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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed 06/14/2024 was considered. An initialed copy of the Form PTO-1449 is enclosed herewith.
Acknowledgements
This Office Action is in response to the claims originally filed on 06/14/2024.
Claims 1, 3-6, 9, 11-13 and 15 were amended.
Claims 16-20 were newly introduced.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 were examined.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
According to MPEP 2106 II, It is essential that the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim be established prior to examining a claim for eligibility. Further, MPEP 2103 I C establishes that the subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit the scope of the claim when given their broadest reasonable interpretation. It is this subject matter that must be examined. Regarding the independent claims, claims 1, 13 and 15 recite “transmitting… for propagation and inclusion in a block” , a statement of intended use or field use. See MPEP 2114 II.
In the instant case, claims 1-12 are directed to a method, claims 13, 14 and 16-20 are directed to a device, and claim 15 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention. Specifically, the language of the claims that recite an abstract idea are marked in bold below:
a. “transmitting a recipient outpoint from a recipient device to a sender device”;b. “receiving, at the recipient device from the sender device, a partially-complete transaction containing the recipient outpoint as a recipient input to the partially- complete transaction and containing at least one sender input”;c. “determining that the partially-complete transaction includes one or more digital signatures applied by the sender device to the at least one sender input and fewer than all outputs”;d. “adding a recipient output script as an output to the partially-complete transaction”;e. “adding an unlocking script for the recipient outpoint using a digital signature across all input and outputs to produce a complete transaction;” andf. “transmitting the complete transaction from the recipient device to a blockchain node of a blockchain network for propagation and inclusion in a block.”
Therefore, the portions highlighted in bold above recite intermediated settlement, which is an abstract idea grouped within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo two-part test (see MPEP 2106.04). The claims are grouped within certain methods of organizing human activity because the steps recited describe the fundamental economic practice of drafting and submitting a financial transaction and the commercial or legal interaction of agreements in the form of contracts. In situations like this where a series of steps recite judicial exceptions, examiners should combine all recited judicial exceptions and treat the claim as containing a single judicial exception for purposes of further eligibility analysis. See MPEP 2106.04 and 2106.05(II). Thus, the language identified in the certain methods of organizing human activity groupings were considered as a single abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Specifically, with respect to using computer, recipient device, sender device, one or more processors, memory to perform the recited steps/functions, these additional elements performs the steps or functions such as: “transmitting… (information)”, “receiving… partially-complete transaction…”, “determining… transaction includes signatures…”, “adding… script…”, “adding… script…”, “transmitting... transaction...”. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which only serves to use computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they require no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional element(s) of blockchain node, blockchain network amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, following the analysis of step 2A, prong two, the claims are still directed to an abstract idea.
With respect to step 2B of the analysis, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional computer elements, such as computer, recipient device, sender device, one or more processors, memory, blockchain node, blockchain network. The computer, recipient device, sender device, one or more processors, memory perform the steps/functions of “transmitting… (information)”, “receiving… partially-complete transaction…”, “determining… transaction includes signatures…”, “adding… script…”, “adding… script…”, “transmitting... transaction...”, , and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept beyond the abstract idea of intermediated settlement. The additional element(s) of blockchain node, blockchain network amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, these additional elements perform the steps or functions that correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of intermediated settlement. Therefore, the claims are not eligible.
Dependent claims 2-12, 14 and 16-20 further recite the following additional language, in which elements which merely further define the identified abstract idea are marked in bold below:
g) wherein determining further includes determining that the partially-complete transaction does not contain a signature across all outputs; h) wherein determining that the partially-complete transaction includes one or more digital signatures applied by the sender device to the at least one sender input and fewer than all outputs includes determining that the partially-complete transaction permits addition of the recipient output script without invalidating the one or more digital signatures applied by the sender device. i) wherein determining that the partially-complete transaction includes one or more digital signatures applied by the sender device to the at least one sender input and fewer than all outputs includes determining that all signatures applied by the sender device are of type SIGHASH_SINGLE or SIGHASH_NONE. j) wherein determining includes determining that no signature applied by the sender device is of type SIGHASH_ALL (Claim 5) / wherein the instructions, when executed, are to cause the one or more processors to determine that the partially-complete transaction includes one or more digital signatures applied by the sender device to the at least one sender input and fewer than all outputs by determining that no signature applied by the sender device is of type SIGHASH_ALL (Claim 18); k) further comprising the recipient device providing the sender device with a maximum condition relating to sender inputs and sender outputs. l) further comprising the recipient device determining a count of sender inputs and sender outputs in the partially-complete transaction and confirming the count of sender inputs and sender outputs is not greater than a maximum value set by the maximum condition. m) further comprising determining a byte-size of the sender inputs and sender outputs in the partially-complete transaction and confirming that the byte-size is not greater than a maximum size set by the maximum condition. n) wherein transmitting the recipient outpoint from the recipient device to the sender device includes generating and sending a transaction template containing the recipient outpoint as an input to the transaction template. o) wherein the transaction template further contains an output script referencing a recipient output address as one output and designates a transfer quantity to that one output. p) further comprising, at the recipient device: determining a transaction fee; determining an excess quantity from a difference between a stored quantity associated with the recipient outpoint and the transaction fee; and designating the excess quantity to the recipient output script. q) further comprising, at the sender device, generating the partially-complete transaction by: selecting the at least one sender input such that an aggregate quantity associated with the at least one sender input is equal to or greater than a transfer quantity; attaching to the partially-complete transaction, a digital signature for each sender input that signs a respective portion of the partially-complete transaction that includes fewer than all outputs; and transmitting the partially-complete transaction to the recipient device. r) wherein the computing device comprises a point of sale terminal.
Examiner notes that, for elements recited in the dependent claims which were previously analyzed as additional elements of the independent claims above (i.e. computer, recipient device, sender device, one or more processors, memory), the assessment of these elements under step 2A and step 2B for the dependent claims is inherited from the analysis of the independent claims and omitted for brevity, unless noted by Examiner below.
With respect to the eligibility analysis of claim 2, the claim recites item g) above, which represents the additional elements/functions of determining message contents. This language further elaborates the abstract idea of intermediated settlement identified in the analysis of independent claims 1, 13 and 15. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
With respect to the eligibility analysis of claims 3 and 16, the claims recite item h) above, which represents the additional elements/functions of determining message contents. This language further elaborates the abstract idea of intermediated settlement identified in the analysis of independent claims 1, 13 and 15. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
With respect to the eligibility analysis of claims 4 and 17, the claims recite item i) above, which represents the additional elements/functions of determining message contents. This language further elaborates the abstract idea of intermediated settlement identified in the analysis of independent claims 1, 13 and 15. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
With respect to the eligibility analysis of claims 5 and 18, the claims recite item j) above, which represents the additional elements/functions of determining message contents. This language further elaborates the abstract idea of intermediated settlement identified in the analysis of independent claims 1, 13 and 15. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
With respect to the eligibility analysis of claims 6 and 19, the claims recite item k) above, which represents the additional elements/functions of providing a condition. This language further elaborates the abstract idea of intermediated settlement identified in the analysis of independent claims 1, 13 and 15. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
With respect to the eligibility analysis of claims 7 and 20, the claims recite item l) above, which represents the additional elements/functions of determining message contents. This language further elaborates the abstract idea of intermediated settlement identified in the analysis of independent claims 1, 13 and 15. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
With respect to the eligibility analysis of claim 8, the claim recites item m) above, which represents the additional elements/functions of determining message contents and confirming conditions apply. This language further elaborates the abstract idea of intermediated settlement identified in the analysis of independent claims 1, 13 and 15. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
With respect to the eligibility analysis of claim 9, the claim recites item n) above, which represents the additional elements/functions of generating and sending a transaction template. This language further elaborates the abstract idea of intermediated settlement identified in the analysis of independent claims 1, 13 and 15. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
With respect to claim 10, the claim includes language which do not introduce additional elements/functions. The additional language merely represents statements directed to directed to non-functional descriptive material by describing what the transaction template contains. Those statements are insufficient to significantly alter the eligibility analysis. This language further elaborates the abstract idea of intermediated settlement identified in the analysis of independent claims 1, 13 and 15. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
With respect to the eligibility analysis of claim 11, the claim recites item p) above, which represents the additional elements/functions of determining a fee and a balance. This language further elaborates the abstract idea of intermediated settlement identified in the analysis of independent claims 1, 13 and 15. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
With respect to the eligibility analysis of claim 12, the claim recites item q) above, which represents the additional elements/functions of details of partially-complete transaction generation and contents. This language further elaborates the abstract idea of intermediated settlement identified in the analysis of independent claims 1, 13 and 15. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
With respect to claim 14, the claim includes language which do not introduce additional elements/functions. The additional language merely represents statements directed to directed to non-functional descriptive material by describing what the device comprises (i.e. a "terminal"). Those statements are insufficient to significantly alter the eligibility analysis. This language further elaborates the abstract idea of intermediated settlement identified in the analysis of independent claims 1, 13 and 15. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Therefore, while the additional language g)- r) of dependent claims 2-12, 14, and 16-20 slightly modify the analysis provided with respect to independent claims 1, and 13, these additional elements/functions are insufficient to render the dependent claims eligible, as detailed above. Therefore, these dependent claims are also ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 13-20 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim 13 recites “computing device, the computing device including: one or more processors; memory… a recipient device… a sender device…”. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. This language is unclear as the BRI of the claim encompasses an embodiment in which a single processor (i.e. "one") and a single memory are required. The claim, however, describes, in light of the specification, interactions and functions directed to two distinct devices (see recipient/sender device, for instance Fig. 8, devices 802 and 804). Therefore, in light of the specification, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to reasonably construe the scope of the claimed apparatus (i.e. computing device), at least in the embodiment in which a single processor and a single memory are required/described in the preamble of the claim. For Examination purposes, Examiner adopts the corresponding scope of independent method claim 1, in which two devices are required to perform steps/functions. Dependent claims 14 and 16-20 are also rejected since they depend on claim 13.
Claim 15 recites “a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing processor- executable instructions, the processor-executable instructions including instructions that, when executed by one or more processors… a recipient device… a sender device…”. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. This language is unclear as similarly to claim 13, the BRI of the claim encompasses an embodiment in which instructions in a single medium are executed by a single processor (i.e. "one") are required. The claim, however, describes, in light of the specification, interactions and functions directed to two distinct devices (see recipient/sender device, for instance Fig. 8, devices 802 and 804). Therefore, in light of the specification, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to reasonably construe the scope of the claimed apparatus (i.e. computer-readable medium), at least in the embodiment in which a single processor and a single memory are required/described in the preamble of the claim. For Examination purposes, Examiner adopts the corresponding scope of independent method claim 1, in which two devices are required to perform steps/functions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Eyal et al. (US 2019/0095879 A1), hereinafter Eyal, in view of Lee et al. (US 2023/0214792 A1), hereinafter Lee.
With respect to claims 1, 13 and 15, Eyal teaches a computing device; a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing processor- executable instructions (see first/additional processing devices, paragraph [0005]); and a computer-implemented method of generating recipient- facilitated blockchain transactions (Blockchain payment channels with trusted execution environments) comprising:
transmitting a recipient outpoint from a recipient device to a sender device (see paragraph [0052]: “In carrying out a given one of the multiple off-blockchain transactions between the first processing device 102A and the second processing device 102B, the first payment channel is first locked, a protocol is then executed for the first and second processing devices to reach consensus regarding an updated balance for the first payment channel, and then the first payment channel is unlocked with the updated balance.”; Fig. 2, processing devices 202A and 202B, paragraph [0089]: “FIG. 2 shows an example of the above-described blockchain payment channel implemented in an information processing system 200 between a pair of user environment processing devices 202A and 202B associated with the respective system users Alice and Bob..."); receiving, at the recipient device from the sender device, a partially-complete transaction containing the recipient outpoint as a recipient input to the partially- complete transaction and containing at least one sender input (see paragraph [0101]: “B. Channel operation. Once a channel has been established between TEE.sub.A and TEE.sub.B, Alice and Bob can begin exchanging funds. In this phase, neither Alice nor Bob need to maintain a connection with the Bitcoin network. They can rapidly make transactions through peer-to-peer updates. Note that in FIG. 3, payments made from Bob to Alice are shown using dotted but unlabeled lines, for illustration purposes only. These payments exhibit the same behavior, in a symmetric fashion, to the payments sent from Alice to Bob.”; paragraph [0102]: “B1. To send funds to Bob, Alice sends a request locally to TEE.sub.A, specifying the amount of Bitcoin that she wishes to transfer to Bob. These requests are denoted A.sub.1 through A.sub.X, representing arbitrarily many payment requests.”);
determining that the partially-complete transaction includes one or more digital signatures applied by the sender device to the at least one sender input and fewer than all outputs (see paragraph [0103]: “B2. When a TEE receives a payment request from the owner, it first checks that the current balance is greater than the amount to send. If so, it updates the balance and generates a message authorizing the payment. The message contains the random secret key of the paying TEE ID.sub.A and the updated monotonic counter value. The message is encrypted under the appropriate asymmetric public key K.sub.B. Alice sends this message to Bob.”);
adding a recipient output script as an output to the partially-complete transaction (see paragraph [0071]: “More particularly, each transaction on the Bitcoin blockchain consists of transaction inputs and transaction outputs. Transaction inputs are unspent transaction outputs (UTXOs), i.e. outputs of previous transactions that have not yet been spent. As a consequence, valid transactions consume, or spend, existing UTXOs as inputs and create new UTXOs that can later be used in new transactions. To use an UTXO as a transaction input, i.e. to spend the UTXO, the spending user must meet a condition expressed as a script that is specified within each UTXO. Typically, this script specifies that the spender must present a signature that matches a certain Bitcoin address, thus proving ownership of the UTXO (this is often termed “pay-to-public-key-hash” or P2PKH). Illustrative embodiments to be described herein utilize P2PKH scripts, but more complex scripts could be used in other embodiments. All nodes maintain a copy of the Bitcoin blockchain and verify that all issued transactions are valid, i.e., only spend UTXOs and satisfy all scripts' conditions.”);
transmitting the… transaction from the recipient device to a blockchain node of a blockchain network for propagation and inclusion in a block (see paragraph [0109]: “C3. The party then forwards this to the Bitcoin network to complete the settlement.”).
Although Eyal discloses unlocking the payment channel and transmitting the transaction to a blockchain network (see Fig. 3, C1-C3, channel settlement, paragraph [0106]: “C. Channel settlement. The final stage of the Teechan protocol is channel settlement. In this phase, the payment channel is closed, and a valid transaction settling the balance between Alice and Bob is broadcast to the Bitcoin network, thus releasing the funds in the setup transaction.”; paragraph [0107]: “C1. At any point during phase B, either party may send a terminate request to their TEE.”; paragraph [0108]: “C2. Once a TEE receives a terminate request from its owner, it generates a settlement transaction signed with k.sub.BTC,A and k.sub.BTC,B, which spends the funds held in the setup transaction according to the current channel balance. It returns this transaction to the host, destroys all state held in TEE memory and halts its execution.”; ), Eyal does not explicitly disclose a method, device and non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising: adding an unlocking script for the recipient outpoint using a digital signature across all input and outputs to produce a complete transaction; and the transaction is the "complete" transaction.
However, Lee discloses a method, device and non-transitory computer-readable medium (Computer implemented systems and methods) comprising:
adding an unlocking script for the recipient outpoint using a digital signature across all input and outputs to produce a complete transaction (see paragraph [0024]: “When the token is to be transferred from one party to another, a solution for the locking script plus a reference to the UTXO holding the token are used as an input in a new transaction which spends the token-holding UTXO to a new locking script specified by the receiving party. As is known in the art, spending of a UTXO requires the transfer of control of a quantity of cryptocurrency from one address to another, i.e. from one cryptographically locked/secured challenge to another, and so transfer of the token is performed upon spending of an underlying portion of cryptocurrency. In some examples, the issuance data and/or other data is also transferred along with the token and cryptocurrency.”; paragraph [0045]: “The method can further comprise the step of: using at least one further token transfer transaction to transfer control of a particular token (sT) to the same or a further recipient. The method can further comprise the step of: providing a solution in an unlocking script of an input in the token transfer transaction (TTTx) or at least one further token transfer transaction (TTTX1) to a locking script of the token-related output (T-UTXO, sT-UTXO) that represents the particular token or tokens (sT).”; paragraph [0047]: “The method can further comprise the step of: providing a solution in an unlocking script of an input in the token transfer transaction (TTTx) or at least one further token transfer transaction (TTTX1) to a locking script of the token-related output (T-UTXO, dT-UTXO) that represents a portion of the quantity of token-related cryptocurrency (TRC) associated with the respective dynamic token (dT).”; ); and
the transaction is the "complete" transaction (see paragraph [0050]: “The method can further comprise the step of: submitting the blockchain transaction (MTx) to a blockchain network.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the techniques, protocols and systems for creating, using, processing, and transferring tokenized assets or resources via a blockchain (ledger) that is associated with a blockchain protocol and network as disclosed by Lee in the method, device and non-transitory computer-readable medium of Eyal, the motivation being to enhance security and reduce vulnerability to transfers and exploits by unauthorized parties (see Lee, paragraph [0002]).
With respect to claim 2, the combination of Eyal and Lee teaches all the subject matter of the method as described above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, Lee disclose a method wherein determining further includes determining that the partially-complete transaction does not contain a signature across all outputs (see paragraph [00382]: "...3. BobMart's receiver wallet builds a transaction that uses both Alice's and their own dynamic token which pays out the correct satoshi balance to the respective tokens. BobMart signs their own dynamic token using SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY | SIGHASH_ALL. BobMart can attach a fee input and pay change out within the transaction. BobMart then sends the partially signed transaction back to Alice for final signature and sends the transaction back to Alice's wallet. 4. Upon receipt of the transaction built by BobMart, Alice (a) checks the validity of BobMart's token, or uses a third-party support service to do so, before (b) checking the presented transaction and applying her final signature..." Examiner notes Alice checks the partial transaction and applies her final signature, i.e. the received transaction does not include her signature); The motivation for combining the references remain unaltered from the motivation described above in conjunction with the rejection of the independent claims.
With respect to claims 3 and 16, the combination of Eyal and Lee teaches all the subject matter of the method and device as described above with respect to claims 1 and 13. Furthermore, Lee disclose a method and device wherein determining that the partially-complete transaction includes one or more digital signatures applied by the sender device to the at least one sender input and fewer than all outputs includes determining that the partially-complete transaction permits addition of the recipient output script without invalidating the one or more digital signatures applied by the sender device (see paragraph [00382]: "...3. BobMart's receiver wallet builds a transaction that uses both Alice's and their own dynamic token which pays out the correct satoshi balance to the respective tokens. BobMart signs their own dynamic token—using SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY | SIGHASH_ALL. BobMart can attach a fee input and pay change out within the transaction. BobMart then sends the partially signed transaction back to Alice for final signature and sends the transaction back to Alice's wallet..."). The motivation for combining the references remain unaltered from the motivation described above in conjunction with the rejection of the independent claims.
With respect to claims 4 and 17, the combination of Eyal and Lee teaches all the subject matter of the method and device as described above with respect to claims 1 and 13. Furthermore, Lee disclose a method and device wherein determining that the partially-complete transaction includes one or more digital signatures applied by the sender device to the at least one sender input and fewer than all outputs includes determining that all signatures applied by the sender device are of type SIGHASH_SINGLE or SIGHASH_NONE (see paragraph [0202]: “FIG. 14 illustrates a multiparty group blockchain transaction of the type a third token processing party can use to obfuscate the parties to a transaction by grouping many smaller exchanges into one large transaction. This is done using SIGHASH_SINGLE | SIGHASH_ANYONECANSPEND on all tokens being spent, which locks each input/output pair but allows the processing party to have the freedom to stack them into a single large transaction, or even to break them out into multiple separate transactions.”; paragraph [0203]: “FIG. 15 illustrates two separate blockchain transactions being paid via a register and showing that the register holds the funds for the users, and the user only provides the register with a signature. Signatures are signed using SIGHASH_NONE | SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY as the output destination is not determined at the time the tokens are signed. The register then takes other, separate tokens that have been pre-signed by other register users and spends them out to the fund recipients in a group transaction.”). The motivation for combining the references remain unaltered from the motivation described above in conjunction with the rejection of the independent claims.
With respect to claims 5 and 18, the combination of Eyal and Lee teaches all the subject matter of the method and device as described above with respect to claims 1 and 13. Furthermore, Lee disclose a method and device wherein determining includes determining that no signature applied by the sender device is of type SIGHASH_ALL (Claim 5) / wherein the instructions, when executed, are to cause the one or more processors to determine that the partially-complete transaction includes one or more digital signatures applied by the sender device to the at least one sender input and fewer than all outputs by determining that no signature applied by the sender device is of type SIGHASH_ALL (Claim 18) (see paragraph [00382]: "...3. BobMart's receiver wallet builds a transaction that uses both Alice's and their own dynamic token which pays out the correct satoshi balance to the respective tokens. BobMart signs their own dynamic token—using SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY | SIGHASH_ALL. BobMart can attach a fee input and pay change out within the transaction. BobMart then sends the partially signed transaction back to Alice for final signature and sends the transaction back to Alice's wallet. 4. Upon receipt of the transaction built by BobMart, Alice (a) checks the validity of BobMart's token, or uses a third-party support service to do so, before (b) checking the presented transaction and applying her final signature..." Examiner notes Alice checks the partial transaction and applies her final signature, i.e. the received transaction does not include her signature); The motivation for combining the references remain unaltered from the motivation described above in conjunction with the rejection of the independent claims.
With respect to claims 6 and 19, the combination of Eyal and Lee teaches all the subject matter of the method and device as described above with respect to claims 1 and 13. Furthermore, Eyal disclose a method and device further comprising the recipient device providing the sender device with a maximum condition relating to sender inputs and sender outputs (see balance, paragraph [0084]: “A payment channel in illustrative embodiments is configured to operate as follows. A channel is established with a setup transaction in the blockchain to which each party deposits an amount as credit. While the channel is open, each party can pay its counterparty via transaction messages sent from the payer to the payee. A payment can only be claimed if it was granted by a party, that is, theft should not be possible. At any point in time, the channel has a balance that must reflect the difference between the amounts paid in each direction. The balance should never exceed the credit in either direction. Either party can terminate the channel at any time and settle the balance with a terminating transaction that it places in the blockchain. The terminating transaction reflects a balance that comprises all payments made by the terminator and all payments received by the terminator from its counterparty. Failures should only negatively impact the party who failed.”; paragraph [0103]: “B2. When a TEE receives a payment request from the owner, it first checks that the current balance is greater than the amount to send. If so, it updates the balance and generates a message authorizing the payment. The message contains the random secret key of the paying TEE ID.sub.A and the updated monotonic counter value. The message is encrypted under the appropriate asymmetric public key K.sub.B. Alice sends this message to Bob.”). The motivation for combining the references remain unaltered from the motivation described above in conjunction with the rejection of the independent claims.
With respect to claims 7 and 20, the combination of Eyal and Lee teaches all the subject matter of the method and device as described above with respect to claims 1 and 19. Furthermore, Eyal disclose a method and device further comprising the recipient device determining a count of sender inputs and sender outputs in the partially-complete transaction and confirming the count of sender inputs and sender outputs is not greater than a maximum value set by the maximum condition (see monotonic counter, maximum size is one transaction, paragraph [0103]: “B2. When a TEE receives a payment request from the owner, it first checks that the current balance is greater than the amount to send. If so, it updates the balance and generates a message authorizing the payment. The message contains the random secret key of the paying TEE ID.sub.A and the updated monotonic counter value. The message is encrypted under the appropriate asymmetric public key K.sub.B. Alice sends this message to Bob.”; paragraph [0104]: “B3. Bob receives the message and sends it to TEE.sub.B. Once the TEE receives the message, it decrypts it and asserts that it contains the correct secret key and that the value of the counter is greater by one than the previously presented counter. Then, it updates the balance and the counter for incoming messages. Finally, it notifies Bob of the new balance.”). The motivation for combining the references remain unaltered from the motivation described above in conjunction with the rejection of the independent claims.
With respect to claim 8, the combination of Eyal and Lee teaches all the subject matter of the method as described above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, Eyal disclose a method further comprising determining a byte-size of the sender inputs and sender outputs in the partially-complete transaction and confirming that the byte-size is not greater than a maximum size set by the maximum condition (see paragraph [0624]: “In another example, the signal can be represented by a concatenated list of fixed length integers where the maximum integer value is greater than N (the number of public keys). For example, in a multisignature operation with more than 256 public keys, at least 2 bytes per value must be used. For a list of more than 64,536 keys, 4 byte integers must be used. Since there is no limit on the number of signatures that can be processed, this technique can scale to very large numbers of signatures (more than 4.3 billion) by extending the integer to 8 bytes.”; paragraph [0626]: “In a further example, a user can signal to the node which of these two techniques it is using by pre-pending a 1 byte indicator to the signal string. In order to use this technique, network nodes must employ specific software which can understand the signal and extract the information contained before processing the signatures. The use of this software can provide a node operator with a competitive advantage by allowing them to process transactions with very large numbers of public keys without wasting processor cycles by checking invalid combinations of keys and signatures. This results in lower energy consumption and a greater processing efficiency.”). The motivation for combining the references remain unaltered from the motivation described above in conjunction with the rejection of the independent claims.
With respect to claim 9, the combination of Eyal and Lee teaches all the subject matter of the method as described above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, Eyal disclose a method wherein transmitting the recipient outpoint from the recipient device to the sender device includes generating and sending a transaction template containing the recipient outpoint as an input to the transaction template (see paragraph [0094]: “A. Channel establishment. In the first phase, Teechan establishes the duplex payment channel between Alice and Bob. Similar to prior work [18, 13, 33], we construct a payment channel using setup and refund transactions. Both Alice and Bob deposit funds into a 2-of-2 multisig Bitcoin address, forming a setup transaction. A refund transaction is constructed that spends the setup transaction and returns Alice and Bob's deposits back to them. The refund transaction is bounded by a lock-time using the nLockTime transaction field, making it valid only starting sometime in the future. The channel must be terminated prior to this time, otherwise either party can terminate the channel as if no transactions took place.”; paragraph [0095]: “A1. First, Alice and Bob each provision their TEEs to construct setup and refund transactions. This requires: (i) their Bitcoin private keys, k.sub.BTC,A and k.sub.BTC,B; (ii) the unspent transactions outputs sets that they wish to include in the setup transaction, UTXO.sub.A and UTXO.sub.B; and (iii) the amount to deposit in the setup transaction, BTC.sub.A and BTC.sub.B.”). The motivation for combining the references remain unaltered from the motivation described above in conjunction with the rejection of the independent claims.
With respect to claim 10, the combination of Eyal and Lee teaches all the subject matter of the method as described above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, Eyal disclose a method wherein the transaction template further contains an output script referencing a recipient output address as one output and designates a transfer quantity to that one output (see paragraph [0095]: “A1. First, Alice and Bob each provision their TEEs to construct setup and refund transactions. This requires: (i) their Bitcoin private keys, k.sub.BTC,A and k.sub.BTC,B; (ii) the unspent transactions outputs sets that they wish to include in the setup transaction, UTXO.sub.A and UTXO.sub.B; and (iii) the amount to deposit in the setup transaction, BTC.sub.A and BTC.sub.B.”). The motivation for combining the references remain unaltered from the motivation described above in conjunction with the rejection of the independent claims.
With respect to claim 11, the combination of Eyal and Lee teaches all the subject matter of the method as described above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, Eyal disclose a method further comprising, at the recipient device: determining a transaction fee; determining an excess quantity from a difference between a stored quantity associated with the recipient outpoint and the transaction fee; and designating the excess quantity to the recipient output script (see paragraph [0128]: “For the purpose of demonstration, we provide a reference to a Teechan payment channel that was established, operated, and settled on the Bitcoin test network. Each side deposited 50 bitcoin in the setup transaction, and the channel was closed with a balance of 9 bitcoin for Bob. A fee of 0.002 bitcoin was paid on each transaction.”). The motivation for combining the references remain unaltered from the motivation described above in conjunction with the rejection of the independent claims.
With respect to claim 12, the combination of Eyal and Lee teaches all the subject matter of the method as described above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, Eyal disclose a method further comprising,
at the sender device, generating the partially-complete transaction by: selecting the at least one sender input such that an aggregate quantity associated with the at least one sender input is equal to or greater than a transfer quantity (see paragraph [0112]: “Note that a unilateral channel termination by Bob cannot harm Alice: he will not be able to receive further payments from Alice, but the closed channel will accurately reflect all payments of which Alice is aware. If Bob fails to broadcast the termination transaction to the Bitcoin network, Alice can independently close it from her side.”; paragraph [0153]: “(3) A Teechain participant may, at any point in time, issue the termination of any of their payment channels. This can be due to mutual agreement with its counterparty, or a unilateral decision to terminate the channel. The corresponding TEE will then close the channel in a secure manner. Only on termination does a TEE generate a transaction that can be placed onto the blockchain.”);
attaching to the partially-complete transaction, a digital signature for each sender input that signs a respective portion of the partially-complete transaction that includes fewer than all outputs (see paragraph [0097]: “A3. TEE.sub.B then presents its random secret key (denoted ID.sub.B), along with Bob's setup data that it received in step A1, to TEE.sub.A. A signature over this message, under the private key of TEE.sub.B (denoted Sigk.sub.B), is also presented to ensure that it came from TEE.sub.B. TEE.sub.A generates the signed setup and refund transactions internally, and reveals to Alice the hash of the setup transaction, denoted Setup.sub.Hash, as well as the refund transaction. Only TEE.sub.A knows the setup transaction at this point.”); and
transmitting the partially-complete transaction to the recipient device (see paragraph [0098]: “TEE.sub.A then presents its random secret key ID.sub.A, along with Alice's setup data that it received in step A1 and the corresponding signature Sigk.sub.A, to TEE.sub.B. TEE.sub.B generates the setup and refund transactions internally, and reveals both to Bob. Bob then broadcasts the setup transaction onto the blockchain, establishing the channel. Alice is notified of channel establishment by noting a transaction matching Setup.sub.Hash on the blockchain.”;). The motivation for combining the references remain unaltered from the motivation described above in conjunction with the rejection of the independent claims.
With respect to claim 14, the combination of Eyal and Lee teaches all the subject matter of the device as described above with respect to claim 13. Furthermore, Lee disclose a device wherein the computing device comprises a point of sale terminal (see paragraph [0783]: “Step 3: Physical tokens can be exchanged between trading parties. Receivers validate the provenance of the token by checking that the digital token is locked in the transaction output shown on the physical token. Checking may be done via PC, point of sale device, or using a smartphone or tablet application. When the physical token is deposited, information it contains is used to build a transaction that moves the digital tokens, triggering a process in which the physical token is destroyed.”; Examiner notes the description of what the computing device "comprises" does not limit the functions recited to be performed by this terminal since the transitional term “comprising” is synonymous with “including,” “containing,” or “characterized by,” and is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps.). The motivation for combining the references remain unaltered from the motivation described above in conjunction with the rejection of the independent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Non-patent Literature
Bassam El Khoury Seguias (NPL 2020, listed in PTO-892 as page 1, reference "U") disclose Bitcoin Transactions (pre-segwit), including how to create UTXO-specific messages based on a sighash type and use these procedures to generate signatures for blockchain transactions.
Patent Literature
Trock (US 2024/0013213 A1) discloses blockchain, including outputting a transmission to a second node of an unspent transaction output (UTXO) based blockchain.
Meng et al. (CN 11,032,2346 B) disclose a condition capable of setting payment method and system for supporting UTXO model, including constructing a transaction application request spending money transaction, the transaction application comprises input UTXOs, output UTXOs and constructed unlocking chain code names and parameters according to the type of a collection address of the input UTXOs.
Jiang et al. (CN 11,390,2441 A) disclose multi-signature method for client, involves executing complete first account transfer transaction when verification is successful, first verification data in lock script complies with multiple signature rules, including generating a lock script according to each user's public key and multi-signature rules; generating a first multi-signature public key according to the lock script; Re-sign the public key to generate a first multi-signature address; generate an unsigned first transfer transaction; construct a first temporary Bitcoin transaction according to the unsigned first transfer transaction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDUARDO D CASTILHO whose telephone number is (571)270-1592. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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.
/EDUARDO CASTILHO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3698