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 Claims
Claims 1-20 are canceled.
Claims 21-40 are new.
Claims 21-40 are pending.
Priority
This application 18/648,613, filed 04/29/2024 claims priority to:
Provisional 63/539,782, filed 09/21/2023 (effective filing date)
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 12/24/2024 and 06/05/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) has/have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Regarding Claim 39, the term “network of validation units” acts as a generic placeholder for the term “means”. Also, the generic placeholder is modified by functional language “configured to: receive … validate … by performing: determine … when …: cryptographically sign … transmit … receive … in response … execute …”. Further, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. The structure corresponding to the “network of validation units” may be found in at least paragraphs 0061 and Fig.11 item 1108 of Applicant’s Pre-Grant Publication.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 21-38 are directed to a computer-implemented method (i.e., process). Claim 39 is directed to a computer-implemented system (i.e., machine, and manufacture). Claim 40 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (i.e., manufacture). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention, and thus must be further analyzed at Step 2A to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.03, subsection II).
Step 2A Prong One
In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Claims 21, 39 and 40 recite (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea of validating a transmission request, generating and transmitting validation signatures and certificate, and triggering execution of the transmission to the recipient. But for the additional elements, the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The certain method of organizing human activity grouping is used to describe fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Fundamental economic principles or practices are relating to the economy and commerce, or recite hedging, insurance, and mitigating risks. Commercial or legal interactions recite agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people recite social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II. Here, the claim limitations reciting the abstract idea are grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas because the limitations recite fundamental economic principles or practices, as they relate to the economy and commerce, and recite mitigating risk, recite commercial or legal interactions, as they recite sales activities or behaviors, and recite managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, as they recite following rules or instructions. More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite the abstract idea(s) while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
Claim 21:
A method of cryptographically securing transmissions from senders to recipients using a network of validation units, the method comprising:
using at least one computer hardware processor to perform:
receiving, from a device by the network of validation units, a request for a transmission to at least one recipient requested by a sender;
validating, by each of a first plurality of validation units of the network of validation units, the transmission by:
determining whether the transmission requested by the sender is valid;
when it is determined that the transmission requested by the sender is valid:
cryptographically signing a message with a validation signature indicating that the transmission is valid; and
transmitting, to the device, a cryptographically signed message including the validation signature;
when the device obtains a threshold number of validation signatures from the network of validation units:
generating, by the device, a validation certificate using the validation signatures; and
transmitting, by the device to the at least one recipient and the network of validation units, the validation certificate,
wherein transmission of the validation certificate triggers execution of the transmission from the sender to the at least one recipient.
Claim 39:
A cryptographic transmission system for securing transmissions from senders, the cryptographic transmission system comprising:
a network of validation units, each of at least some validation units in the network of validation units configured to:
receive, from a device, a request for a transmission to at least one recipient requested by a sender;
validate the transmission indicated by performing:
determine whether the transmission requested by the sender is valid;
when it is determined that the transmission requested by the sender is valid:
cryptographically sign a message with a validation signature indicating that the transmission is valid; and
transmit, to the device, a cryptographically signed message including the validation signature;
receive, from the device, a validation certificate indicating that a threshold number of validation units have validated the transmission; and
in response to receiving the validation certificate,
execute the transmission from the sender to the at least one recipient.
Claim 40:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor of a validation unit of a network of validation units of a cryptographic transmission system, cause the processor to perform a method comprising:
receiving, from a device, a request for a transmission to at least one recipient requested by a sender;
validating the transmission indicated by:
determining whether the transmission requested by the sender is valid;
when it is determined that the transmission requested by the sender is valid:
cryptographically signing a message with a validation signature indicating that the transmission is valid; and
transmitting, to the device, a cryptographically signed message including the validation signature;
receiving, from the device, a validation certificate indicating that a threshold number of validation units have validated the transmission; and
in response to receiving the validation certificate, executing the transmission from the sender to the at least one recipient.
Step 2A Prong Two
In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. Here, claims 21, 39 and 40 as a whole, looking at the identified additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. First, the non-underlined additional elements merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Additionally, regarding the specification and claims, there is no improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field present (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)), there is no applying or using the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition present (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)), there is no implementing the judicial exception with or using the judicial exception in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim present (MPEP § 2106.05(b)), there is no effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing present (MPEP § 2106.05(c)), and there is no applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment present, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05(e)). Thus, the claim as a whole is directed to a judicial exception and thus requires further analysis at Step 2B to determine if the claim as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the exception itself (See MPEP 2106.04, subsection II).
Step 2B
Step 2B determines whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the exception itself. Evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Here, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in claims 21, 39 and 40, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements merely serve as a tool to perform an abstract idea and generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Dependent Claims
Claims 22-38 have also been analyzed. However, the subject matter of these claims also fails to recite patent eligible subject matter for the following reasons:
Claim 22 further recite the abstract idea of validating a transmission request, generating and transmitting validation signatures and certificate, and triggering execution of the transmission to the recipient, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite the abstract idea(s) while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
wherein cryptographically signing the message with the validation signature indicating that the transmission is valid comprises
signing the message with information identifying a current epoch that indicates a set of parameters governing the transmission and/or information identifying a checkpoint representing a set of transmissions by the sender.
Claim 23 further recite the abstract idea of validating a transmission request, generating and transmitting validation signatures and certificate, and triggering execution of the transmission to the recipient, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite the abstract idea(s) while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
determining a change to a previous set of parameters governing transmissions, the previous set of parameters indicated by a previous epoch; and
in response to determining the change to the previous set of parameters governing transmissions,
transitioning from the previous epoch to the current epoch indicating the set of parameters governing the transmission.
Claim 24 further recite the abstract idea of validating a transmission request, generating and transmitting validation signatures and certificate, and triggering execution of the transmission to the recipient, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite the abstract idea(s) while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
wherein the current epoch is the checkpoint representing the set of transmissions by the sender
and the method further comprises:
triggering creation of the checkpoint when transitioning from the previous epoch to the current epoch.
Claim 25 further recite the abstract idea of validating a transmission request, generating and transmitting validation signatures and certificate, and triggering execution of the transmission to the recipient, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite the abstract idea(s) while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
triggering the creation of the checkpoint only when transitioning from the previous epoch to the current epoch.
Claim 26 further recite the abstract idea of validating a transmission request, generating and transmitting validation signatures and certificate, and triggering execution of the transmission to the recipient, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite the abstract idea(s) while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
wherein transitioning from the previous epoch to the current epoch comprises:
receiving, by the network of validation units, an epoch transition proposal to transition from the previous epoch to the current epoch for confirmation by the network of validation units;
reaching, by the network of validation units, a consensus that the epoch transition proposal is valid; and
transitioning from the previous epoch to the current epoch when the consensus is reached by the network of validation units.
Claim 27 further recite the abstract idea of validating a transmission request, generating and transmitting validation signatures and certificate, and triggering execution of the transmission to the recipient, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite the abstract idea(s) while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
including, by the device, information identifying a current epoch and/or a checkpoint in the request sent to the network of validation units.
Claim 28 further recite the abstract idea of validating a transmission request, generating and transmitting validation signatures and certificate, and triggering execution of the transmission to the recipient, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite the abstract idea(s) while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
creating a checkpoint for the sender by:
removing a record of transmissions executed by the sender from memories of the network of validation units; and
storing, in the memories of the network of validation units, a consolidated representation of the transmissions executed by the sender in the memories of the network of validation units, the consolidated representation utilizing less memory for storage than was utilized to store the record of the transmissions.
Claim 29 further recite the abstract idea of validating a transmission request, generating and transmitting validation signatures and certificate, and triggering execution of the transmission to the recipient, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite the abstract idea(s) while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
receiving, by the network of validation units, a checkpoint proposal for confirmation by the validation units;
reaching, by the network of validation units, a consensus that the checkpoint proposal is valid; and
creating the checkpoint for the sender when the consensus is reached by the network of validation units.
Claim 30 further recite the abstract idea of validating a transmission request, generating and transmitting validation signatures and certificate, and triggering execution of the transmission to the recipient, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite the abstract idea(s) while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
after receiving, by the network of validation units, the request:
receiving, from the device by the network of validation units, a cancellation message indicating a request to cancel the transmission from the sender to the at least one recipient;
validating, by each of a second plurality of validation units in the network of validation units, the cancellation message, the validating comprising:
cryptographically signing the cancellation message with a cancellation signature; and
transmitting, to the device, the cryptographically signed cancellation message; and
when the device obtains a threshold number of cancellation signatures from the network of validation units,
canceling the transmission from the sender to the at least one recipient.
Claim 31 further recite the abstract idea of validating a transmission request, generating and transmitting validation signatures and certificate, and triggering execution of the transmission to the recipient, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite the abstract idea(s) while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
wherein the request received by the network of validation units includes a nonce associated with the transmission, the nonce having a numerical value incremented with respect to a numerical value of a previous nonce associated with a previous transmission by the sender.
Claim 32 further recite the abstract idea of validating a transmission request, generating and transmitting validation signatures and certificate, and triggering execution of the transmission to the recipient, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite the abstract idea(s) while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
receiving, from the device by the network of validation units, a plurality of requests for a plurality of transmissions with associated nonces, wherein the nonces share an identical numerical value;
obtaining, by the device from the network of validation units, for each particular transmission in the plurality of transmissions, a set of validation signatures indicating that the particular transmission is valid;
detecting, by the device based on sets of signatures received for the plurality of transmissions, a lock condition in which it is impossible to obtain the threshold number of validation signatures for any of the plurality of transmissions;
in response to detecting the lock condition, transmitting, by the device to the network of validation units, a recovery certificate indicating that it is impossible to obtain the threshold number of validation signatures for any of the plurality of transmissions; and
in response to receiving the recovery certificate, canceling, by the network of validation units, the plurality of transmissions.
Claim 33 further recite the abstract idea of validating a transmission request, generating and transmitting validation signatures and certificate, and triggering execution of the transmission to the recipient, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite the abstract idea(s) while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
wherein detecting the lock condition in which it is impossible obtain the threshold number of validation signatures for any of the plurality of transmissions comprises:
determining that, for each particular set of signature of the sets of signatures received for the plurality of transmissions, a number of signatures in the sets of signatures excluding the particular set of signatures is greater than 1/3 of a total number of signatures that can be obtained from the network of validation units.
Claim 34 further recite the abstract idea of validating a transmission request, generating and transmitting validation signatures and certificate, and triggering execution of the transmission to the recipient, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite the abstract idea(s) while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
wherein the set of parameters governing the transmission specify:
a list of validation units that can validate the transmission, a list of banned accounts, and/or fees associated with the transmission.
Claim 35 further recite the abstract idea of validating a transmission request, generating and transmitting validation signatures and certificate, and triggering execution of the transmission to the recipient, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite the abstract idea(s) while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
wherein the at least one recipient comprises a plurality of recipients.
Claim 36 further recite the abstract idea of validating a transmission request, generating and transmitting validation signatures and certificate, and triggering execution of the transmission to the recipient, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite the abstract idea(s) while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
wherein the request indicating the transmission to the at least one recipient requested by the sender is signed with a signature of the sender and at least one signature of the at least one recipient.
Claim 37 further recite the abstract idea of validating a transmission request, generating and transmitting validation signatures and certificate, and triggering execution of the transmission to the recipient, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite the abstract idea(s) while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
wherein validating, by each of the first plurality of validation units, the transmission comprises validating the signature of the sender and the at least one signature of the at least one recipient.
Claim 38 further recite the abstract idea of validating a transmission request, generating and transmitting validation signatures and certificate, and triggering execution of the transmission to the recipient, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite the abstract idea(s) while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
wherein the signature of the sender is generated using a current nonce of the sender and the at least one signature of the at least one recipient is generated using at least one current nonce of the at least one recipient.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21-40 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Unclear Scope
Claims 21 and 39-40 recite "cryptographically sign[ing] a message with a validation signature indicating that the transmission is valid; and transmit[ting], to the device, a cryptographically signed message including the validation signature”. Thus, it is unclear whether these two recitations refer to the same message or not. Therefore, these claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 13USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989) and MPEP 2173.02 (III)(B) which states “Examiners should bear in mind that "[a]n essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.”
Claims 22-38 are also rejected per dependency upon a rejected claim.
Relative Terminology
Claim 39 recites the term "a network of validation units, each of at least some validation units in the network of validation units configured to …". However, the term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one or ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention (See MPEP 2173.05(b)). Therefore, these claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21-29, 31, and 34-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2022/0385460 A1 to Guo et al. (“Guo”).
Claims 21 and 39-40:
Andon discloses:
using at least one computer hardware processor to perform: receiving, from a device (“Leader node 260”) by the network of validation units (“Associate nodes 240”), a request for a transmission (“transaction request” or “PKB-1”) to at least one recipient requested by a sender; (Figures 2 and 9; 0019, 0081-0089)
validating, by each of a first plurality of validation units of the network of validation units, the transmission by: determining whether the transmission requested by the sender is valid; (Figure 9; 0081-0089)
when it is determined that the transmission requested by the sender is valid: cryptographically signing a message with a validation signature indicating that the transmission is valid; and transmitting, to the device, a cryptographically signed message including the validation signature; (Figure 9; 0081-0089)
when the device obtains a threshold number of validation signatures from the network of validation units: (Figure 9; 0081-0089)
generating, by the device, a validation certificate using the validation signatures; and (Figure 9; 0081-0089)
transmitting, by the device to the at least one recipient and the network of validation units, the validation certificate, wherein transmission of the validation certificate triggers execution of the transmission from the sender to the at least one recipient. (Figure 9; 0081-0089)
Claim 22:
Andon discloses all limitations of claim 21. Andon further discloses:
wherein cryptographically signing the message with the validation signature indicating that the transmission is valid comprises signing the message with information identifying a current epoch that indicates a set of parameters governing the transmission and/or information identifying a checkpoint representing a set of transmissions by the sender. (Figure 9; 0081-0089)
Claim 23:
Andon discloses all limitations of claim 22. Andon further discloses:
determining a change to a previous set of parameters governing transmissions, the previous set of parameters indicated by a previous epoch; and in response to determining the change to the previous set of parameters governing transmissions, transitioning from the previous epoch to the current epoch indicating the set of parameters governing the transmission. (Figure 9; 0081-0089)
Claim 24:
Andon discloses all limitations of claim 23. Andon further discloses:
wherein the current epoch is the checkpoint representing the set of transmissions by the sender and the method further comprises: triggering creation of the checkpoint when transitioning from the previous epoch to the current epoch. (Figure 9; 0081-0089)
Claim 25:
Andon discloses all limitations of claim 24. Andon further discloses:
triggering the creation of the checkpoint only when transitioning from the previous epoch to the current epoch. (Figure 9; 0081-0089)
Claim 26:
Andon discloses all limitations of claim 23. Andon further discloses:
wherein transitioning from the previous epoch to the current epoch comprises: receiving, by the network of validation units, an epoch transition proposal to transition from the previous epoch to the current epoch for confirmation by the network of validation units; reaching, by the network of validation units, a consensus that the epoch transition proposal is valid; and transitioning from the previous epoch to the current epoch when the consensus is reached by the network of validation units. (Figure 9; 0081-0089)
Claim 27:
Andon discloses all limitations of claim 21. Andon further discloses:
including, by the device, information identifying a current epoch and/or a checkpoint in the request sent to the network of validation units. (Figure 9; 0081-0089)
Claim 28:
Andon discloses all limitations of claim 21. Andon further discloses:
creating a checkpoint for the sender by: removing a record of transmissions executed by the sender from memories of the network of validation units; and storing, in the memories of the network of validation units, a consolidated representation of the transmissions executed by the sender in the memories of the network of validation units, the consolidated representation utilizing less memory for storage than was utilized to store the record of the transmissions. (Figure 9; 0081-0089)
Claim 29:
Andon discloses all limitations of claim 28. Andon further discloses:
receiving, by the network of validation units, a checkpoint proposal for confirmation by the validation units; reaching, by the network of validation units, a consensus that the checkpoint proposal is valid; and creating the checkpoint for the sender when the consensus is reached by the network of validation units. (Figure 9; 0081-0089)
Claim 31:
Andon discloses all limitations of claim 21. Andon further discloses:
wherein the request received by the network of validation units includes a nonce associated with the transmission, the nonce having a numerical value incremented with respect to a numerical value of a previous nonce associated with a previous transmission by the sender. (Figure 9; 0081-0089)
Claim 34:
Andon discloses all limitations of claim 21. Andon further discloses:
wherein the set of parameters governing the transmission specify: a list of validation units that can validate the transmission, a list of banned accounts, and/or fees associated with the transmission. (Figure 9; 0081-0089)
Claim 35:
Andon discloses all limitations of claim 21. Andon further discloses:
wherein the at least one recipient comprises a plurality of recipients. (Figure 9; 0081-0089)
Claim 36:
Andon discloses all limitations of claim 21. Andon further discloses:
wherein the request indicating the transmission to the at least one recipient requested by the sender is signed with a signature of the sender and at least one signature of the at least one recipient. (Figure 9; 0081-0089)
Claim 37:
Andon discloses all limitations of claim 36. Andon further discloses:
wherein validating, by each of the first plurality of validation units, the transmission comprises validating the signature of the sender and the at least one signature of the at least one recipient. (Figure 9; 0081-0089)
Claim 38:
Andon discloses all limitations of claim 36. Andon further discloses:
wherein the signature of the sender is generated using a current nonce of the sender and the at least one signature of the at least one recipient is generated using at least one current nonce of the at least one recipient. (Figure 9; 0081-0089)
Claims Free of Art
The prior art does not teach, neither singly nor in combination, claims 30 and 32-33.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2022/0374886 A1 to Micali et al. discloses: Enabling one or more entities of a blockchain system to carry out a series of operations. The blockchain system includes a main chain, a co-chain, wherein the co-chain has a corresponding account on the main chain, an asset owned by the corresponding account on the main chain and owned by an account on the co-chain, and a co-chain account possessing the asset. The operations include posting an authenticated transaction on the co-chain, the authenticated transaction authorizing a transfer of the asset from the co-chain account to an account of the main chain, determining that the authenticated transaction is posted on the co-chain, and posting, on the main chain, a transaction assigning the asset to the account of the main chain.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ari Shahabi whose telephone number is (571)272-2565. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John W Hayes can be reached at 571-272-6708. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ARI SHAHABI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697