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 the Claims
This is a final rejection prepared in response to applicant’s amendments filed on June 3, 2026.
Claims 24, 36 and 38-41 are amended.
Claims 24-41 are pending
Claims 1-23 are cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 25-37 and 39-41 are also rejected as they depend on either claims 24 or 38.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 24-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 24 and 38, the limitations “verifying, using the one or more processors of the token reference register, whether the input token reference of one of the registration requests can be uniquely assigned to a token of the transaction system…” and “storing at least one output token reference other than the checked input token reference in the memory of the token reference register for registering the token uniquely assigned to this output token reference in the transaction system if it is established in the verification step that a token of the transaction system can be assigned to the checked input token reference;” recite the phrase “can be” which renders the limitations indefinite. The phrase “can be” recites a mere possibility rather than reciting a definite condition/requirement imposed by the limitation.
Claims 25-37 and 39-41 are also rejected as they depend on either claims 24 or 38.
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 24-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an
abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 24-37 are directed to computer-implemented method (i.e., process). Claims 38-41 are directed to a system. 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: Claim 24, recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea. More specifically, the following bolded claim elements recite abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
A method for registering tokens of an electronic transaction system comprising
secure elements as subscriber units, each token of the transaction system having at least one token value and one private part of a token-individual key pair acting as token elements, the transaction system comprising a register layer including a token reference register and a direct transaction layer in which subscriber units exchange tokens directly among one another off-line without a communication link to the token reference register, the register layer being configured to store token references without logging transactions performed in the direct transaction layer, the token reference register comprising a memory and one or more processors, comprising the method steps:
receiving registration requests in the token reference register of the transaction system, the registration requests each having at least two token references including at least one input token reference and at least one output token reference, with an output token reference of a first registration request of the registration requests and an input token reference of a second registration request of the registration requests being identical;
verifying, using the one or more processors of the token reference register, whether the input token reference of one of the registration requests can be uniquely assigned to a token of the transaction system, the input token reference being checked to see whether it is or was stored in the token reference register; and
storing at least one output token reference other than the checked input token reference in the memory of the token reference register for registering the token uniquely assigned to this output token reference in the transaction system if it is established in the verification step that a token of the transaction system can be assigned to the checked input token reference; wherein in the receiving step, the registration requests are received in the token reference register as a sequence of registration requests, and in the verification and storage steps, the registration requests are processed in the token reference register as the sequence of registration requests.
Claim 24 recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) a method for storing token references based on comparing the references to stored references. The claim achieves this by receiving a sequence of registration requests, comparing the token references in the registration requests with stored token references and storing the received token reference. Claim 38 is significantly similar to claim 24. As such claim 38 also recites an abstract idea. Specifically, but for the additional elements, the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas (i.e., commercial or legal interactions).
Step 2A Prong Two: Because the claim recites abstract ideas, the analysis proceeds to
determine whether the claim recites additional elements that recite a practical application of the
abstract ideas. Here, the additional elements of an electronic transaction system, a register layer, a direct transaction layer, secure elements, subscriber units, a token reference register, a verification unit, one or more processors and a memory merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claim as a whole fail to recite a practical application of the abstract ideas.
Step 2B: Determines whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the exception itself. Evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Here, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements merely serve as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Dependent Claims: Claims 25-37 and 39-41 have also been analyzed for subject matter eligibility. However, claims 25-37 and 39-41 also fail to recite patent eligible subject matter for the following reasons:
Claim 25 recite the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
each token reference other than the other token reference from the sequence of registration requests was or is uniquely assigned to a token in the transaction system, and wherein in particular the tokens in a direct transaction layer of the transaction system were transmitted directly between subscriber units of the transaction system and/or were modified by a subscriber unit without these tokens being registered in the transaction system.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements of a transaction system, direct transaction layer and a subscriber unit 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)). Further, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claim 26 recite the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
In the receiving step, the registration requests are received as a sequence of registration requests of one of the secure elements; and/or at least the first and second registration requests of the sequence contain a previously unregistered token present in the subscriber unit, in particular the secure element.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements of a subscriber unit and a secure element fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because they merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claim 27 recite the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the entire sequence of registration requests is received in the token reference register before the verification step is executed; and/or the verification step is executed for at least one token reference from each registration request; and/or
the storage step is executed for the other token reference, in particular in each case, if the other token reference is not yet stored; and/or at least three registration requests of the sequence comprise a token reference, which is also the token reference of another registration request of the sequence.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional element of token reference register fails 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)). Further, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claim 28 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the entire sequence of registration requests is sent from a subscriber unit of the transaction system to a registration request unit of the transaction system before the verification step is executed, and wherein the token reference register sequentially receives and verifies each registration request from the sequence of registration requests from the registration request unit, before the next registration request from the sequence of registration requests is received and verified
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements of a subscriber unit, a registration request, a token reference register unit and a transaction system fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because they merely serve as tools to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claim 29 recite the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the sequence of registration requests is stored in an archiving unit of the token reference register.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements of an archiving unit and a token reference register fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because they merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claim 30 recite the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
each registration request from the sequence of registration requests is stored in an archiving unit of the token reference register, in a first part of the archiving unit, if it is established in the verification step that the checked token reference of one of the registration requests of the sequence of registration requests cannot be uniquely assigned to any token of the transaction system.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements of an archiving unit, a token reference register and transaction system fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because they merely serve as tools to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claim 31 recite the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
a sequence of registration requests with token references is stored in a second part of the archiving unit if all token references of the sequence of registration requests can each be uniquely assigned to a token of the transaction system.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements of an archiving unit and transaction system fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because they merely serve as tools to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claim 32 recite the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the token references of the sequence of registration requests are verified chronologically backwards
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 33 recite the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
each token reference comprises at least the token value of the token and a public part of the token-individual key pair as token reference elements, wherein the public part of the token-individual key pair was obtained by applying a cryptographic one-way function to the private part of the token-individual key pair of the token.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity”, “mental processes” and “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 34 recite the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the registration request is signed with the private part of the token-individual key pair in order to be able to verify an assignment of the token reference to the token.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 35 recite the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
each token reference has been obtained by masking the associated token by applying a homomorphic one-way function to the token.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity”, “mental processes” and “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 36 recite the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
generating, by the one or more processors of the token reference register, a registration response, wherein the registration response indicates a result of the verification step;
sending the registration response to a subscriber unit or registration request unit of the transaction system sending the registration request from the sequence of registration requests, the subscriber unit having the token of the at least one token reference of the sequence of registration requests.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements of one or more processors, a token reference register, a subscriber unit, a registration request unit and a transaction system fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because they merely serve as tools to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claim 37 recite the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the sequence of registration requests is provided by a subscriber unit, and/or wherein
each registration request of the sequence comprises at least one token reference as an output token reference and at least one input token reference, and/or wherein
the registration requests of the sequence are linked to each other, in particular, in each case, an output token reference of a registration request of the sequence forming an input token reference of the next registration request of the sequence.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements of a subscriber unit fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because they merely serve as tools to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claim 39 recite the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
an archive memory for storing sequences of registration requests; wherein the one or more processors are further configured to verify whether a token reference of a received registration request is stored in the token reference register and to register tokens newly generated by a token issuer or tokens deleted by a token issuer.
The non-bolded additional elements of an archive unit and the one or more processors fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because they merely serve as tools to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claim 40 recite the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
The memory is configured such that: a subscriber unit or a registration request unit only has write access - in particular by means of registration requests - to the memory; and/or the one or more processors have read and write access to the memory.
The non-bolded additional elements of a memory and the one or more processors fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because they merely serve as tools to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claim 41 recite the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
receive a plurality of registration requests, which are verified in parallel by the one or more processors as to whether the at least one token reference contained in the respectively received registration request is uniquely assigned to a token of the transaction system, with all registration requests of a sequence of registration requests being verified sequentially one after the other by a same one of the one or more processors in each case.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements of the one or more processors to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because they merely serve as tools to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
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 differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 24-35, 37-39 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gawlas (WO 2020212331 A1) in view of Antonopoulos (Mastering Bitcoin, Dec 2014).
Regarding claims 24 and 38, Gawlas discloses:
secure elements as subscriber units, each token of the transaction system having at least one token value and one private part of a token- individual key pair acting as token elements, (P.9 ¶5, In the present case, the terminal can have a security element in which the electronic coin data records are securely stored. A security element is preferably a special computer program product, in particular in the form of a secured runtime environment within an operating system of a terminal, English Trusted Execution Environments, TEE, stored on a data memory, for example a mobile terminal, a machine, preferably an ATM. Alternatively, the security element is, for example, as special hardware, in particular in the form of a secured hardware platform module, English Trusted Platform Module, TPM or as an embedded security module, eUICC, eSIM. The security element provides a trust worthy environment. ¶6, The communication between two terminals can be wireless or wired, or e.g. also take place optically, preferably via QR code or barcode, and can be designed as a secure channel. The optical path can include, for example, the steps of generating an optical coding, in particular a 2D coding, preferably a QR code, and reading in the optical coding. The exchange of the electronic coin data record is thus secured, for example, by cryptographic keys, for example a session key negotiated for an electronic coin data record exchange or a symmetrical or asymmetrical key pair.)
the transaction system comprising a register layer including a token reference register and a direct transaction layer in which subscriber units exchange tokens directly among one another off-line without a communication link to the token reference register, the register layer being configured to store token references without logging transactions performed in the direct transaction layer, (P. 9 ¶3, According to the invention, a two-layer payment system consisting of a direct payment transaction layer for the direct exchange of (unmasked) electronic coin data records and a monitoring layer, which can also be referred to as a “veiled electronic data record ledger”, is provided. In the monitoring instance of the verification layer, no payment transactions are recorded, only masked electronic coin data records and their processing for the purpose of verifying the validity of (unmasked) electronic coin data records. This guarantees the anonymity of the participants in the payment system. The monitoring instance provides information about valid and invalid electronic coin data sets, for example to avoid multiple issuance of the same electronic coin data set or to verify the authenticity of the electronic coin data set as validly issued electronic money. ¶4, The terminal can therefore transmit electronic coin data records to another terminal in the direct payment transaction layer without a connection to the checking entity, in particular when the terminalis offline.
receiving registration requests in the token reference register of the transaction system, (P. 4 ¶1-4, A registration request (such as a command to switch, connect or split) sent by the terminal device to the monitoring instance accordingly preferably comprises: - exactly one masked electronic coin data set to be registered and exactly one registered masked electronic coin data set, or At least two masked split modified electronic coin data sets to be registered (and the masked received electronic coin data set), or at least two registered masked electronic coin data sets (one of which is the masked electronic coin data set received and the masked associated electronic coin data set). The terminal sends the registration request to the monitoring entity, which stores valid, masked electronic coin data records for electronic coin data records. P.8 ¶5, Receiving a registration request which comprises at least one masked electronic coin data record to be registered and at least one registered masked electronic coin data record;
verifying, using the one or more processors of the token reference register, whether the input token reference of one of the registration requests can be uniquely assigned to a token of the transaction system, the input token reference being checked to see whether it is or was stored in the token reference register; and (P.8 ¶6-8, Check the registration request received, where it is checked whether the registered masked electronic coin data record of the registration request is stored as a valid masked electronic coin data record for transmission in the monitoring instance, and it is checked whether the masked electronic coin data records of the registration request are monetarily value-neutral overall; P.10 ¶3, For this purpose, the second terminal generates the masked, transmitted electronic coin data record, sends it to the monitoring entity and in doing so asks the monitoring entity about the validity of the electronic coin data record. The monitoring instance now checks whether the masked, transmitted electronic coin data record is even present and whether it is still valid, i.e. has not already been used by another terminal, in order to avoid double spending.)
storing at least one output token reference other than the checked input token reference in the memory of the token reference register for registering the token uniquely assigned to this output token reference in the transaction system if it is established in the verification step that a token of the transaction system can be assigned to the checked input token reference; (P.8 ¶9, Saving the masked electronic coin data set to be registered as a valid masked electronic coin data set, the registered masked electronic coin data set of the registration request that was previously stored as valid is no longer valid. P.10 ¶5, The electronic coin data records of the first and / or second terminal device are preferably verified in or by the monitoring entity during the registration step. The check takes place as a function of the steps preceding the verification, for example whether a step of switching, connecting and / or dividing has taken place. The monitoring instance can, for example, check the validity of the (masked) Check transmitted and / or to be divided and / or first and second electronic coin data sets. This makes it possible to determine whether the electronic coin records are being processed for the first time. If the(masked) electronic coin data sets are not valid (i.e. in particular if they are not present in the monitoring instance) the registration cannot be carried out successfully, for example because the terminal tries to issue an electronic coin data set several times.)
Gawlas further discloses:
a memory (P.12 ¶4, the monitoring instance is a centrally managed database, for example in the form of a publicly accessible data memory or as a mixture of central and decentralized databases.)
Gawlas does not disclose, however Antonopoulos discloses:
the registration requests each having at least two token references including at least one input token reference and at least one output token reference, with an output token reference of a first registration request of the registration requests and an input token reference of a second registration request of the registration requests being identical; (P.18, Transactions are like lines in a double-entry bookkeeping ledger. In simple terms, each transaction contains one or more “inputs”, which are debits against a bitcoin account. On the other side of the transaction, there are one or more “outputs”, which are credits added to a bitcoin account. The inputs and outputs (debits and credits) do not necessarily add up to the same amount. Instead, outputs add up to slightly less than inputs and the difference represents an implied “transaction fee”, a small payment collected by the miner who includes the transaction in the ledger. P. 19, Transactions move value from transaction inputs to transaction outputs. An input is where the coin value is coming from, usually a previous transaction’s output. A transaction output assigns a new owner to the value by associating it with a key. The destination key is called an encumbrance. It imposes a requirement for a signature for the funds to be redeemed in future transactions. Outputs from one transaction can be used as inputs in a new transaction, thus creating a chain of ownership as the value is moved from address to address. P. 20, Figure 2-4. A chain of transactions, where the output of one transaction is the input of the next transaction Alice’s payment to Bob’s Cafe utilizes a previous transaction as its input. In the previous chapter Alice received bitcoin from her friend Joe in return for cash. That transaction has a number of bitcoins locked (encumbered) against Alice’s key. Her new transaction to Bob’s Cafe references the previous transaction as an input and creates new outputs to pay for the cup of coffee and receive change. The transactions form a chain, where the inputs from the latest transaction correspond to outputs from previous transactions.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Gawlas with Antonopoulos’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated in order to maintain a linkage between related tokens that will allow to verify token relationships and prevent orphan tokens.
Further, regarding the claimed limitations “the input token reference being checked to see whether it is or was stored in the token reference register” and “wherein in the receiving step, the registration requests are received in the token reference register as a sequence of registration requests, and in the verification and storage steps, the registration requests are processed in the token reference register as the sequence of registration requests.” only describe characteristics of the input token reference and the receiving step which are non-functional descriptive material and these characteristics are not processed or used to carry out any functionality that specifically relies on these particular characteristics.
Furthermore, in the method claim, the limitation “storing at least one output token reference other than the checked input token reference in the memory of the token reference register for registering the token uniquely assigned to this output token reference in the transaction system…” is a conditional limitation which means that the claim limitation is only required when “it is established in the verification step that a token of the transaction system can be assigned to the checked input token reference”.
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Gawlas and Antonopoulos further discloses:
each token reference other than the other token reference from the sequence of registration requests was or is uniquely assigned to a token in the transaction system, and wherein (P.4 ¶7, An electronic coin data record, on the other hand, is unique, unambiguous and is in the context of a security concept that can include signatures or encryptions, for example. ¶8, An electronic coin data set is uniquely represented by these at least two data (monetary amount and concealment amount). P.5 ¶1, The masked electronic coin data record is unique and can be clearly assigned to an electronic coin data record, i.e. a 1-to-1 relationship. The electronic coin data set is preferably masked by a computing unit of the terminal within the terminal which also has the at least one electronic coin data set.)
transmitted directly between subscriber units of the transaction system and/or were modified by a subscriber unit without these tokens being registered in the transaction system. (abstract, The invention relates to a device for directly transmitting electronic coin data records to another device. P. 8 ¶3, The actual payment transactions are not registered in the monitoring instance and take place in a direct transaction layer directly between terminals.
Further, regarding the claimed limitations “wherein each token reference other than the other token reference from the sequence of registration requests was or is uniquely assigned to a token in the transaction system” and “wherein in particular the tokens in a direct transaction layer of the transaction system were transmitted directly between subscriber units of the transaction system and/or were modified by a subscriber unit without these tokens being registered in the transaction system” only describe characteristics of each token reference and the tokens which are non-functional descriptive material and these characteristics are not processed or used to carry out any functionality that specifically relies on these particular characteristics.
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Gawlas and Antonopoulos further discloses:
wherein in the receiving step, the registration requests are received as a sequence of registration requests of one of the secure elements; and/or at least the first and second registration requests of the sequence contain a previously unregistered token present in the subscriber unit, in particular the secure element. (P. 50 ¶3, Bitcoin’s transactions are based on the concept of spending “outputs”, which are the result of previous transactions, to create a transaction chain that transfers ownership from address to address. Our wallet has now received a transaction that assigned one such output to our address. Once this is confirmed, we can now spend that output. P. 122 ¶3, As we have seen above, transactions form a chain, whereby one transaction spends the outputs of the previous transaction (known as the parent) and creates outputs for a subsequent transaction (known as the child). Sometimes an entire chain of transactions depending on each other, say a parent, child and grandchild transaction are created at the same time, to fulfill a complex transactional workflow that requires valid children to be signed before the parent is signed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modify the combination of Gawlas and Antonopoulos with the additional teaching of Antonopoulos. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated in order to establish an order in which requests arrive and are processed and assign tokens correctly.
Further, regarding the claimed limitations “wherein in the receiving step, the registration requests are received as a sequence of registration requests of one of the secure elements; and/or at least the first and second registration requests of the sequence contain a previously unregistered token present in the subscriber unit, in particular the secure element” only describe characteristics of the registration requests which are non-functional descriptive material and these characteristics are not processed or used to carry out any functionality that specifically relies on these particular characteristics.
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Gawlas and Antonopoulos further discloses:
the entire sequence of registration requests is received in the token reference register before the verification step is executed; and/or the verification step is executed for at least one token reference from each registration request; and/or the storage step is executed for the other token reference, in particular in each case, if the other token reference is not yet stored; and/or at least three registration requests of the sequence comprise a token reference, which is also the token reference of another registration request of the sequence (P. 122 ¶3, As we have seen above, transactions form a chain, whereby one transaction spends the outputs of the previous transaction (known as the parent) and creates outputs for a subsequent transaction (known as the child). Sometimes an entire chain of transactions depending on each other, say a parent, child and grandchild transaction are created at the same time, to fulfill a complex transactional workflow that requires valid children be signed before the parent is signed. P.122 ¶4, When a chain of transactions is transmitted across the network, they don’t always arrive in the same order. Sometimes, the child might arrive before the parent. In that case, the nodes which see a child first can see that it references a parent transaction that is not yet known. Rather than reject the child, they put it in a temporary pool to await the arrival of its parent and propagate it to every other node. The pool of transactions without parents is known as the orphan transaction pool. Once the parent arrives, any orphans that reference the UTXO created by the parent are released from the pool, revalidated recursively and then the entire chain of transactions can be included in the transaction pool, ready to be mined in block. Transaction chains can be arbitrarily long, with any number of generations transmitted simultaneously. The mechanism of holding orphans in the orphan pool ensures that otherwise valid transactions will not be rejected just because their parent has been delayed and that eventually the chain they belong to is reconstructed in the correct order, regardless of the order of arrival. P.160 ¶4, Some node implementations also maintain a separate pool of orphaned transactions as detailed in (to come). If a transaction’s inputs refer to a transaction that is not yet known, a missing parent, then the orphan transaction will be stored temporarily in the orphan pool until the parent transaction arrives)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modify the combination of Gawlas and Antonopoulos with the additional teaching of Antonopoulos. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated in order to ensure that the system can check for unique values across all requests before validating the requests, therefore maintaining correct assignment of the token references.
Further, the claim limitation “wherein the entire sequence of registration requests is received in the token reference register before the verification step is executed; and/or the verification step is executed for at least one token reference from each registration request; and/or the storage step is executed for the other token reference, in particular in each case” is a conditional limitation which means that the claim limitation is only required when the stated condition is met.
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Gawlas and Antonopoulos further discloses:
wherein the entire sequence of registration requests is sent from a subscriber unit of the transaction system to a registration request unit of the transaction system before the verification step is executed, and wherein the token reference register sequentially receives and verifies each registration request from the sequence of registration requests from the registration request unit, before the next registration request from the sequence of registration requests is received and verified. (P. 122 ¶3, As we have seen above, transactions form a chain, whereby one transaction spends the outputs of the previous transaction (known as the parent) and creates outputs for a subsequent transaction (known as the child). Sometimes an entire chain of transactions depending on each other, say a parent, child and grandchild transaction are created at the same time, to fulfill a complex transactional workflow that requires valid children be signed before the parent is signed. P.122 ¶4, When a chain of transactions is transmitted across the network, they don’t always arrive in the same order. Sometimes, the child might arrive before the parent. In that case, the nodes which see a child first can see that it references a parent transaction that is not yet known. Rather than reject the child, they put it in a temporary pool to await the arrival of its parent and propagate it to every other node. The pool of transactions without parents is known as the orphan transaction pool. Once the parent arrives, any orphans that reference the UTXO created by the parent are released from the pool, revalidated recursively and then the entire chain of transactions can be included in the transaction pool, ready to be mined in block. Transaction chains can be arbitrarily long, with any number of generations transmitted simultaneously. The mechanism of holding orphans in the orphan pool ensures that otherwise valid transactions will not be rejected just because their parent has been delayed and that eventually the chain they belong to is reconstructed in the correct order, regardless of the order of arrival. P.160 ¶4, Some node implementations also maintain a separate pool of orphaned transactions as detailed in (to come). If a transaction’s inputs refer to a transaction that is not yet known, a missing parent, then the orphan transaction will be stored temporarily in the orphan pool until the parent transaction arrives)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modify the combination of Gawlas and Antonopoulos with the additional teaching of Antonopoulos. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated in order to ensure that the system can check for unique values across all requests before validating the requests, therefore maintaining correct assignment of the token references.
Further, regarding the claimed limitations “wherein the entire sequence of registration requests is sent from a subscriber unit of the transaction system to a registration request unit of the transaction system before the verification step is executed, and wherein the token reference register sequentially receives and verifies each registration request from the sequence of registration requests from the registration request unit, before the next registration request from the sequence of registration requests is received and verified” only describe characteristics of the entire sequence of registration requests which are non-functional descriptive material and these characteristics are not processed or used to carry out any functionality that specifically relies on these particular characteristics.
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Gawlas and Antonopoulos further discloses:
wherein the sequence of registration requests is stored in an archiving unit of the token reference register. (P.160 ¶3, As transactions are received and verified, they are added to the transaction pool and relayed to the neighboring nodes to propagate on the network. P.160 ¶6, Both the transaction pool and orphan pool (where implemented) are stored in local memory and are not saved on persistent storage, rather they are dynamically populated from incoming network messages. P.163 ¶1, The blockchain data structure is an ordered back-linked list of blocks of transactions. The blockchain can be stored as a flat file, or in a simple database.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modify the combination of Gawlas and Antonopoulos with the additional teaching of Antonopoulos. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated in order to maintain records of all transactions for auditing purposes.
Further, regarding the claimed limitation “wherein the sequence of registration requests is stored in an archiving unit of the token reference register” only describe characteristics of the sequence of registration requests which are non-functional descriptive material and these characteristics are not processed or used to carry out any functionality that specifically relies on these particular characteristics.
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Gawlas and Antonopoulos further discloses:
wherein each registration request from the sequence of registration requests is stored in an archiving unit of the token reference register, in a first part of the archiving unit, if it is established in the verification step that the checked token reference of one of the registration requests of the sequence of registration requests cannot be uniquely assigned to any token of the transaction system (P.160 ¶3, Some node implementations also maintain a separate pool of orphaned transactions as detailed in (to come). If a transaction’s inputs refer to a transaction that is not yet known, a missing parent, then the orphan transaction will be stored temporarily in the orphan pool until the parent transaction arrives. P.203 ¶5, If a valid block is received and no parent is found in the existing chains, then that block is considered an “orphan”. Orphan blocks are saved in the orphan block pool where they will stay until their parent is received.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modify the combination of Gawlas and Antonopoulos with the additional teaching of Antonopoulos. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated in order to segregate unverified references from verified ones to avoid duplication and to allow their use for later resolution.
Further, regarding the claimed limitation “wherein each registration request from the sequence of registration requests is stored in an archiving unit of the token reference register, in a first part of the archiving unit…” only describe characteristics of each registration request which are non-functional descriptive material and these characteristics are not processed or used to carry out any functionality that specifically relies on these particular characteristics.
Furthermore, the claim limitation “wherein each registration request from the sequence of registration requests is stored in an archiving unit of the token reference register, in a first part of the archiving unit” is a conditional limitation which means that the claim limitation is only required when the stated condition is met.
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Gawlas and Antonopoulos further discloses:
wherein a sequence of registration requests with token references is stored in a second part of the archiving unit if all token references of the sequence of registration requests can each be uniquely assigned to a token of the transaction system. (P.160 ¶2, Almost every node on the bitcoin network maintains a temporary list of unconfirmed transactions called the memory pool or transaction pool. Nodes use this pool to keep track of transactions that are known to the network but are not yet included in the blockchain)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Gawlas and Antonopoulos with the additional teaching of Antonopoulos. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated in order to segregate verified references from unverified ones to avoid duplication.
Further, regarding the claimed limitation “wherein a sequence of registration requests with token references is stored in a second part of the archiving unit…” only describe characteristics of a sequence of registration requests which are non-functional descriptive material and these characteristics are not processed or used to carry out any functionality that specifically relies on these particular characteristics.
Furthermore, the claim limitation “wherein a sequence of registration requests with token references is stored in a second part of the archiving unit” is a conditional limitation which means that the claim limitation is only required when the stated condition is met.
Regarding claim 32, the combination of Gawlas and Antonopoulos further discloses:
wherein the token references of the sequence of registration requests are verified chronologically backwards. (P. 184 ¶6, To construct the candidate block Jing’s bitcoin node selects transactions from the memory pool, by applying a priority metric to each transaction and adding the highest priority transactions first. Transactions are prioritized based on the “age” of the UTXO that is being spent in their inputs, allowing for old and high-value inputs to be prioritized over newer and smaller inputs.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modify the combination of Gawlas and Antonopoulos with the additional teaching of Antonopoulos. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated in order to ensure that the token references are correctly assigned.
Further, regarding the claimed limitation “wherein the token references of the sequence of registration requests are verified chronologically backwards” only describe characteristics of the token references of the sequence of registration requests which are non-functional descriptive material and these characteristics are not processed or used to carry out any functionality that specifically relies on these particular characteristics.
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Gawlas and Antonopoulos further discloses:
each token reference comprises at least the token value of the token and a public part of the token-individual key pair as token reference elements, wherein the public part of the token-individual key pair was obtained by applying a cryptographic one-way function to the private part of the token-individual key pair of the token. (P. 18, In simple terms, each transaction contains one or more “inputs”, which are debits against a bitcoin account. On the other side of the transaction, there are one or more “outputs”, which are credits added to a bitcoin account. The inputs and outputs (debits and credits) do not necessarily add up to the same amount. Instead, outputs add up to slightly less than inputs and the difference represents an implied “transaction fee”, a small payment collected by the miner who includes the transaction in the ledger. P.63, The private key (k) is a number, usually picked at random. From the private key, we use elliptic curve multiplication, a one-way cryptographic function, to generate a public key (K). From the public key (K), we use a one-way cryptographic hash function to generate a bitcoin address (A). P.62, When spending bitcoins, the current bitcoin owner presents their public key and a signature (different each time, but created from the same private key; see (to come)) in a transaction to spend those bitcoins. See fig 2-3 on page 19 and 2-4 on page 20)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modify the combination of Gawlas and Antonopoulos with the additional teaching of Antonopoulos. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated in order to improve security and verifiability of the token by avoiding exposure to private keys.
Further, regarding the claimed limitation “comprises at least the token value of the token and a public part of the token-individual key pair as token reference elements, wherein the public part of the token-individual key pair was obtained by applying a cryptographic one-way function to the private part of the token-individual key pair of the token” does not move to distinguish over prior art.
Regarding claim 34, the combination of Gawlas and Antonopoulos further discloses:
wherein the registration request is signed with the private part of the token-individual key pair in order to be able to verify an assignment of the token reference to the token. (P.20, Alice’s payment to Bob’s Cafe utilizes a previous transaction as its input. In the previous chapter Alice received bitcoin from her friend Joe in return for cash. That transaction has a number of bitcoins locked (encumbered) against Alice’s key. Her new transaction to Bob’s Cafe references the previous transaction as an input and creates new outputs to pay for the cup of coffee and receive change. The transactions form a chain, where the inputs from the latest transaction correspond to outputs from previous transactions. Alice’s key provides the signature which unlocks those previous transaction outputs, thereby proving to the bitcoin network that she owns the funds. She attaches the payment for coffee to Bob’s address, thereby “encumbering” that output with the requirement that Bob produces a signature in order to spend that amount. This represents a transfer of value between Alice and Bob. P.62, When spending bitcoins, the current bitcoin owner presents their public key and a signature (different each time, but created from the same private key; see (to come)) in a transaction to spend those bitcoins.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modify the combination of Gawlas and Antonopoulos with the additional teaching of Antonopoulos. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated in order to improve security and prevent unauthorized token registration.
Further, regarding the claimed limitation “…is signed with the private part of the token-individual key pair in order to be able to verify an assignment of the token reference to the token” does not move to distinguish over prior art.
Regarding claim 35, the combination of Gawlas and Antonopoulos further discloses:
wherein each token reference has been obtained by masking the associated token by applying a homomorphic one-way function to the token. (Gawlas P.3 ¶11, Masking the further electronic coin data set in the second terminal by applying a homomorphic one-way function to the further electronic coin data set to obtain a masked electronic coin data set; P.36, Masking the electronic coin data set (C .sub.i , C .sub.j , C .sub.k , C .sub.m , C .sub.1 ) in the device(M1) by applying a homomorphic one-way function (f (C)) to the electronic coin data set (C .sub.i , C.sub.j , C .sub.k , C .sub.m , C .sub.1 ) for obtaining a masked electronic coin data set (Z ;, Z .sub.j , Z.sub.k , Z .sub.m , Z .sub.1 ) for registering the masked electronic coin data set (Z .sub.i , Z .sub.j , Z.sub.k , Z .sub.m , Z .sub.1 ) in a monitoring instance (2);)
Further, regarding the claimed limitation “wherein each token reference has been obtained by masking the associated token by applying a homomorphic one-way function to the token” only describe characteristics of each token reference which are non-functional descriptive material and these characteristics are not processed or used to carry out any functionality that specifically relies on these particular characteristics.
Regarding claim 37, the combination of Gawlas and Antonopoulos further discloses:
wherein the sequence of registration requests is provided by a subscriber unit, and/or wherein each registration request of the sequence comprises at least one token reference as an output token reference and at least one input token reference, and/or wherein the registration requests of the sequence are linked to each other, in particular, in each case, an output token reference of a registration request of the sequence forming an input token reference of the next registration request of the sequence. (P.20 ¶2, The most common form of transaction is a simple payment from one address to another, which often includes some “change” returned to the original owner. This type of transaction as one input and two outputs… P. 21 ¶1, Another common form of transaction is a transaction that aggregates several inputs into a single output. P. 22 ¶1, Finally, another transaction form that is seen often on the bitcoin ledger is a transaction that distributes one input to multiple outputs representing multiple recipients.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modify the combination of Gawlas and Antonopoulos with the additional teaching of Antonopoulos. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated in order to provide a defined mapping from an input token to an output token which is very important for token assignment and verification.
Further, regarding the claimed limitation “wherein the sequence of registration requests is provided by a subscriber unit, and/or wherein each registration request of the sequence comprises at least one token reference as an output token reference and at least one input token reference, and/or wherein the registration requests of the sequence are linked to each other, in particular, in each case, an output token reference of a registration request of the sequence forming an input token reference of the next registration request of the sequence” only describe characteristics of the sequence of registration requests which are non-functional descriptive material and these characteristics are not processed or used to carry out any functionality that specifically relies on these particular characteristics.
Regarding claim 41, the combination of Gawlas and Antonopoulos further discloses:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to receive a plurality of registration requests, which are verified in parallel by the one or more processors as to whether the at least one token reference contained in the respectively received registration request is uniquely assigned to a token of the transaction system, with all registration requests of a sequence of registration requests being verified sequentially one after the other by a same one of the one or more processors in each case. (P. 182 ¶3-5, The resulting transaction is then sent to the neighboring nodes in the bitcoin network so that it may be propagated across the entire bitcoin network. However, before forwarding transactions to its neighbors, every bitcoin node that receives a transaction will first verify the transaction. This ensures that only valid transactions are propagated across the network, while invalid transactions are discarded at the first node that encounters them. Each node verifies every transaction against a long checklist of criteria. P. 183 ¶3, By independently verifying each transaction as it is received and before propagating it, every node builds a pool of valid new transactions (the transaction pool), roughly in the same order.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modify the combination of Gawlas and Antonopoulos with the additional teaching of Antonopoulos. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated in order to improve efficiency determining token references uniqueness when handling multiple requests.
Further, regarding the claimed limitation “…which are verified in parallel by the one or more processors as to whether the at least one token reference contained in the respectively received registration request is uniquely assigned to a token of the transaction system, with all registration requests of a sequence of registration requests being verified sequentially one after the other by a same one of the one or more processors in each case” only describe characteristics of a plurality of registration requests which are non-functional descriptive material and these characteristics are not processed or used to carry out any functionality that specifically relies on these particular characteristics.
Claim 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gawlas and Antonopoulos as applied to claim 24, in view of Castinado (US 2017/0132630 A1).
Regarding claim 36, the combination of Gawlas and Antonopoulos does not disclose, however Castinado teaches:
generating, by the one or more processors of the token reference register, a registration response, wherein the registration response indicates a result of the verification step; sending the registration response to a subscriber unit or registration request unit of the transaction system sending the registration request from the sequence of registration requests, the subscriber unit having the token of the at least one token reference of the sequence of registration requests. (¶0118, Subsequently, the process moves to block 882 of FIG. 8D where the mobile P2P payment system client application 694 provides notification to the first user that a transfer or a notice of transfer request to the recipient (second user) has been initiated and displays the information regarding the transfer to the first user. An instance of this notification is shown in FIG. 9F. FIG. 9F shows a confirmation page that displays the transfer-from account, the transfer-to account or recipient alias, the amount transferred, the fee incurred by the first user for making this transfer, the total cost of the transfer, and the date on which the transfer was executed. The confirmation page also displays a confirmation number associated with the transfer. The confirmation page also displays whether the transfer has been successful. ¶0164, IG. 12D shows that the text message is from “Bank X” and the message is that the first user has successfully transferred a sum of money to a recipient who is identified by name and alias. The text message also provides the first user with a confirmation number for the transfer.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modify the combination of Gawlas and Antonopoulos with the teaching of Castinado. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated in order to ensure that the user of the subscriber unit is aware of the completion of the transaction and its status.
Further, regarding the claimed limitation “wherein the registration response indicates a result of the verification step” and “the subscriber unit having the token of the at least one token reference of the sequence of registration requests” only describe characteristics of the registration response and the subscriber unit which are non-functional descriptive material and these characteristics are not processed or used to carry out any functionality that specifically relies on these particular characteristics.
Claim 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gawlas and Antonopoulos as applied to claim 38, in view of Graves (US 20040177047 A1) .
Regarding claim 39, the combination of Gawlas and Antonopoulos does not disclose, however Graves teaches:
an archive memory for storing sequences of registration requests; wherein the one or more processors are further configured to verify whether a token reference of a received registration request is stored in the token reference register and to register tokens newly generated by a token issuer or tokens deleted by a token issuer. (¶0021, System 100 also optionally includes a directory 140 of authentication services, which is accessible by buyer 110, and a database 150 of buyer profiles and a transaction archive 170, both of which are accessible by the authentication service 130. ¶0044, In the transaction recordation stage 206, the authentication service 130 stores 280 a record of the transaction in the transaction archive 170. ¶0073, the transID field contains a transaction identifier that can be used by either the buyer 110 or seller 120 to refer to the transaction in the transaction archive 170.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the combination of Gawlas and Antonopoulos with the teaching of Graves. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated in order to maintain historical data of the registration requests for auditing, troubleshooting or future processing.
Further, the claimed limitation “for…” in “an archive memory for storing sequences of registration requests” consists of language disclosing an intended use, so it is considered but given no patentable weight. (see MPEP 2111.05, MPEP 2114 and authorities cited therein). The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gawlas and Antonopoulos as applied on claim 38 above, in view of Masputra (US 20190303204 A1).
Regarding claim 40, the combination of Maxwell, Zhang and Antonopoulos do not disclose, however Masputra teaches:
the memory is configured such that: a subscriber unit or a registration request unit only has write access - in particular by means of registration requests - to the memory; and/or the one or more processors have read and write access to the memory. (¶0185, In other words, one established memory pool (or portion thereof) may be dedicated to write only memory accesses, while another established memory pool (or portion thereof) may be dedicated to read only memory accesses and vice versa.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the combination of Gawlas and Antonopoulos with Masputra’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated in order to restrict access or modifications to store data.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
Claim objections in the previous non-final action dated 01/05/2026 are withdrawn in light of the claim amendments.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112
Claim rejections 35 U.S.C. § 112 in the previous non-final action dated 01/05/2026 are withdrawn in light of the claim amendments.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 101
The applicant presents several assertions regarding claim rejection 35 U.S.C. § 101 in the previous non-final office action dated 01/05/2026.
First, the applicant asserts that “claim 24 is not directed to an agreement between people, a legal obligation, a sales practice, or a business relation, and it is not a process that can practically be performed in the human mind and instead the claim recites a specific cryptographic and computer-implemented architecture for an electronic token transaction system”. The examiner finds this assertion not persuasive and respectfully disagrees. The claim is directed to a method for receiving a sequence of registration requests, comparing the token references in the registration requests with stored token references and storing the received token reference which constitute collecting, analyzing and storing information. Therefore, the claim falls within the realm of abstract ideas under the certain methods of organizing human activities. The recitation of cryptographic tokens and particular computer technology merely apply the abstract idea in the technological environment in which the information is processed and does not change the underlining abstract idea. As per MPEP 2106.04(a), in step 2A prong one to determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea, the specific limitations in the claim under examination must be identified and analyzed to determine whether they fall within at least one of the recognize groupings of abstract ideas. If one of the limitations in the examined claim falls within one of the groups, it is reasonable to conclude that the claims recite an abstract idea, and the examination continues to step 2A prong two.
Second, the applicant asserts that “claim 24 recites a technical solution that solves the need for a secure but simple registration of a sequence of transactions while maintaining anonymity, enabling immediate further use of received tokens, detecting double spending or unavailable token values, and allowing an unlimited number of transactions in a sequence”. The examiner finds this assertion not persuasive and respectfully disagrees. Although the applicant asserts that the specifications recite the claimed subject matter as addressing a technical problem involving enabling immediate further use of received tokens, detecting double spending or unavailable token values, and allowing an unlimited number of transactions in a sequence, the amended claim does not recite such improvements. As amended the claim just recites “receiving a sequence of registration requests, comparing the token references in the registration requests with stored token references and storing the received token reference based on the comparison” which amounts to receiving, analyzing and storing information as previously mentioned. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specifications, limitations from the specifications are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26cUSPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Third, the applicant asserts that “the claim integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application because the claim does not merely compare and store data on a generic computer but it species a specific two-layer token system, a particular cryptographic token/token- reference relationship, a particular mode of receiving registration requests as a sequence after off-line token exchanges, and a particular register-side processing arrangement that stores token references without logging direct-layer transactions.” The examiner finds this assertion not persuasive and respectfully disagrees. The recitation of a specific two-layer token system and a particular cryptographic token/token- reference relationship merely define the information being received and the environment in which the method is processed. The asserted benefits of improving security anonymity, anonymity, efficiency, offline exchange and token reuse are not sufficient because the claim does not recite a specific technological mechanism to achieve such improvements. Therefore, the claim does not recite any technological advancement or inventive integration and thus fails to impose any meaningful limit that would transform the abstract idea into a practical application under the second prong of step 2A of the subject matter eligibility framework.
Finally, the applicant asserts that “the ordered combination of elements and steps in the claim was well understood, routine or conventional”. The examiner finds this assertion not persuasive and respectfully disagrees. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 was not based on the determination that the recited elements or steps are routine or conventional. Rather, the claims are directed to an abstract idea and do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, whether the claimed steps are routine or unconventional does not overcome the rejection. Even assuming, arguendo, that the steps are not routine or conventional, the claim still recites the abstract idea implemented using generic computer components and does not amount to significantly more than the underlining abstract idea.
As such the claims remain within an abstract idea and rejection is maintained based on the
newly amended claims.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection have been considered but are moot because of new ground of rejection.
Relevant Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20230084651 A1 to Fritzhanns discloses: A method relates to a terminal for managing electronic coin datasets and to a corresponding terminal. The electronic coin datasets are output by a central issuer entity, wherein each electronic coin dataset has a test value, and the test value is incremented when the electronic coin dataset is directly transmitted between two terminals or the test value is invariant in the event of an action carried out by terminals on the electronic coin dataset. In the method, it is determined whether the electronic coin dataset is displayed by the terminal in the payment system or whether the electronic coin dataset is returned to the central issuer entity. A method in a payment system is provided for managing electronic coin datasets, to a corresponding payment system, and to a monitoring entity.
US 20220207500 A1 to Gawlas discloses: A device for directly transmitting electronic coin data records to another device includes accessing data storage, such that an electronic coin data record is stored in the data storage; an interface at least for outputting the at least one electronic coin data record to the other device; and a computing unit configured to mask the electronic coin data record in the device by applying a homomorphic encryption function to the electronic coin data record to obtain a masked electronic coin data record for registering the masked electronic coin data record at a monitoring entity; and to output the electronic coin data record using the interface. A payment system has a monitoring layer including a database in which masked electronic coin data records are stored; and a direct transaction layer including at least two devices in which the method can be carried out.
WO 2022008321 A1 to Albert discloses: The invention relates to a method in a first security element for transmitting an electronic coin data set to a second security element, said electronic coin data set being registered in a coin register of a payment system. The method has the steps of: setting a status of the electronic coin data set from the security element to an inactive status; transmitting the electronic coin data set from the first security element to the second security element; checking whether a receipt confirmation from the second security element has been received in the first security element; and deleting the transmitted electronic coin data set if the checking step results in that the receipt confirmation has been obtained by the first security element. The invention additionally relates to a payment system, a coin register, a security element, and a terminal for transmitting electronic coin data sets. (Fig. 5)
DE 102020004121 A1 to Albert discloses: The invention relates to a method in a first subscriber unit, preferably a first security element, having an electronic coin data record that is registered in a coin register of a payment system, with the method steps: generating a transaction data record with regard to a transmission of the electronic coin data record to a second subscriber unit, preferably a second Security element or regarding a modification of the electronic coin data record to be registered at the coin register; Encrypting the generated transaction data record with a cryptographic key, the cryptographic key being composed of at least two partial cryptographic keys, preferably at least three partial cryptographic keys, each from different remote entities; and initiating a communication connection to a transaction register of the payment system in order to send the encrypted transaction record to the transaction register. The invention further relates to a subscriber unit, a method in a transaction register, a transaction register and a payment system.
WO 2021170646 A1 to Fritzhanns discloses: The invention relates to a method for directly transmitting electronic coin datasets between terminals, wherein a first terminal has at least one electronic coin dataset, and the at least one electronic coin dataset has a monetary value and a concealment value. The method has the steps of: determining a masking mode from at least two masking modes, a first masking mode consisting of: masking the electronic coin dataset, preferably in the first terminal, by applying a one-way function to the first coin dataset in order to obtain a completely masked electronic coin dataset; and registering a masked electronic coin dataset in a monitoring entity. The invention additionally relates to a payment system with a monitoring layer using a database, which is controlled in a decentralized manner and in which masked electronic coin datasets are stored, and a direct transaction layer, which uses at least two terminals and in which the method can be carried out.
WO 0144968 A2 to Milner discloses: The invention relates to financial transaction based on notified changes of ownership of statically held tokens. The tokens may be software entities recording data relating to value, value type, expiry date, escrow period and authentication information linking the token to a purse. The purse is an entity which records the existence of the tokens (the tokens being stored on a token server) and is the interface between a user and the token ownership transfer means. The system further includes purse registers which carry data linking the purse with a particular owner. When a token register receives an instruction to transfer ownership of a token, authentication information is forwarded to the purse register where the user is authenticated. The token register may authenticate matters relating to the token itself. The invention is particularly effective in that it prevents the collection of auditing or profiling data for a particular individual.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANICE LOZA whose telephone number is (571)270-3979. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571) 272-7575. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/J.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/STEVEN S KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights