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 .
Election/Restrictions Acknowledgement
The applicant’s election without traverse of Group I: (Claims 24-41) in the communication received on September 29, 2025 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on February 03,2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
This is a non-final rejection prepared in response to U.S. Patent Application 18/681,041 filed on
February 03, 2024.
Claims 24-41 are pending.
Claims 1-23 are cancelled.
Claim Objections
Claims 24 and 38 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 24, recites the limitation "the memory unit" in "storing at least one token reference other than the checked token reference in the memory unit of the token reference register for registering the token uniquely assigned to this token reference in the transaction system if it is established in the verification step that a token of the transaction system can be . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 38, should be amended in independent form to avoid any confusions that may arise due to statutory differences in claims 24 and 38.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“verifying, using a verification unit of the token reference register…” in claim 24
“A token reference register for a transaction system, configured for performing the method steps according to claim 24” in claim 38
“at least one verification unit for verifying…” and “a new registration unit for registering tokens…” in claim 39
“The token reference register according to claim 38, configured for receiving…” in claim 41.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 24-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 24, limitation “verifying, using a verification unit of the token reference register…” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Here the claims and specifications are silent with respect to any structure corresponding to the generic placeholder. Therefore the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lacking adequate written description.
Regarding claim 38, limitation “A token reference register for a transaction system, configured for performing the method steps according to claim 24” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Here the claims and specifications are silent with respect to any structure corresponding to the generic placeholder. Therefore the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lacking adequate written description.
Regarding claim 39, limitations “at least one verification unit for verifying…” and “a new registration unit for registering tokens…” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Here the claims and specifications are silent with respect to any structure corresponding to the generic placeholder. Therefore the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lacking adequate written description.
Regarding claim 41, limitation “The token reference register according to claim 38, configured for receiving…” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Here the claims and specifications are silent with respect to any structure corresponding to the generic placeholder. Therefore the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lacking adequate written description.
Claims 25-37 and 40 are also rejected upon rejected parent independent claim 24.
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 claim 24, limitation “verifying, using a verification unit of the token reference register…” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification fails to disclose sufficient corresponding structure for the claimed “means” limitations. In other words, the structure for achieving the functions do not commensurate in scope of the operation. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding claim 24, limitation “verifying, using a verification unit of the token reference register, whether a token reference of a registration request can be uniquely assigned…” is unclear. The verifying step recites “a token reference of a registration request”, however the receiving step previously recited “one token reference of a first registration request and one token reference of a second registration request”. Therefore it is unclear whether the “token reference of a registration request” recited in the verifying step refers to one of the token references already introduced in the receiving step and belongs to one of the received registration requests or refers to a different or newly received registration request with a new token reference that has not been previously introduced in the receiving step.
Regarding claim 38, limitation “A token reference register for a transaction system, configured for performing the method steps according to claim 24” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification fails to disclose sufficient corresponding structure for the claimed “means” limitations. In other words, the structure for achieving the functions do not commensurate in scope of the operation. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding claim 39, limitations “at least one verification unit for verifying…” and “a new registration unit for registering tokens…” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification fails to disclose sufficient corresponding structure for the claimed “means” limitations. In other words, the structure for achieving the functions do not commensurate in scope of the operation. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding claim 41, limitation “The token reference register according to claim 38, configured for receiving…” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification fails to disclose sufficient corresponding structure for the claimed “means” limitations. In other words, the structure for achieving the functions do not commensurate in scope of the operation. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 25-37 and 40 are also rejected upon rejected parent independent claim 24.
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 24-41 are directed to computer-implemented method (i.e., process). 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 transaction 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, comprising the method steps:
receiving registration requests in a token reference register of the transaction system, the registration requests each having at least two token references, with at least one token reference of a first registration request of the registration requests and one token reference of a second registration request of the registration requests being identical;
verifying, using a verification unit of the token reference register, whether a token reference of a registration request can be uniquely assigned to a token of the transaction system, the token reference being checked to see whether it is or was stored in the token reference register;
storing at least one token reference other than the checked token reference in the memory unit of the token reference register for registering the token uniquely assigned to this 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 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 a 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 sequences of registration requests, comparing the token references in the registration requests with stored token references and storing the received token reference. 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, secure elements, transaction unit, a token reference register, a verification unit and a memory unit 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 25-41 have also been analyzed for subject matter eligibility. However, claims 25-41 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, from the verification unit 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 a verification unit, 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 fails 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 38 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 token reference register for a transaction system, configured for performing the method steps according to claim 24
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 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).
at least one memory unit for storing token reference for registering tokens in the transaction system;
at least one verification unit for verifying whether a token reference of a received registration request is stored in the token reference register;
an archiving unit for storing sequences of registration requests; and
a new registration unit for registering tokens newly generated by a token issuer or tokens deleted by a token issuer.
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 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 unit 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 unit; and/or the archiving unit and/or the verification unit has read and write access to the memory unit.
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 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).
receiving a plurality of registration requests, which are verified in parallel in a majority of verification units 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 in the same verification unit 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 a verification units 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 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 and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maxwell (US 2016/0358165 A1) in view of Zhang (US 2019/0253235 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Maxwell discloses:
receiving registration requests in a token reference register of the transaction system, (¶0029, FIG. 4 shows a flow diagram for an exemplary method 400 for verifying an encrypted transaction on a blockchain. The encrypted input value, the encrypted output value, and the encrypted rangeproofs are received in a block appended to the blockchain at step 410. The encrypted input value and the encrypted output value may be extracted from the received block at step 420.)
verifying, using a verification unit of the token reference register, whether a token reference of a registration request can be uniquely assigned to a token of the transaction system, the token reference being checked to see whether it is or was stored in the token reference register; (¶0029, The encrypted input value and the encrypted output value may be extracted from the received block at step 420… The transaction is verified at step 430 if the sum of the encrypted input value and the encrypted output value is zero. Likewise, the transaction is denied verification if the sum of the encrypted input value and the encrypted output value is a nonzero value at step 440. Accordingly, the transaction may be verified as a valid transaction, where the inputs equal the outputs, without a verifier actually knowing the amounts transacted.)
storing at least one token reference other than the checked token reference in the memory unit of the token reference register for registering the token uniquely assigned to this 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 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 a sequence of registration requests. (¶0029, The block may then be published on a blockchain, where it may be subsequently verified.)
Further, regarding the claimed limitations “the registration requests each having at least two token references, with at least one token reference of a first registration request of the registration requests and one token reference of a second registration request of the registration requests being identical”, “the 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 a sequence of registration requests.” do not move to distinguish over prior art.
Maxwell does not disclose, however Zhang teaches:
the registration requests each having at least two token references, with at least one token reference of a first registration request of the registration requests and one token reference of a second registration request of the registration requests being identical; (¶0041, At 312, the user node A 302 uses its private key to digitally sign the ciphertext (T, T′, T″), the ciphertext (T1, T1′, T1″), r2, t2, the range proofs RP1 and RP2, and the public keys of the user node A 302, and the user node B. The digital signature added by the user node A 302 can be used to show that the transaction is authorized by the user node A 302. The digitally signed copy is submitted to the blockchain network at 314. ¶0042, At 316, the blockchain node 304 verifies the digital signature using a public key of the user node A 302. The blockchain node 304 can be a consensus node that can prove the validity of transactions in the blockchain network. If the blockchain node 304 cannot verify the digital signature of the user node A 302 using the public key, the digital signature can be determined to be incorrect, and the transaction can be denied. In some implementations, the blockchain node 304 can also include an anti-double spending mechanism. The blockchain node 304 can verify whether the transaction has already been executed or recorded. If the transaction has already been executed, the transaction can be rejected. Otherwise, the validation of the transaction can proceed.)
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 Maxwell’s invention with Zhang’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 limitation “for…” in “storing at least one token reference other than the checked token reference in the memory unit of the token reference register for registering the token...” 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.
Furthermore, the claim limitation “storing at least one token reference other than the checked token reference in the memory unit of the token reference register for registering the token uniquely assigned to this token reference in the transaction system” is a conditional limitation which means that the claim limitation is only required when the stated condition is met.
Regarding claim 33, Zhang further teaches:
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. (¶0039, At 308, the user node A 302 generates one or more range proofs. In some implementations, the range proofs can include a range proof RP1 to show that the transaction amount t is greater than or equal to zero, and a range proof RP2 to show that the transaction amount t is less than or equal to an account balance of the user node A.)
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 Maxwell’s invention with Zhang’s teaching. 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, Zhang further teaches:
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. (¶0041, At 312, the user node A 302 uses its private key to digitally sign the ciphertext (T, T′, T″), the ciphertext (T1, T1′, T1″), r2, t2, the range proofs RP1 and RP2, and the public keys of the user node A 302, and the user node B. The digital signature added by the user node A 302 can be used to show that the transaction is authorized by the user node A 302. The digitally signed copy is submitted to the blockchain network at 314.)
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 Maxwell’s invention with Zhang’s teaching. 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, Maxwell further discloses:
each token reference has been obtained by masking the associated token by applying a homomorphic one-way function to the token. (¶0019, A processor may add a blinding amount to an input value being transacted to create an encrypted input value at step 110. To encrypt an input value of a transaction, a particular type of commitment may be selected that preserves the additive property. ¶0020, A Pedersen commitment works like the above but with an additional property: commitments can be added, and the sum of a set of commitments is the same as a commitment to the sum of the data (with a blinding key set as the sum of the blinding keys): … In other words, the commitment preserves addition and the commutative property applies (i.e., the Pedersen commitment is additively homomorphic, in that the underlying data may be manipulated mathematically as if it is not encrypted.)
Further, regarding the claimed limitation “… has been obtained by masking the associated token by applying a homomorphic one-way function to the token” does not move to distinguish over prior art.
Claims 25-32, 37-39 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maxwell and Zhang as applied to claim 24, in view of Antonopoulos (Mastering Bitcoin, Dec 2014).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Maxwell and Zhang do not disclose, however Antonopoulos teaches:
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.165 ¶2, The block hash identifies a block uniquely and unambiguously and can be independently derived by any node by simply hashing the block header.)
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. (P. 8 ¶2, Alice can share this address and anyone can use it to send money directly to her new wallet. P.10 ¶4, Find a friend who has bitcoins and buy some from them directly. Many bitcoin users started this way. P.26 ¶2, If Bob’s bitcoin wallet application is directly connected to Alice’s wallet application, Bob’s wallet application may be the first node to receive the transaction.)
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 Maxwell and Zhang with Antonopoulos’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated in order to prevent ambiguity and reduce intermediary processing.
Further, regarding the claimed limitation “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” does not move to distinguish over prior art.
Regarding claim 26, the combination Maxwell and Zhang do not disclose, however Antonopoulos teaches:
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 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 Maxwell and Zhang with Antonopoulos’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated in order in order to establish an order in which requests arrive and are processed and assign tokens correctly.
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Maxwell and Zhang do not disclose, however Antonopoulos teaches:
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 Maxwell and Zhang with Antonopoulos’s teaching. 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 “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 Maxwell and Zhang do not disclose, however Antonopoulos teaches:
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 Maxwell and Zhang with Antonopoulos’ teaching. 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.
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Maxwell and Zhang do not disclose, however Antonopoulos teaches:
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 Maxwell and Zhang with Antonopoulos’ teaching. 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 “…is stored in an archiving unit of the token reference register” does not move to distinguish over prior art.
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Maxwell and Zhang do not disclose, however Antonopoulos teaches:
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 Maxwell and Zhang with Antonopoulos’ teaching. 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 “…is stored in an archiving unit of the token reference register, in a first part of the archiving unit” does not move to distinguish over prior art.
Furthermore, the claim limitation “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 Maxwell and Zhang do not disclose, however Antonopoulos teaches:
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 modify the combination of Maxwell and Zhang with Antonopoulos’ teaching. 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 “…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” does not move to distinguish over prior art.
Further, the claim limitation “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 Maxwell and Zhang do not disclose, however Antonopoulos teaches:
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 Maxwell and Zhang with Antonopoulos’ teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated in order to ensure that token references are correctly assigned.
Further, regarding the claimed limitation “…are verified chronologically backwards” does not move to distinguish over prior art.
Regarding claim 37, the combination of Maxwell and Zhang do not disclose, however Antonopoulos teaches:
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 Maxwell and Zhang with Antonopoulos’ teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated in order to provide a define mapping from an input token to an output token which is very important for to ken assignment and verification.
Regarding claim 38, the combination of Maxwell and Zhang do not disclose, however Antonopoulos teaches:
A token reference register for a transaction system, configured for performing the method steps according to claim 24. (P.3 ¶4, A public transaction ledger (the blockchain); P.15 ¶1, In this chapter we will examine bitcoin from a high-level by tracking a single transaction through the bitcoin system and watch as it becomes “trusted” and accepted by the bitcoin mechanism of distributed consensus and is finally recorded on the blockchain, the distributed ledger of all 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 modify the combination of Maxwell and Zhang with Antonopoulos’ teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated in order to provide a structure for storing, tracking and verifying token references.
Regarding claim 39, the combination of Maxwell and Zhang do not disclose, however Antonopoulos teaches:
at least one memory unit for storing token reference for registering tokens in the transaction system; at least one verification unit for verifying whether a token reference of a received registration request is stored in the token reference register; an archiving unit for storing sequences of registration requests; and a new registration unit for registering tokens newly generated by a token issuer or tokens deleted by a token issuer. (P. 3 ¶4, Bitcoin represents the culmination of decades of research in cryptography and distributed systems and includes four key innovations brought together in a unique and powerful combination. Bitcoin consists of: A de-centralized peer-to-peer network (the bitcoin protocol); A public transaction ledger (the blockchain); A de-centralized mathematical and deterministic currency issuance (distributed mining), and; A de-centralized transaction verification system (transaction script).)
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 Maxwell and Zhang with Antonopoulos’ teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated in order to provide a concrete structure for storing, tracking and verifying token references and clarify how each step is implemented.
Regarding claim 41, the combination of Maxwell, Zhang and Antonopoulos further discloses:
The token reference register according to claim 38, configured for receiving a plurality of registration requests, which are verified in parallel in a majority of verification units 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 in the same verification unit 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 Maxwell, Zhang and Antonopoulos with Antonopoulos’ additional teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated in order to improve efficiency determining token references uniqueness when handling multiple requests.
Claim 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maxwell and Zhang as applied to claim 24, in view of Castinado (US 2017/0132630 A1).
Regarding claim 36, Castinado further discloses:
generating, from the verification unit 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 Maxwell’s invention with Zhang’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated in order to that the user of the subscriber unit is aware of the completion of the transaction and the status of it.
Further, regarding the claimed limitation “… the registration response indicates a result of the verification step” does not move to distinguish over prior art.
Furthermore, regarding the claimed limitation “to…” in “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” 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 Maxwell, Zhang 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 token reference register according to claim 38, wherein the memory unit 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 unit; and/or the archiving unit and/or the verification unit has read and write access to the memory unit. (¶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 Maxwell, Zhang and Antonopoulos with Masputra’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated in order to provide a concrete structure for storing, tracking and verifying token references and clarify how each step is implemented.
Conclusion
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, excrow 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.
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