Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is responsive to the communication filed on 7/6/2026.
Claim Status
2. Claims 1, 9, and 16 have currently been amended. Claims 2, 10, and 17 have currently been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
3. The applicant’s argument has been taken into consideration, but is moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
A. In response to the applicant’s argument (disclosed on pg. 2 of the remarks segment) that Bernardi fails to teach or suggest the primary contract further comprising encrypting the data packet using homomorphic encryption:
The current amendment is presented in a slightly different scope from the previous limitation of claim 2, which disclosed wherein the primary contract further comprises encrypting the data packet using homomorphic encryption. In light of the current amendment, which discloses wherein the primary contract is encrypted using homomorphic encryption, see newly cited prior art reference Smith et al (US 2021/0377225), which discloses (par [0014], lines 7-10 & par [0334], lines 7-9 of Smith et al) encryption of a first smart contract and utilizing proof mechanisms, including partially homomorphic encryption for determining validity (e.g., wherein the primary contract is encrypted using homomorphic encryption).
B. In response to the applicant’s argument (disclosed on pg. 2 of the remarks segment) that Quigley et al fails to teach or suggest the primary contract further comprising encrypting the data packet using homomorphic encryption:
Also see par [0063], lines 7-9 of Smith et al, which discloses public state databases used to confirm the personal identification of an asset owner (e.g., wherein a public domain database is used to verify the receiver device).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 103
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office Action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
5. Claims 1, 3-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Bernardi (US 2023/0216947) in view of Quigley et al (US 2024/0346087), further in view of Smith et al (US 2021/0377225).
Regarding claim 1, Bernardi teaches a system for verifying devices (fig. 88, par [0012], par [0013], and par [0103], which disclose verifying client device identification for authentication of client IoT devices) using advanced computational models for data analysis and automated processing (par [0355], lines 6-7, “AI modeling and results analysis graphs”), the system comprising:
a processing device (par [0158]);
a non-transitory storage device containing instructions when executed by the processing device (par [0158], “communication device having program instructions saved to memory and executable on a processor”), causes the processing device to perform the steps of:
initiate a resource transaction, wherein the resource transaction is initiated via a sender device (par [0275], lines 1-4, “sender and recipient”), and wherein the resource transaction comprises transferring a resource from a sender resource container to a receiver resource container via the sender device and a receiver device (par [0275], lines 5-15 and par [1101-1102], which disclose transmitting requested resources between an authenticated sender and authenticated receiver);
generate a primary contract, wherein the primary contract comprises encrypting a data packet associated with the resource transaction (par [0005] & par [1163], lines 1-5, which disclose utilizing smart contracts to transmit cryptographic data between the sender/receiver using blockchain) and wherein the data packet comprises resource transaction details (par [0955], which discloses each block containing a cryptographic hash of previous blocks and transaction metadata); and
execute the resource transaction, wherein executing the resource transaction comprises providing the data packet to a sender entity (par [0275], lines 1-10, which discloses cryptographic certificate data being sent to the sender), and wherein the sender entity is associated with the sender resource container (par [1097], lines 1-6, “resource owner”).
Bernardi does not explicitly teach generating a secondary contract, wherein the secondary contract comprises verifying the receiver device.
Quigley et al further teaches generating a secondary contract, wherein the secondary contract comprises verifying the receiver device (fig. 20, ‘2004/’2028, par [0024],& par [0344], which disclose an authentication smart contract implemented for determining node device authentication in a blockchain environment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Quigley et al within the node authentication provisioning system of Bernardi in order to provide the predictive result of improving the functionality of blockchains or other distributed ledgers (as disclosed in par [0477], lines 11-15 of Quigley et al) because this implementation would cause Bernardi to balance the demand placed on the devices that host the distributed ledger and the smart contracts.
Bernardi and Quigley et al do not explicitly teach wherein the primary contract is encrypted using homomorphic encryption; and wherein a public domain database is used to verify the receiver device.
However, Smith et al teaches wherein the primary contract is encrypted using homomorphic encryption (par [0014], lines 7-10 & par [0334], lines 7-9, which disclose encryption of a first smart contract); and wherein a public domain database is used to verify the receiver device (par [0063], lines 7-9, which disclose public state databases used to confirm the personal identification of an asset owner).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Smith et al within the teachings of Bernardi and Quigley et al in order to provide the predictive result of improving security in trustless/ decentralized distributed network nodes using smart contracts, by triggering events including appending a central authority to transmit notifications for verifying that each proposed transaction from each network node is acceptable (as disclosed in par [0004], lines of Smith et al).
Regarding claim 3, Bernardi and Quigley et al teach the limitations of claim 1.
Bernardi further teaches wherein the resource transaction details comprise:
sender information, wherein the sender information comprises information of a sender associated with the sender device (par [0134], lines 20-26);
receiver information, wherein the receiver information comprises information of a receiver associated with the receiver device (par [0134], lines 20-26);
sender entity information, wherein the sender entity information comprises information of the sender entity associated with the sender resource container (par [0235], lines 10-15); and
receiver entity information, wherein the receiver entity information comprises information of a receiver entity associated with the receiver resource container (par [0235], lines 10-15).
Regarding claim 4, Bernardi and Quigley et al teach the limitations of claim 1.
Bernardi further teaches wherein the secondary contract further comprises determining, using a public domain database, a match between the receiver information and receiver device information (par [0928] & par [0929], which disclose implementing homomorphic encryption for the encrypted data being transmitted via the sender/receiver).
Regarding claim 5, Bernardi does not explicitly teach wherein the secondary contract further comprises, in response to the match, generating a verification interface, wherein the verification interface is transmitted to the sender device, and wherein the verification interface configures a graphical user interface of the sender device.
Quigley et al further teaches wherein the secondary contract further comprises, in response to the match, generating a verification interface, wherein the verification interface is transmitted to the sender device (par [0285], lines 25-30), and
wherein the verification interface configures a graphical user interface of the sender device (par [0482], lines 18-23, “user interface smart contracts”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Quigley et al within the node authentication provisioning system of Bernardi according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Bernardi does not explicitly teach wherein the secondary contract further comprises, in response to a mismatch, generating a declination interface, wherein the declination interface is transmitted to the sender device, and wherein the declination interface configures the graphical user interface of the sender device.
Quigley et al further teaches wherein the secondary contract further comprises, in response to a mismatch, generating a declination interface (par [0997, “accept/reject function”),
wherein the declination interface is transmitted to the sender device (fig. 79, ‘10938), and
wherein the declination interface configures the graphical user interface of the sender device (par [1012], lines 5-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Quigley et al within the node authentication provisioning system of Bernardi according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Bernardi does not explicitly teach wherein an artificial intelligence (AI) module stores the mismatch and accesses the mismatch for future resource transactions comprising the receiver device, wherein the AI module comprises a transaction analysis unit configured to monitor the resource transaction.
Quigley et al further teaches wherein an artificial intelligence (AI) module stores the mismatch and accesses the mismatch for future resource transactions comprising the receiver device (par [0266], lines 1-15, “machine learning system ‘502” & “artificial intelligence engine ‘804”), wherein the AI module comprises a transaction analysis unit configured to monitor the resource transaction (par [0235], lines 1-10, “AI system ‘504”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Quigley et al within the node authentication provisioning system of Bernardi in order to provide the predictive result of improving the functionality of blockchains or other distributed ledgers (as disclosed in par [0477], lines 11-15 of Quigley et al) because this implementation would cause Bernardi to balance the demand placed on the devices that host the distributed ledger and the smart contracts.
Regarding claim 8, Bernardi and Quigley et al teach the limitations of claim 1.
Bernardi further teaches wherein the resource transaction comprises a distributed ledger (par [0113], “DLT Smart Contracts”).
Regarding claim 9, Bernardi teaches a computer program product for verifying devices using advanced computational models for data analysis and automated processing (par [0355], lines 6-7, “AI modeling and results analysis graphs”), the system comprising:
the computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising code (par [0158], “communication device having program instructions saved to memory and executable on a processor”), causing an apparatus to:
initiate a resource transaction, wherein the resource transaction is initiated via a sender device (par [0275], lines 1-4, “sender and recipient”), and wherein the resource transaction comprises transferring a resource from a sender resource container to a receiver resource container via the sender device and a receiver device (par [0275], lines 5-15 and par [1101-1102], which disclose transmitting requested resources between an authenticated sender and authenticated receiver);
generate a primary contract, wherein the primary contract comprises encrypting a data packet associated with the resource transaction (par [0005] & par [1163], lines 1-5, which disclose utilizing smart contracts to transmit cryptographic data between the sender/receiver using blockchain) and wherein the data packet comprises resource transaction details (par [0955], which discloses each block containing a cryptographic hash of previous blocks and transaction metadata); and
execute the resource transaction, wherein executing the resource transaction comprises providing the data packet to a sender entity (par [0275], lines 1-10, which discloses cryptographic certificate data being sent to the sender), and wherein the sender entity is associated with the sender resource container (par [1097], lines 1-6, “resource owner”).
Bernardi does not explicitly teach generate a secondary contract, wherein the secondary contract comprises verifying the receiver device.
Quigley et al further teaches generating a secondary contract, wherein the secondary contract comprises verifying the receiver device (fig. 20, ‘2004/’2028, par [0024],& par [0344], which disclose an authentication smart contract implemented for determining node device authentication in a blockchain environment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Quigley et al within the node authentication provisioning system of Bernardi in order to provide the predictive result of improving the functionality of blockchains or other distributed ledgers (as disclosed in par [0477], lines 11-15 of Quigley et al) because this implementation would cause Bernardi to balance the demand placed on the devices that host the distributed ledger and the smart contracts.
Bernardi and Quigley et al do not explicitly teach wherein the primary contract is encrypted using homomorphic encryption; and wherein a public domain database is used to verify the receiver device.
However, Smith et al teaches wherein the primary contract is encrypted using homomorphic encryption (par [0014], lines 7-10 & par [0334], lines 7-9, which disclose encryption of a first smart contract); and wherein a public domain database is used to verify the receiver device (par [0063], lines 7-9, which disclose public state databases used to confirm the personal identification of an asset owner).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Smith et al within the teachings of Bernardi and Quigley et al in order to provide the predictive result of improving security in trustless/ decentralized distributed network nodes using smart contracts, by triggering events including appending a central authority to transmit notifications for verifying that each proposed transaction from each network node is acceptable (as disclosed in par [0004], lines of Smith et al).
Regarding claim 11, Bernardi and Quigley et al teach the limitations of claim 9.
Bernardi further teaches wherein the resource transaction details comprise:
sender information, wherein the sender information comprises information of a sender associated with the sender device (par [0134], lines 20-26);
receiver information, wherein the receiver information comprises information of a receiver associated with the receiver device (par [0134], lines 20-26);
sender entity information, wherein the sender entity information comprises information of the sender entity associated with the sender resource container (par [0235], lines 10-15); and
receiver entity information, wherein the receiver entity information comprises information of a receiver entity associated with the receiver resource container (par [0235], lines 10-15).
Regarding claim 12, Bernardi and Quigley et al teach the limitations of claim 9.
Bernardi further teaches wherein the secondary contract further comprises determining, using a public domain database, a match between the receiver information and receiver device information (par [0928] & par [0929], which disclose implementing homomorphic encryption for the encrypted data being transmitted via the sender/receiver).
Regarding claim 13, Bernardi does not explicitly teach wherein the secondary contract further comprises, in response to the match, generating a verification interface, wherein the verification interface is transmitted to the sender device, and wherein the verification interface configures a graphical user interface of the sender device.
Quigley et al further teaches wherein the secondary contract further comprises, in response to the match, generating a verification interface, wherein the verification interface is transmitted to the sender device (par [0285], lines 25-30), and
wherein the verification interface configures a graphical user interface of the sender device (par [0482], lines 18-23, “user interface smart contracts”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Quigley et al within the node authentication provisioning system of Bernardi according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 9.
Regarding claim 14, Bernardi does not explicitly teach wherein the secondary contract further comprises, in response to a mismatch, generating a declination interface, wherein the declination interface is transmitted to the sender device, and wherein the declination interface configures the graphical user interface of the sender device.
Quigley et al further teaches wherein the secondary contract further comprises, in response to a mismatch, generating a declination interface (par [0997, “accept/reject function”),
wherein the declination interface is transmitted to the sender device (fig. 79, ‘10938), and
wherein the declination interface configures the graphical user interface of the sender device (par [1012], lines 5-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Quigley et al within the node authentication provisioning system of Bernardi according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 9.
Regarding claim 15, Bernardi does not explicitly teach wherein an artificial intelligence (AI) module stores the mismatch and accesses the mismatch for future resource transactions comprising the receiver device, wherein the AI module comprises a transaction analysis unit configured to monitor the resource transaction.
Quigley et al further teaches wherein an artificial intelligence (AI) module stores the mismatch and accesses the mismatch for future resource transactions comprising the receiver device (par [0266], lines 1-15, “machine learning system ‘502” & “artificial intelligence engine ‘804”), wherein the AI module comprises a transaction analysis unit configured to monitor the resource transaction (par [0235], lines 1-10, “AI system ‘504”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Quigley et al within the node authentication provisioning system of Bernardi in order to provide the predictive result of improving the functionality of blockchains or other distributed ledgers (as disclosed in par [0477], lines 11-15 of Quigley et al) because this implementation would cause Bernardi to balance the demand placed on the devices that host the distributed ledger and the smart contracts.
Regarding claim 16, Bernardi teaches a method for verifying devices using advanced computational models for data analysis and automated processing (par [0355], lines 6-7, “AI modeling and results analysis graphs”), the method comprising:
initiating a resource transaction, wherein the resource transaction is initiated via a sender device (par [0275], lines 1-4, “sender and recipient”), and wherein the resource transaction comprises transferring a resource from a sender resource container to a receiver resource container via the sender device and a receiver device (par [0275], lines 5-15 and par [1101-1102], which disclose transmitting requested resources between an authenticated sender and authenticated receiver);
generating a primary contract, wherein the primary contract comprises encrypting a data packet associated with the resource transaction (par [0005] & par [1163], lines 1-5, which disclose utilizing smart contracts to transmit cryptographic data between the sender/receiver using blockchain) and wherein the data packet comprises resource transaction details (par [0955], which discloses each block containing a cryptographic hash of previous blocks and transaction metadata); and
executing the resource transaction, wherein executing the resource transaction comprises providing the data packet to a sender entity (par [0275], lines 1-10, which discloses cryptographic certificate data being sent to the sender), and wherein the sender entity is associated with the sender resource container (par [1097], lines 1-6, “resource owner”).
Bernardi does not explicitly teach generate a secondary contract, wherein the secondary contract comprises verifying the receiver device.
Quigley et al further teaches generating a secondary contract, wherein the secondary contract comprises verifying the receiver device (fig. 20, ‘2004/’2028, par [0024],& par [0344], which disclose an authentication smart contract implemented for determining node device authentication in a blockchain environment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Quigley et al within the node authentication provisioning system of Bernardi in order to provide the predictive result of improving the functionality of blockchains or other distributed ledgers (as disclosed in par [0477], lines 11-15 of Quigley et al) because this implementation would cause Bernardi to balance the demand placed on the devices that host the distributed ledger and the smart contracts.
Bernardi and Quigley et al do not explicitly teach wherein the primary contract is encrypted using homomorphic encryption; and wherein a public domain database is used to verify the receiver device.
However, Smith et al teaches wherein the primary contract is encrypted using homomorphic encryption (par [0014], lines 7-10 & par [0334], lines 7-9, which disclose encryption of a first smart contract); and wherein a public domain database is used to verify the receiver device (par [0063], lines 7-9, which disclose public state databases used to confirm the personal identification of an asset owner).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Smith et al within the teachings of Bernardi and Quigley et al in order to provide the predictive result of improving security in trustless/ decentralized distributed network nodes using smart contracts, by triggering events including appending a central authority to transmit notifications for verifying that each proposed transaction from each network node is acceptable (as disclosed in par [0004], lines of Smith et al).
Regarding claim 18, Bernardi and Quigley et al teach the limitations of claim 16.
Bernardi further teaches wherein the resource transaction details comprise:
sender information, wherein the sender information comprises information of a sender associated with the sender device (par [0134], lines 20-26);
receiver information, wherein the receiver information comprises information of a receiver associated with the receiver device (par [0134], lines 20-26);
sender entity information, wherein the sender entity information comprises information of the sender entity associated with the sender resource container (par [0235], lines 10-15); and
receiver entity information, wherein the receiver entity information comprises information of a receiver entity associated with the receiver resource container (par [0235], lines 10-15).
Regarding claim 19, Bernardi and Quigley et al teach the limitations of claim 16.
Bernardi further teaches wherein the secondary contract further comprises determining, using a public domain database, a match between the receiver information and receiver device information (par [0928] & par [0929], which disclose implementing homomorphic encryption for the encrypted data being transmitted via the sender/receiver).
Regarding claim 20, Bernardi does not explicitly teach wherein the secondary contract further comprises, in response to the match, generating a verification interface, wherein the verification interface is transmitted to the sender device, and wherein the verification interface configures a graphical user interface of the sender device.
Quigley et al further teaches wherein the secondary contract further comprises, in response to the match, generating a verification interface, wherein the verification interface is transmitted to the sender device (par [0285], lines 25-30), and
wherein the verification interface configures a graphical user interface of the sender device (par [0482], lines 18-23, “user interface smart contracts”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Quigley et al within the node authentication provisioning system of Bernardi according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 16.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 Randy A. Scott whose telephone number is (571) 272-3797. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 7:30 am-5:00 pm, second Fridays 7:30 am-4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Luu Pham can be reached on (571) 270-5002. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RANDY A SCOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2439
20260713
Prosecution Insights