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 and 37 are canceled.
Claims 21, 39 and 40 are currently amended.
Claim 41 is new.
Claims 21-36 and 38-41 are pending.
Response to Remarks
35 U.S.C. 112(f) Interpretation
Remark 1: Applicant contends that claim 39 has been amended to preclude interpretation under 112(f).
Response to Remark 1: Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the claimed term “use a processor associated with the validation unit” may be interpreted as the processor being external to the validation unit.
35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previous rejections. Accordingly, the previous rejections are withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. § 101
Remark 1: Applicant contends that neither claim 21 nor any other claim recites any fundamental economic principle or practice. Rather, the claims recite a cryptographic validation protocol executed in the context of a network of validation units. Accordingly, the claims do not recite any abstract idea.
Response to Remark 1: Applicant's argument is not persuasive because these features are part of the additional elements discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two.
Remark 2: Applicant contends that the claims do not merely recite generic computer components implementing an abstract idea. Rather, the claims describe a distributed cryptographic validation architecture with particular technical features that provide technological improvements described in the specification.
Response to Remark 2: Examiner respectfully disagrees. What applicant contends is an improvement is merely an improvement in the recited abstract idea, and not an improvement in the functioning of computers, nor technology, nor a technical field. Moreover, a general-purpose computer would be capable of performing these same operations of a mere improvement in the abstract idea. Here, the additional elements individually and in combination, are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, this contention is unpersuasive.
Remark 3: Applicant contends that regarding Step 2B, for the same reasons discussed above, the claims recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. The specific combination of cryptographic signing by distributed validation units, threshold-based certificate generation by a device, and certificate- triggered execution represents an unconventional technical approach to distributed validation that provides the technical benefits described in the specification. The ordered combination of elements in the claims-receiving requests, independent cryptographic validation by distributed units, threshold-based certificate generation by a separate device, and certificate-triggered execution- represents a specific technical architecture that is not merely the application of generic computer functions to implement an abstract idea.
Response to Remark 3: Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because these features are part of the abstract idea discussed in Step 2A, Prong One and thus do not provide an inventive concept.
35 U.S.C. § 102
Remark 1: Regarding claim 21, Applicant contends that reference Guo doesn’t disclose the claimed “generating …” and “transmitting …”.
Response to Remark 1: The claims are contingent (e.g., “when it is determined …” and “when the device obtains …”). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. See MPEP 2103(I)(C), 2111.04(II). Accordingly, this contention is unpersuasive.
Remark 2: Regarding claims 39 and 40, Applicant contends each is distinguishable over Guo.
Response to Remark 2: First, Applicants argument is conclusory, thus unpersuasive. Second, regarding claim 39, the claim contains language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure of the “cryptographic transmission system”, but rather to structure external (e.g., “a processor associated with the validation unit”) to the “cryptographic transmission system” (See MPEP 2103(I)(C), 2111.04(I)). In other words, claim 39 does not require that the validation units comprise the processor, but rather are “associated with”. Regarding claim 40, the claims are contingent (e.g., “when it is determined …”). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. See MPEP 2103(I)(C), 2111.04(II). Accordingly, this contention is unpersuasive.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 04/16/2026 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 “use …”. 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 21-36 and 38-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 21-36, 38 and 41 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 to the at least one recipient requested by the sender by:
determining whether the transmission to the at least one recipient requested by the sender is valid;
when it is determined that the transmission to the at least one recipient requested by the sender is valid:
cryptographically signing a message with a validation signature indicating that the transmission is valid to obtain a cryptographically signed message; and
transmitting, to the device, the 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 validation unit of a plurality of validation units in the network of validation units configured to use a processor associated with the validation unit to:
receive, from a device, a request for a transmission to at least one recipient requested by a sender;
validate the transmission to the at least one recipient requested by the sender by performing:
determine whether the transmission to the at least one recipient 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 to obtain a cryptographically signed message; and
transmit, to the device, the 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 to the at least one recipient; 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 to the at least one recipient requested by the sender by:
determining whether the transmission to the at least one recipient requested by the sender is valid;
when it is determined that the transmission to the at least one recipient requested by the sender is valid:
cryptographically signing a message with a validation signature indicating that the transmission is valid to obtain a cryptographically signed message; and
transmitting, to the device, the 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 to the at least one recipient requested by the sender; and
in response to receiving the validation certificate, executing the transmission from the sender to the at least one recipient.
Step 2A Prong Two
Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2)). Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations discussed in more detail in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.04(d)(2), 2106.05(a) through (c) and 2106.05(e) through (h). Here, the non-underlined claim limitations above recite additional elements. The additional elements do not improve the functioning of computers, another technology, or a technical field (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)). The Specification does not assert that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. The claim does not purport to improve computer capabilities, but rather invokes computers merely as a tool by adding general purpose computers post-hoc to an abstract idea. A commonplace business method being applied on a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement to technology. The claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. The Specification and the claim language provide evidence that the focus of the claim is on a scheme. An improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology. Even if the Specification describes technical improvements, they are not claimed. The additional elements do not apply the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)). The additional elements do not implement the abstract idea with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim (MPEP § 2106.05(b)). A general-purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. The additional elements do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP § 2106.05(c)). The claim does not recite any transformation of an article where the article changes to a different state or thing. Nor do the additional elements apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way or impose a meaningful limit on it beyond linking its use to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05(e)). The additional elements generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. A wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of additional feature that provides any practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea itself. The additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements are being used in their ordinary capacity. The additional elements do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. The additional elements generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Thus, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to the abstract idea identified above.
Step 2B
Step 2B determines whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP § 2106.05). In Step 2B examiners carry over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two; carry over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e), (f) and (h); re-evaluate any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; and evaluate whether any additional element or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d). The additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The additional elements generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Individually, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Here, the additional elements simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Here, the specification of the application indicates that additional elements are well-known or conventional (See Pre-Grant Publication, Fig.1, Fig.2, Fig.3, and associated paragraphs). There is nothing in the specification to indicate that the operations recited in the claims require any specialized hardware or inventive computer components or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions. The ordered combination recites no more than the individual elements do. Thus, the additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to the abstract idea identified above without significantly more. The claims are not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Dependent Claims
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 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 41 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 validating performed by each of the first plurality of validation units generates the threshold number of validation signatures without communication among the first plurality of validation units.
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 34-36 and 38-41 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:
Guo 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 to the at least one recipient requested by the sender by: determining whether the transmission to the at least one recipient requested by the sender is valid; (Figure 9; 0081-0089)
when it is determined that the transmission to the at least one recipient requested by the sender is valid: cryptographically signing a message with a validation signature indicating that the transmission is valid to obtain a cryptographically signed message; and transmitting, to the device, the 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:
Guo 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:
Guo 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:
Guo 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:
Guo 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:
Guo 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:
Guo 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:
Guo 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:
Guo 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:
Guo 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:
Guo 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:
Guo 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:
Guo 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 38:
Guo 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)
Claim 41:
Guo discloses all limitations of claim 21. Andon further discloses:
wherein the validating performed by each of the first plurality of validation units generates the threshold number of validation signatures without communication among the first plurality of validation units. (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.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights