on blockchain networks.
4) (US 20210174343 A1) – Aggarwal et al., Method and System for Optimizing Blockchain Parsing Using a Wallet’s Static Characteristics - relates to the optimized validation of a blockchain transaction through the use of a parallel database and date management, specifically the use of the static characteristics of blockchain wallets to optimizing the confirmation of transactions and parsing of new blocks.
5) (US 20210201409 A1) – Yusuke Hoshizuki, Trading System and Recording Medium - relates to a trading system and a recording medium. Digital contents data such as sound and video are often subject to a sales transaction via the Internet. In such a sales transaction of digital contents data, provision of contents data to a purchaser by a seller after payment of the value by the purchaser, or payment of the value by the purchaser after provision of the data by the seller is typically performed.
6) (US 20180082024 A1) – Curbera et al., Secure Distributed Patient Consent And Information Management -relates generally to an improved data processing apparatus and method and more specifically to mechanisms for managing distributed patient consent and patient information in a secure and compliant manner.
7) (US Pat. 10600009 B1) - Augustine et al., Mint-and-burn Blockchain-based Feedback-communication Protocol – relates generally to decentralized applications and, more specifically, mint-and-burn blockchain-based feedback-communication protocols.
Additional prior art made of record and not relied upon are listed in the
Attached form PTO-892
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT IDIAKE whose telephone number is (571)272-1284. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 10:30AM to 7:30PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PATRICK MCATEE, can be reached at telephone number (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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form
/V.I./Examiner, Art Unit 3698 /PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698