DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on 5/28/2024 is being examined under the AIA first inventor to file provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/28/2026 has been entered.
The following is a non-final Office Action on the Merits in response to Applicant’s submission.
a. Claims 1-20 are cancelled
b. Claims 21, 28, 35 are amended
c. Claims 41 are new
Overall, claims 21-41 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 USC 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 21-41 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to a judicial exception, i.e. an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, and without significantly more.
Per Step 1 of the multi-step eligibility analysis, claims 21-27, 41 are directed to a computer implemented method, claims 28-34 are directed to computer executable instructions stored on a non-transitory storage medium, and claims 35-40 are directed to a system.
Thus, on its face, each independent claim and the associated dependent claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Per Step 2A.1. Independent claim 21, (which is representative of independent claims 28, 35) is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the independent claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitations of the independent claim 21 (which is representative of independent claims 28, 35) recite an abstract idea, shown in bold below:
[A] A method comprising:
[B] receiving a request from a first entity to conduct a transaction with a user of a secure data wallet, the secure data wallet being associated with a blockchain and instantiated using a public key and a private key,
[C] wherein the secure data wallet comprises a wallet address,
[D] wherein the secure data wallet is associated with a digital identity of the user within a metaverse platform, and
[E] wherein the first entity is a different user of the metaverse platform;
[F] wherein the secure data wallet incorporates user-specific encrypted metadata storage configured to store metadata generated for the user, the metadata including information associated with at least one prior transaction, and the stored metadata being encrypted using at least one cryptographic scheme;
[G] generating a temporary transaction key based on one or more parameters associated with the secure data wallet, wherein generating the temporary transaction key comprises:
[H] generating a random nonce;
[I] computing a public nonce by applying a cryptographic algorithm to the random nonce;
[J] computing a shared secret based on a public key of the first entity and the random nonce; and
[K] computing a one-time public key as a function of the public key of the first entity and the shared secret;
[L] wherein the temporary transaction key comprises the one-time public key and the public nonce;
[M] initiating the transaction using the one-time key in place of the public key, wherein the wallet address is not exposed to the first entity, thereby obfuscating the digital identity of the user from the first entity;
[N] including the public nonce in transaction data associated with the transaction; and
[O] causing the transaction to be recorded to the blockchain.
[P] adding information associated with the transaction and the blockchain to the metadata generated for the user.
Independent claim 21 (which is representative of independent claims 28, 35) recites: computing a public nonce, a shad secret and a one-time public key ([I]. [J], [K]); initiating a transaction ([M]); including a public nonce in the transaction ([N]); recording the transaction to a blockchain ([O]), adding information to user metadata [P], which, based on the claim language and in view of the application disclosure, represents a process aimed at: “conducting secure transactions and recording them on a blockchain”.
This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers agreements in the form of sales activities or behaviors, business relationships (e-commerce), which falls under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Accordingly, it is concluded that independent claim 21 (which is representative of independent claims 28, 35) recites an abstract idea that corresponds to a judicial exception.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS – Additional Elements]
Per Step 2A.2. The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the independent claims only amount to instructions to apply the judicial exception to a computer, or are a general link to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(h)).
For example, the qualifiers “wherein the encrypted wallet comprises a wallet address,”; “wherein the encrypted wallet is associated with a digital identity of the user within a metaverse platform,”; “wherein the first entity is a different user of the metaverse platform”; “wherein the temporary transaction key comprises the one-time public key and the public nonce” as applied to the encrypted wallet, the first entity, and the temporary transaction key, are nothing more than (a) descriptive limitations of claim elements, such as describing the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements, or (b) general links to the computing environment, which amount to instructions to “apply it,” or equivalent (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
These qualifiers of the independent claims do not preclude from carrying out the identified abstract idea “conducting secure transactions and recording them on a blockchain”, and do not serve to integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional steps in the independent claims, shown not bolded above, recite: receiving a transaction request ([B]); generating a temporary transaction key ([F]); generating a random nonce ([G]);. When considered individually, they amount to nothing more receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“conducting secure transactions and recording them on a blockchain”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Therefore, the additional claim elements of independent claim 21 (which is representative of independent claims 28, 35) do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and the claims remain a judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 21 (which is representative of claims independent 28, 35) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claims 21, 28, 35 are deemed ineligible.
[DEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Dependent claim 22, which is representative of dependent claims 29, 36, recites:
causing the transaction to be transmitted to a transactional pool comprising a plurality of transactions from a plurality of users prior to broadcasting the transaction to a network associated with the blockchain.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “conducting secure transactions and recording them on a blockchain”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather or provide data”, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional computing functions" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“conducting secure transactions and recording them on a blockchain”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“conducting secure transactions and recording them on a blockchain”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“conducting secure transactions and recording them on a blockchain”).
Therefore, dependent claim 22 (which is representative of dependent claims 29, 36) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 23, which is representative of dependent claims 30, 37, recites: wherein the transactional pool
constructs a single combined transaction that includes inputs and outputs from the plurality of transactions upon exceeding a specified threshold.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “conducting secure transactions and recording them on a blockchain”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving/transmitting data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“conducting secure transactions and recording them on a blockchain”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“conducting secure transactions and recording them on a blockchain”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“conducting secure transactions and recording them on a blockchain”).
Therefore, dependent claim 23 (which is representative of dependent claims 30, 37) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 24, which is representative of dependent claims 31, 38, recites:
splitting the private key into a plurality of independently encrypted segments using a secret sharing scheme.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “conducting secure transactions and recording them on a blockchain”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving/transmitting data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“conducting secure transactions and recording them on a blockchain”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“conducting secure transactions and recording them on a blockchain”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“conducting secure transactions and recording them on a blockchain”).
Therefore, dependent claim 24 (which is representative of dependent claims 31, 38) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 25, which is representative of dependent claims 32, 39, recites:
distributing each of the plurality of independently encrypted segments to a plurality of user-selected storage locations.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “conducting secure transactions and recording them on a blockchain”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather or provide data”, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional computing functions" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“conducting secure transactions and recording them on a blockchain”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“conducting secure transactions and recording them on a blockchain”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“conducting secure transactions and recording them on a blockchain”).
Therefore, dependent claim 25 (which is representative of dependent claims 32, 39) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claims 26-27, 41 which are representative of dependent claims 33-34, 40, respectively, recite:
wherein the public nonce associated with the random nonce is computed using elliptic curve cryptography.
wherein the temporary transaction key is generated based on at least one of user information or timestamp data.
wherein the metadata generated for the user includes information associated with the request.
These further elements in the dependent claims do not perform any claimed method steps. They describe the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements – the public nonce, the temporary transaction key – and as such, cannot change the nature of the identified abstract idea (“conducting secure transactions and recording them on a blockchain”), from a judicial exception into eligible subject matter, because they do not represent significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07). The nature, form or structure of the other claim elements themselves do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed and do not provide more than a general link to a technological environment.
Therefore, dependent claims 26-27 (which are representative of dependent claims 33-34, 40, respectively) are deemed ineligible.
When the dependent claims are considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the claim elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense. The most significant elements, which form the abstract concept, are set forth in the independent claims. The fact that the computing devices and the dependent claims are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility, since their individual and combined significance do not transform the identified abstract concept at the core of the claimed invention into eligible subject matter. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application, considered individually, or as a as a whole, as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07(a)II).
In sum, claims 21-41 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the difference 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 the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
i. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
ii. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
iii. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
iv. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 21, 28, 35, 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Saint et al (US 2016/0241389), in view of Poschke et al (US 2024/0380620).
Regarding Claims 21, 28, 35 – Le Saint discloses: a method comprising
wherein generating the temporary transaction key comprises:
generating a random nonce; {see at least [0038] random nonce; [0050] generate nonce; [0074] generate blended keys; fig2, rc250, [0080]}
computing a public nonce by applying a cryptographic algorithm to the random nonce; {see at least [0038] A “cryptographic nonce” may include any number, string, bit sequence, or other data value intended to be used in association with a single communication session. In some cases, a cryptographic nonce may be randomly or pseudo-randomly generated. Typically, a cryptographic nonce is of sufficient length as to make insignificant the likelihood of independently generating the same nonce value multiple times.}
computing a shared secret based on a public key of the first entity and the random nonce; and {see at least [0054]-[0056] fig2, rc214, rc218, [0083]-[0085] shared secret}
computing a one-time public key as a function of the public key of the first entity and the shared secret; wherein the temporary transaction key comprises the one-time public key and the public nonce; {see at least [0049]-[0052]; fig2, rc202, [0074]-[0075]; fig2, rc218, [0088]-[0090]}
initiating the transaction using the one-time key in place of the public key, wherein the wallet address is not exposed to the first entity, thereby obfuscating the digital identity of the user from the first entity; {see at least [0039], [0043]-[0044] one-time value; obfuscate key identifier; [0050]-[0052]}
including the public nonce in transaction data associated with the transaction; and {see at least fig2, rc202, [0074] public key, nonce transaction data}
Le Saint does not disclose, however, Poschke discloses:
receiving a request from a first entity to conduct a transaction with a user of a secure data wallet, the encrypted wallet being associated with a blockchain and instantiated using a public key and a private key, {see at least [0136] request, transfer of value; [0010] wallet identification; [0009] blockchain, public key, private key, wallet identifier; [0095] secure storage (based on the BRI (MPEP 2111), reads on secure data wallet)}
wherein the secure data wallet comprises a wallet address, {see at least [0010] wallet identifier (based on BRI (MPEP 2111), reads on wallet address)}
wherein the secure data wallet is associated with a digital identity of the user within a metaverse platform, and {see at least [0161] SIM wallet, enables user to authenticate and sign transactions. Poschke fails to expressly disclose a metaverse platform However, the difference between the instant application and the prior art is only found in the non-functional descriptive material and is not functionally involved in the recited steps. The steps of the claim would be performed the same regardless of the descriptive material since none of the steps explicitly interact therewith. Limitations that are not functionally interrelated with the useful acts, structure, or properties of the claimed invention carry little or no patentable weight. Thus, this descriptive material will not further limit the scope of the claim and does not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (CAFC 2004); In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Therefore, it would also have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at filing time consider a metaverse platform, because the type of platform does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.}
wherein the first entity is a different user of the metaverse platform, and {see at least [0136] devices (based on BRI (MPEP 2111) reads on suers) interact with each other (reads on first user and entity being different)}
wherein the secure data wallet incorporates user-specific encrypted metadata storage configured to store metadata generated for the user, the metadata including information associated with at least one prior transaction, and the stored metadata being encrypted using at least one cryptographic scheme; {see at least [0163], [0168] crypto wallet contains a SIM with device/user metadata}
generating a temporary transaction key based on one or more parameters associated with the secure data wallet, {see at least [0184] generating temporary keys}
causing the transaction to be recorded to the blockchain, and {see at least [0001] recording transactions on a distributed ledger}
adding information associated with the transaction and the blockchain to the metadata generated for the user. {see at least [0097]-[0098] transaction added to the distributed ledger (reads on blockchain), including data about the device or the user}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Le Saint to include the elements of Poschke. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to keep book of the transactions in as secure manner. In the instant case, Le Saint evidently discloses conducting secure transactions and recording them on a blockchain. Poschke is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of recording the transactions on a blockchain in the same or similar context. Since both conducting secure transactions and recording them on a blockchain, as well as recording the transactions on a blockchain are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Le Saint, as well as Poschke would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Le Saint / Poschke.
Regarding Claim 41 – Le Saint, Poschke discloses the limitations of Claim 21. Poschke further discloses:
wherein the metadata generated for the user includes information associated with the request. {see at least [0231] the SIM (reads on user data/metadata) stores data for each received request (reads on information associated with the request). The claim element “generated for the user” consists entirely of language disclosing at most a reason to have performed earlier method steps (intended use or field of use), but does not affect the functions in a manipulative sense (see MPEP 2103 I C) and imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed method (see MPEP 2111.05, MPEP 2114 and authorities cited therein), so it is considered but given no patentable weight. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Saint, Poschke to include additional elements of Poschke. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to store the information for further use. In the instant case, Saint, Poschke evidently discloses keeping book for the transactions in a secure manner. Poschke is merely relied upon to illustrate the additional functionality of storing the user request data in the same or similar context. Since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 22-23, 29-30, 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Saint et al (US 2016/0241389), in view of Poschke et al (US 2024/0380620), in further view of Ciu (US 2021/0383371)
Claims 21, 28, 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Saint et al (US 2016/0241389).
Regarding Claims 22, 29, 36 – Le Saint, Poschke discloses the limitations of Claims 21, 28, 35. Le Saint, Poschke does not disclose, however, Ciu discloses:
causing the transaction to be transmitted to a transactional pool comprising a plurality of transactions from a plurality of users prior to broadcasting the transaction to a network associated with the blockchain. {see at least [0025] transmit transactions to transaction pool}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Le Saint, Poschke to include the elements of Ciu. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to improve process efficiency. In the instant case, Le Saint, Poschke evidently discloses conducting secure transactions and recording them on a blockchain. Ciu is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of creating transaction pools in the same or similar context. Since both conducting secure transactions and recording them on a blockchain, as well as creating transaction pools are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Le Saint, Poschke, as well as Ciu would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Le Saint, Poschke / Ciu.
Regarding Claims 23, 30, 37 – Le Saint, Poschke, Ciu discloses the limitations of Claims 22, 29, 36. Ciu further discloses: wherein the transactional pool
constructs a single combined transaction that includes inputs and outputs from the plurality of transactions upon exceeding a specified threshold. {see at least fig2, rc3, rc4, [0015]-[0016] transaction pool, number of transactions}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Le Saint, Poschke, Ciu to include additional elements of Ciu. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to improve system efficiency. In the instant case, Le Saint, Poschke, Ciu evidently discloses conducting secure transactions and recording them on a blockchain. Ciu is merely relied upon to illustrate the additional functionality of constructing a single combined transaction in the same or similar context. Since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 24-25, 31-32, 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Saint et al (US 2016/0241389), in view of Poschke et al (US 2024/0380620), in further view of Sandhu et al (US 2007/0258585)
Regarding Claims 24, 31, 38 – Le Saint, Poschke discloses the limitations of Claims 21, 28, 35. Le Saint, Poschke does not disclose, however Sandhu discloses:
splitting the private key into a plurality of independently encrypted segments using a secret sharing scheme. {see at least [0064] private key will be split}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Le Saint, Poschke to include the elements of Sandhu. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to improve transaction security. In the instant case, Le Saint, Poschke evidently discloses conducting secure transactions and recording them on a blockchain. Sandhu is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of splitting the key in shards in the same or similar context. Since both conducting secure transactions and recording them on a blockchain, as well as splitting the key in shards are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Le Saint, Poschke, as well as Sandhu would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Le Saint, Poschke / Sandhu.
Regarding Claims 25, 32, 39 – Le Saint, Poschke, Sandhu discloses the limitations of Claims 24, 31, 38. Sandhu further discloses:
distributing each of the plurality of independently encrypted segments to a plurality of user-selected storage locations. {see at least [0025] segments to different destinations}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Le Saint, Poschke, Ciu to include additional elements of Ciu. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to improve transaction security. In the instant case, Le Saint, Poschke, Ciu evidently discloses conducting secure transactions and recording them on a blockchain. Ciu is merely relied upon to illustrate the additional functionality of distributing the created shards in the same or similar context. Since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 26-27, 33-34, 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Saint et al (US 2016/0241389), in view of Poschke et al (US 2024/0380620), in further view of Manian et al (US 0243193)
Regarding Claims 26, 33, 40 – Le Saint, Poschke discloses the limitations of Claims 21, 28, 35. Le Saint, Poschke does not disclose, however, Manian discloses:
wherein the public nonce associated with the random nonce is computed using elliptic curve cryptography. {see at least [claim 9] elliptic curve cryptography, nonce}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Le Saint, Poschke to include the elements of Manian. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to utilize an established nonce computing technique. In the instant case, Le Saint, Poschke evidently discloses conducting secure transactions and recording them on a blockchain. Manian is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of elliptic curve cryptography in the same or similar context. Since both conducting secure transactions and recording them on a blockchain, as well as elliptic curve cryptography are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Le Saint, Poschke, as well as Manian would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Le Saint, Poschke / Manian.
Regarding Claims 27, 34 – Le Saint, Poschke discloses the limitations of Claims 21, 28. Le Saint, Poschke does not disclose, however, Manian discloses:
wherein the temporary transaction key is generated based on at least one of user information or timestamp data. {see at least [claim 8] timestamp}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Le Saint, Poschke to include the elements of Manian. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to customize by utilizing specific user information. In the instant case, Le Saint, Poschke evidently discloses conducting secure transactions and recording them on a blockchain. Manian is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of utilizing user information in the same or similar context. Since both conducting secure transactions and recording them on a blockchain, as well as utilizing user information are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Le Saint, Poschke, as well as Manian would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Le Saint, Poschke / Manian.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon which, however, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20210201409 A1 HOSHIZUKI; Yusuke TRADING SYSTEM AND RECORDING MEDIUM - A trading system includes a first trading apparatus including a first processor, and a second trading apparatus including a second processor. The first processor encrypts data using secret information. The first processor publishes second trading information on a distributed ledger when first trading information enabling reception of crypto assets on a condition of publication of argument information that enables derivation of the secret information is published on a distributed ledger. The second trading information is information for receiving the crypto assets and includes the argument information. The second processor publishes the first trading information on a distributed ledger. The second processor acquires the argument information when the second trading information is published on a distributed ledger. The second processor decrypts encrypted data using the argument information.
US 20220327525 A1 Tsitrin; Vladimir et al. Address Verification, Seed Splitting and Firmware Extension for Secure Cryptocurrency Key Backup, Restore, and Transaction Signing Platform Apparatuses, Methods and Systems - The Address Verification, Seed Splitting and Firmware Extension for Secure Cryptocurrency Key Backup, Restore, and Transaction Signing Platform Apparatuses, Methods and Systems (“SFTSP”) transforms contract deployment request, transaction signing request, key backup request, key recovery request inputs via SFTSP components into contract deployment response, transaction signing response, key backup response, key recovery response outputs. A transaction signing request message datastructure associated with a transaction is obtained. Owner key identification parameters associated with an owner datastructure associated with a verified address wallet datastructure are determined. A contract address for the verified address wallet datastructure is calculated as a function of a deployment factory address, a salt value for the smart contract, contract code for the smart contract, and an owner address generated using the owner key identification parameters. A contract deployment signature is validated. A transaction hash for the transaction is calculated and a transaction signature is generated and returned.
US 20220321340 A1 Tsitrin; Vladimir et al. Address Verification, Seed Splitting and Firmware Extension for Secure Cryptocurrency Key Backup, Restore, and Transaction Signing Platform Apparatuses, Methods and Systems - The Address Verification, Seed Splitting and Firmware Extension for Secure Cryptocurrency Key Backup, Restore, and Transaction Signing Platform Apparatuses, Methods and Systems (“SFTSP”) transforms contract deployment request, transaction signing request, key backup request, key recovery request inputs via SFTSP components into contract deployment response, transaction signing response, key backup response, key recovery response outputs. A contract deployment request message datastructure is obtained. Owner key identification parameters are determined. An owner public key is determined using the owner key identification parameters. An owner address is generated using the owner public key. A salt value is generated. A contract address for the smart contract is calculated as a function of the deployment factory address, the salt value, the contract code, and the owner address. An owner private key is determined using the owner key identification parameters and used to sign the contract address. A contract deployment data datastructure is provided.
US 20190280864 A1 Cheng; Gang et al. Seed Splitting and Firmware Extension for Secure Cryptocurrency Key Backup, Restore, and Transaction Signing Platform Apparatuses, Methods and Systems - The Seed Splitting and Firmware Extension for Secure Cryptocurrency Key Backup, Restore, and Transaction Signing Platform Apparatuses, Methods and Systems (“SFTSP”) transforms transaction signing request, key backup request, key recovery request inputs via SFTSP components into transaction signing response, key backup response, key recovery response outputs. An offline transaction signing request message for a transaction is received by a first cold HSM and includes an encrypted second master key share from a second cold HSM and an encrypted third master key share from a hot HSM. A first master key share is retrieved. The encrypted master key shares are decrypted and, along with the first master key share, used to recover a master private key. A keychain path is determined. A signing private key for the keychain path is generated using the master private key. The transaction is signed using the signing private key, and the generated signature is returned.
US 20220253537 A1 Yao; Hui et al. SECURE DATA BACKUP METHOD, SECURE DATA RESTORATION METHOD, AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE - This application provides a data encryption method, a data decryption method, a secure data backup method, a secure data restoration method, and an electronic device. Different types of data packets in the card data are separately encrypted by using a secure element SE and a trusted execution environment TEE. In the encryption process, a user and a third-party card data provider are introduced, and are separately responsible for generation, storage, and delivery of one of key factors. Then, a real backup key is generated with reference to a key factor provided by a mobile phone party. After being encrypted in the SE and the TEE by using the backup key, the card data is uploaded to a cloud server for backup. The application can ensures data backup security in the SE and the TEE.
US 20210383334 A1 KRASNYANSKY; Serge M CONTINGENT PAYMENTS FOR VIRTUAL CURRENCIES - Approaches are described for contingent transfers of value. A configuration record for an account associated with a virtual wallet is obtained. The configuration record is used to evaluate at least one virtual wallet of an owner account. Based on the configuration record, keys or other secret data and an authorization scheme can be determined and applied to virtual wallets that are part of a contingent contract. Thereafter, the virtual wallets can be utilized to exchange tangible and virtual digital currencies in various financial transactions, banking operations, and other asset exchanges and/or utilized for another purpose such as exchanging an irreversible transfer of value as in a virtual currency to a reversible transfer of value as in fiat currency or a financial instrument.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s submitted remarks and arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant disagrees with the Office Action conclusions and asserts that the presented claims fully comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 regrading judicial exceptions. Further, Applicant is of the opinion that the prior art fails to teach Applicant’s invention.
Examiner respectfully disagrees in both regards.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Applicant submits:
a. The pending claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
b. The identified abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.
c. The pending claims amount to significantly more.
Furthermore, Applicant asserts that the Office has failed to meet its burden to identify the abstract idea and to establish that the identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application and that the pending claims do not amount to significantly more.
Examiner responds – The arguments have been considered in light of Applicants’ amendments to the claims. The arguments ARE NOT PERSUASIVE. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
The pending claims, as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application. This is because (1) they do not effect improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)); (2) they do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition (see the Vanda memo); (3) they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05 (b)); (4) they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05 (c)); (5) they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designated to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05 (e) and the Vanda memo).
In addition, the pending claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As such, the pending claims, when considered as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application and not amounting to significantly more.
More specific:
Applicant submits “Applicant respectfully submits that the Office Action overgeneralizes the claims by characterizing them as being directed to "conducting secure transactions and recording them on a blockchain."”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
An examiner can describe an abstract idea at different levels of generality without affecting the patent-eligibility analysis. Cf Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240--41 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction .... The Board's slight revision of its abstract idea analysis does not impact the patentability analysis."). That is the case here. Regardless of the level of generality used to describe the abstract idea recited in claim 1, the result is the same – claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Cf Accenture Glob. Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ("Although not as broad as the district court's abstract idea of organizing data, it is nonetheless an abstract concept.").
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Even assuming, arguendo, that the claims recite an abstract idea, the claims integrate any such concept into a practical application. The claimed combination addresses a technical problem in blockchain systems-namely, the traceability of transactions due to exposure of persistent wallet addresses-by requiring use of a transaction-specific one-time key derived from a shared secret and nonce.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
First, MPEP 2106.05(a) discloses that the additional claim elements bring about “improvements to the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field.” Storing assets securely in a wallet is a pure BUSINESS problem, rather than a technology or technical field problem. As such, the limitations which have not been deemed as being part of the identified abstract idea, i.e., the “additional elements,” do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application, as disclosed by MPEP 2106.05(a).
Second, MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) discloses:
An important consideration to evaluate when determining whether the claim as a whole integrates a judicial exception into a practical application is whether the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or other technology .... In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art .... Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology. the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. (Emphasis added)
That is, the claimed invention may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by demonstrating that it improves the relevant existing technology although it may not be an improvement over well-understood, routine, conventional activity. (Emphasis added)
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Moreover, the ordered combination of elements amounts to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The eligibility analysis in the instant office action has determined at Step 2B:
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 21 (which is representative of claims independent 28, 35) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claims 21, 28, 35 are deemed ineligible.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
It follows from the above that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 112(a).
The rejection is withdrawn, as a result of the amendments.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 103.
Applicant submits remarks and arguments geared toward the amendments. Examiner has carefully reviewed and considered Applicant’s remarks, however they ARE MOOT in light of the fact that they are geared towards the amendments. Nevertheless, Poschke discloses:
wherein the secure data wallet incorporates user-specific encrypted metadata storage configured to store metadata generated for the user, the metadata including information associated with at least one prior transaction, and the stored metadata being encrypted using at least one cryptographic scheme; {see at least [0163], [0168] crypto wallet contains a SIM with device/user metadata}
wherein the metadata generated for the user includes information associated with the request. {see at least [0231] the SIM (reads on user data/metadata) stores data for each received request (reads on information associated with the request). The claim element “generated for the user” consists entirely of language disclosing at most a reason to have performed earlier method steps (intended use or field of use), but does not affect the functions in a manipulative sense (see MPEP 2103 I C) and imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed method (see MPEP 2111.05, MPEP 2114 and authorities cited therein), so it is considered but given no patentable weight. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.}
Therefore, the prior art of record discloses the amended limitations.
The other arguments presented by Applicant continually point back to the above arguments as being the basis for the arguments against the other 103 rejections, as the other arguments are presented only because those claims depend from the independent claims, and the main argument above is presented against the independent claims. Therefore, it is believed that all arguments put forth have been addressed by the points above.
Examiner has reviewed and considered all of Applicant’s remarks. The changes of the grounds for rejection, if any, have been necessitated by Applicant’s extensive amendments to the claims. Therefore, the rejection is maintained, necessitated by the extensive amendments and by the fact that the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 101 has not been overcome.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Radu Andrei whose telephone number is 313.446.4948. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday 8:30am – 5pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John 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.
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.
As disclosed in MPEP 502.03, communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center information webpage. Status information for unpublished applications is available to registered users through Patent Center information webpage only.
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.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300
/Radu Andrei/
Primary Examiner, AU 3697
Prosecution Insights