DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the claims filed 06/03/2024.
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of prior-filed application 16/893804 under 35 U.S.C. 120 which claims benefit of prior-filed application 14/218776 under 35 U.S.C. 120 is acknowledged and granted.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 06/03/2024 has been received, considered as indicated, and placed on record in the file.
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 of validating a transaction without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v.CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. _ (2014) as provided by the interim guidelines FR 12/16/2014 Vol. 79 No. 241.
Analysis
Step 1, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. 101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. In this case independent claim 1 and all claims which depend from it are directed toward a method, and independent claim 17 and all claims which depend from it are directed toward a computer readable medium storing instruction to perform functions/steps and independent claim 18 and 19 all claims which depend from it are directed toward a system (a node is interpreted as a computer [0187] executing software). As such, all claims fall within one of the four categories of invention deemed to be the appropriate subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1, Under Step 2 A, Prong 1 of the 2019 Revised § 101 Guidance, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception such as a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355) by identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim that recites abstract idea(s); and then determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG.
Specifically, claim 1 comprises inter alia the functions or steps of “A computer-implemented method performed by a validation node, the validation node being connected to a plurality of other nodes via a network, the method comprising: obtaining a transaction message requesting transfer of a transaction amount of virtual currency from a sender account to a recipient account, the transaction message comprising a transaction receipt associated with an earlier transaction message, the transaction receipt embedding a previous transaction amount of virtual currency that was transferred to the sender account via the earlier transaction message; validating the transaction message based on the previous transaction amount of virtual currency embedded in the transaction receipt included in the transaction message; responsive to successful validation, generating a record evidencing validation of the transaction message; and identifying a target storage node for storing the record and forwarding the record to the identified storage node, via the network”.
Claim 17 comprises inter alia the functions or steps of “A non-transitory computer readable medium containing program instructions for validating a transaction, wherein execution of the program instructions by one or more processors of a computer system causes the one or more processors to carry out the method, the method comprising: obtaining a transaction message requesting transfer of a transaction amount of virtual currency from a sender account to a recipient account, the transaction message comprising a transaction receipt associated with an earlier transaction message, the transaction receipt embedding a previous transaction amount of virtual currency that was transferred to the sender account via the earlier transaction message; validating the transaction message based on the previous transaction amount of virtual currency embedded in the transaction receipt included in the transaction message; responsive to successful validation, generating a record evidencing validation of the transaction message; and identifying a target storage node for storing the record and forwarding the record to the identified storage node, via a communications network”.
Claim 18 comprises inter alia the functions or steps of “A validation node connected to a plurality of other nodes in a network, the validation node configured to: obtain a transaction message requesting transfer of a transaction amount of virtual currency from a sender account to a recipient account, the transaction message comprising a transaction receipt associated with an earlier transaction message, the transaction receipt embedding a previous transaction amount of virtual currency that was transferred to the sender account via the earlier transaction message; validate the transaction message based on the previous transaction amount of virtual currency embedded in the transaction receipt included in the transaction message; generate a record evidencing validation of the transaction message responsive to successful validation; and identify a target storage node for storing the record and forward the record to the identified storage node, via the network”.
Claim 19 comprises inter alia the functions or steps of “A system comprising a plurality of nodes, the nodes being connected via a network, the system comprising:a validation node configured to: obtain a transaction message requesting transfer of a transaction amount of virtual currency from a sender account to a recipient account, the transaction message comprising a transaction receipt associated with an earlier transaction message, the transaction receipt embedding a previous transaction amount of virtual currency that was transferred to the sender account via the earlier transaction message; validate the transaction message based on the previous transaction amount of virtual currency embedded in the transaction receipt included in the transaction message; generate a record evidencing validation of the transaction message responsive to successful validation; and identify a target storage node for storing the record and forward the record to the identified storage node, via the network; the system further comprising: a storage node configured to store transaction receipts for transactions that have been validated by the validation node”.
Those claim limits in bold are identified as claim limitations which recite the abstract idea, while those that are un-bolded are identified as additional elements.
The cited limitations as drafted are systems and methods that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a method of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of the generic computer components. Further, none of the limitations recite technological implementations details for any of the steps but, instead, only recite broad functional language being performed by the generic use of at least one processor. Validating a transaction is a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in commerce systems. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a fundamental economic principle or practice but for the general linking to a technological environment, then it falls within the organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2, Next, it is determined whether the claim is directed to the abstract concept itself or whether it is instead directed to some technological implementation or application of, or improvement to, this concept, i.e., integrated into a practical application. See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981). The mere introduction of a computer or generic computer technology into the claims need not alter the analysis. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223—24. “[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 225.
In the present case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by claiming an improvement to the functioning of the computer or to any other technology or technical field. Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way.
In particular, the claims contain the following additional elements: a computer / a validation node / a target storage node; a transaction message; a network; a non-transitory computer readable medium; program instructions; one or more processors; a computer system. However, the specification description of the additional elements a computer / a validation node / a target storage node ([0177-0181] “…The exemplary hardware and operating environment of FIG. 9 includes a general-purpose computing device in the form of the computing device … The computing device 12 may be a conventional computer, a distributed computer, or any other type of computer …“ [0187]); a transaction message (interpreted as data transmitted on a network); a network ([Figure 1, element 180] [0066-0067] [0187] “…The logical connections depicted in FIG. 9 include a local-area network (LAN) 51 and a wide-area network (WAN) 52. Such networking environments are commonplace in offices, enterprise-wide computer networks, intranets and the Internet…”); a non-transitory computer readable medium ([0192]); program instructions ([0192]); one or more processors; a computer system ([0177-0181] “…The exemplary hardware and operating environment of FIG. 9 includes a general-purpose computing device in the form of the computing device … The computing device 12 may be a conventional computer, a distributed computer, or any other type of computer …“ [0187]) are at a high level of generality using exemplary language or as part of a generic technological environment and are functions any general purpose computer performs such that it amount no more than mere instruction to apply the exception to a particular technological environment. Further, none of the limitations recite technological implementations details for any of the steps but, instead, only recite broad functional language being performed by the generic use of at least one processor. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaning limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed toward an abstract idea.
Step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea(s). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the abstract idea(s) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exaction using a generic computer component. Mere instruction to apply an exertion using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. These generic computer components are claimed at a high level of generality to perform their basic functions which amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the particular technological environment of field of use (Specification as cited above for additional elements) and further see insignificant extra-solution activity MPEP § 2106.05 I. A. iii, 2106.05(b), 2106.05(b) III, 2106.05(g). Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
As for dependent claims 2-4, 8, 10, and 13 these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea using previously identified additional elements noted from the respective independent claims from which they depend. Therefore, the cited dependent claims are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
As for dependent claims 5-7, 9, 11, 12, and 14-16, these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea using previously identified additional elements noted from the respective independent claims from which they depend. In addition, the cited dependent claims recite the additional elements:
signature / private key / public key (claims 5, 6, 15);
hash code (claims 7, 9, 11, 12)
cryptographic addresses (claims 7, 9, 11, 12)
overlay network (claim 16).
However, the specification description of the additional elements signature / private key / public key ([0083] [0110]); hash code ([0092] [0104-0108]); cryptographic addresses ([0073]); overlay network ([0044-0051]) are at a high level of generality using exemplary language or as part of a generic technological environment and are functions any general purpose computer performs such that it amount no more than mere instruction to apply the exception to a particular technological environment. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the cited dependent claims are ineligible.
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 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 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Decastro (PGPub Document No. 20150170112) in view of Nakamoto (Satoshi Nakamoto, "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System", October 31, 2008, pages 1-14).
As per claim 1, Decastro teaches a computer-implemented method performed by a validation node, the validation node being connected to a plurality of other nodes via a network ([0037] “The primary preferred embodiment of the invention supports a cryptocurrency, including the means for mining and issuing that cryptocurrency to account holders; and, it comprises an interface device to update a card, specially adapted software applications to run said interface device, at least one application providing means for the card to interface with the platform at distinct nodes or modules therein … A digital currency hosted by a network as part of the system interfacing with the platform has been named GEMCoin, whose structure and function are equivalent to that of the cryptocurrency, "Bitcoin," which is well described in the prior art “ [0075] “…the present invention comprises a central server and means for reconciling all accounts across the entire network and all users from that central authority, which is (effectively) a partial redundancy comprising one authoritative ledger and at least one parallel consensus ledger…” [0085] “… Mining activities are advantageously controlled with a Gateway. Novel means are provided for enabling the verification of transactions on the Block Chain with Clusters of Nodes separated into separate Division that holds parts of the Ledger to increase validation times and reduce the size of the ledger being held. Miners are organized into Communities that support and share with each other the coins mined, validation of new blocks and verification of transactions…”), the method comprising: obtaining a transaction message requesting transfer of a transaction amount of virtual currency from a sender account to a recipient account ([0029] [0035] [0050-0052] [0073] where the phrase “transaction message” is interpreted as transaction data which is transmitted over a network [0066] “…The network gateway also controls the storage of issued coins in virtual wallets, the transference of data representing ownership of fiat currency or other tangible assets among addresses on a network, and to the transfer of coins and other assets into and out of individual accounts…”),
responsive to successful validation, generating a record evidencing validation of the transaction message ([0074] “…If and when the card is connected to cardholders' online accounts through the centralized network of the financial institution, or the peer-to-peer cryptocurrency network (e.g., the blockchain) of a cryptocurrency or equivalent digital asset, whether through an interface of the system of the invention or a third party provider such as a debit card network (e.g., via an ATM, POS or other terminal understood by persons of ordinary skill in the relevant arts), the affected account balances are updated, transactions are validated, and transactions required to be conducted or logged on the net- work side of the cards involved in the transactions are executed…”); and identifying a target storage node for storing the record and forwarding the record to the identified storage node, via the network ([0097] “…storing coin in a node ("proof of stake") in a cryptocurrency network,…”).
Decastro further teaches the use of mining software uses a proof of work SHA-256 algorithm and validation of transactions ([0065-0066] [0083-0085] using standard Bitcoin protocol [0091]). However, Decastro does not detail the proof of work algorithm and validation process.
However, Nakamoto teaches the transaction message comprising a transaction receipt associated with an earlier transaction message, the transaction receipt embedding a previous transaction amount of virtual currency that was transferred to the sender account via the earlier transaction message ([page 2] “Each owner transfers the coin to the next by digitally signing a hash of the previous transaction and the public key of the next owner and adding these to the end of the coin. A payee can verify the signatures to verify the chain of ownership.” [page 4] proof-of-work “For our timestamp network, we implement the proof-of-work by incrementing a nonce in the block until a value is found that gives the block's hash the required zero bits. Once the CPU effort has been expended to make it satisfy the proof-of-work, the block cannot be changed without redoing the work. As later blocks are chained after it, the work to change the block would include redoing all the blocks after it”); validating the transaction message based on the previous transaction amount of virtual currency embedded in the transaction receipt included in the transaction message ([page 4] proof-of-work “For our timestamp network, we implement the proof-of-work by incrementing a nonce in the block until a value is found that gives the block's hash the required zero bits. Once the CPU effort has been expended to make it satisfy the proof-of-work, the block cannot be changed without redoing the work. As later blocks are chained after it, the work to change the block would include redoing all the blocks after it” [pages 4-5] Proof-of-Work [page 5] “Nodes accept the block only if all transactions in it are valid and not already spent.” [page 13] “Nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone. They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them.”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the Bitcoin transaction and proof-of-work methods as found in Nakamoto to the cryptocurrency systems of Decastro since Decastro utilizes a Bitcoin framework of Block Chain (i.e., a "block") as a public record of digital currency transactions in chronological order where the block chain is shared between all users and the advantage of the method of Nakamoto is to verify the permanence of Bitcoin transactions and to prevent double spending. The claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 2,
Decastro does not teach the claim limits.
Nakamoto teaches a computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein the transaction message further comprises a reference to the earlier transaction receipt associated with the earlier transaction message the transaction message comprising ([page 2] “Each owner transfers the coin to the next by digitally signing a hash of the previous transaction and the public key of the next owner and adding these to the end of the coin. A payee can verify the signatures to verify the chain of ownership.” [page 4] proof-of-work “For our timestamp network, we implement the proof-of-work by incrementing a nonce in the block until a value is found that gives the block's hash the required zero bits. Once the CPU effort has been expended to make it satisfy the proof-of-work, the block cannot be changed without redoing the work. As later blocks are chained after it, the work to change the block would include redoing all the blocks after it”).
As per claim 3,
Decastro teaches a computer-implemented method according to claim 1, further comprising causing the transfer amount of virtual currency sent from the sender account to the recipient account to be marked as spent responsive to successful validation ([0048]”… An amount spent via the device may be deducted, for example, from the currency balance stored in the device and then wait for a connection to the network to update it centrally…” [0074] “…If and when the card is connected to cardholders' online accounts through the centralized network of the financial institution, or the peer-to-peer cryptocurrency network (e.g., the blockchain) of a cryptocurrency or equivalent digital asset, whether through an interface of the system of the invention or a third party provider such as a debit card network (e.g., via an ATM, POS or other terminal understood by persons of ordinary skill in the relevant arts), the affected account balances are updated, transactions are validated, and transactions required to be conducted or logged on the net- work side of the cards involved in the transactions are executed…” [0087] “…Tracks fiat currency spending metrics ( currency name, amount acquired versus amount spend, transaction records and statistical analyses), and also tracks available balances…”).
As per claim 4,
Decastro teaches a computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein validating the transaction message comprises obtaining copies of a record evidencing validation of the earlier transaction message from fewer than all of the plurality of nodes in the network, and comparing the transaction receipt with the record ([0037] “The primary preferred embodiment of the invention supports a cryptocurrency, including the means for mining and issuing that cryptocurrency to account holders; and, it comprises an interface device to update a card, specially adapted software applications to run said interface device, at least one application providing means for the card to interface with the platform at distinct nodes or modules therein … A digital currency hosted by a network as part of the system interfacing with the platform has been named GEMCoin, whose structure and function are equivalent to that of the cryptocurrency, "Bitcoin," which is well described in the prior art “ [0075] “…the present invention comprises a central server and means for reconciling all accounts across the entire network and all users from that central authority, which is (effectively) a partial redundancy comprising one authoritative ledger and at least one parallel consensus ledger…” [0085] “… Mining activities are advantageously controlled with a Gateway. Novel means are provided for enabling the verification of transactions on the Block Chain with Clusters of Nodes separated into separate Division that holds parts of the Ledger to increase validation times and reduce the size of the ledger being held. Miners are organized into Communities that support and share with each other the coins mined, validation of new blocks and verification of transactions…” [0085] “…Novel means are provided for enabling the verification of transactions on the Block Chain with Clusters of Nodes separated into separate Division that holds parts of the Ledger to increase validation times and reduce the size of the ledger being held …” [0092]).
As per claim 5,
Decastro teaches a computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein the transaction message comprises a signature generated using a private key associated with the sender account, and wherein validating the transaction message comprises verifying the signature ([0037] “The primary preferred embodiment of the invention supports a cryptocurrency, including the means for mining and issuing that cryptocurrency to account holders; and, it comprises an interface device to update a card, specially adapted software applications to run said interface device, at least one application providing means for the card to interface with the platform at distinct nodes or modules therein … A digital currency hosted by a network as part of the system interfacing with the platform has been named GEMCoin, whose structure and function are equivalent to that of the cryptocurrency, "Bitcoin," which is well described in the prior art “ [0075] “…the present invention comprises a central server and means for reconciling all accounts across the entire network and all users from that central authority, which is (effectively) a partial redundancy comprising one authoritative ledger and at least one parallel consensus ledger…” [0085] “… Mining activities are advantageously controlled with a Gateway. Novel means are provided for enabling the verification of transactions on the Block Chain with Clusters of Nodes separated into separate Division that holds parts of the Ledger to increase validation times and reduce the size of the ledger being held. Miners are organized into Communities that support and share with each other the coins mined, validation of new blocks and verification of transactions…”).
As per claim 6,
Decastro teaches a computer-implemented method according to claim 5, wherein the transaction message comprises a plurality of signatures generated using a private key associated with the sender account, and wherein validating the transaction message comprises verifying each signature of the plurality of signatures ([0014] [0036] [0062] [0065] [0072] [0075-0077]).
As per claim 7,
Decastro teaches a computer-implemented method according to claim 5, comprising obtaining a hash code generated based on at least a portion of the transaction message, and wherein validating the transaction message, comprises verifying the hash code and the signature included in the transaction message ([0011] [0014] [0017] [0091] implicit in Bitcoin which uses SHA-256).
As per claim 8,
Decastro teaches a computer-implemented method according claim 1, wherein the transfer amount of virtual currency is marked as spent based on the transaction receipt of the earlier transaction message having been included or referenced in the validated transaction message ([0048]”… An amount spent via the device may be deducted, for example, from the currency balance stored in the device and then wait for a connection to the network to update it centrally…” [0074] “…If and when the card is connected to cardholders' online accounts through the centralized network of the financial institution, or the peer-to-peer cryptocurrency network (e.g., the blockchain) of a cryptocurrency or equivalent digital asset, whether through an interface of the system of the invention or a third party provider such as a debit card network (e.g., via an ATM, POS or other terminal understood by persons of ordinary skill in the relevant arts), the affected account balances are updated, transactions are validated, and transactions required to be conducted or logged on the net- work side of the cards involved in the transactions are executed…” [0087] “…Tracks fiat currency spending metrics ( currency name, amount acquired versus amount spend, transaction records and statistical analyses), and also tracks available balances…”).
As per claim 9,
Decastro teaches a computer-implemented method according to claim 1, comprising hashing the transaction message to obtain a hash value to use as a unique identifier for the transaction message responsive to successful validation ([0017] [0077] [0079]).
As per claim 10,
Decastro teaches a computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein generating the record evidencing validation of the transaction message comprises creating a new transaction receipt ([0086] [0091] “…new coins are generated …” [0097] “…storing coin in a node ("proof of stake") in a cryptocurrency network,…”).
As per claim 11,
Decastro teaches a computer-implemented method according to claim 10, further comprising performing a hash function on at least a portion of the new transaction receipt to obtain a hash value ([0011] [0014] [0017] [0091] implicit in Bitcoin which uses SHA-256).
As per claim 12,
Decastro teaches a computer-implemented method according to claim 11, wherein the hash value is used as a key for storage of the new transaction receipt ([0014] [0036] [0062] [0065] [0072] [0075-0077]).
As per claim 13,
Decastro teaches a computer-implemented method according to claim 10, obtaining a further transaction message requesting transfer of at least some of the transaction amount of virtual currency received by the recipient to a further recipient account, the further transaction message comprising the new transaction receipt or a reference to the new transaction receipt (block chain [0013] [0091] [0096]).
As per claim 14,
Decastro teaches a computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein the sender account and recipient account are associated with cryptographic addresses; and wherein the transaction message comprises the cryptographic address of the recipient account (Bitcoin/wallet address [013-0014] [0091] [0096]).
As per claim 15,
Decastro teaches a computer-implemented method according to claim 14, wherein the transaction message comprises a public key associated with the recipient account ([0096]).
As per claim 16,
Decastro teaches a computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein the network comprises an overlay network, and at least one of the other nodes comprises the identified target storage node; and wherein the method comprises forwarding, via the overlay network, the record evidencing validation of the transaction message to the identified target storage node ([0037] “The primary preferred embodiment of the invention supports a cryptocurrency, including the means for mining and issuing that cryptocurrency to account holders; and, it comprises an interface device to update a card, specially adapted software applications to run said interface device, at least one application providing means for the card to interface with the platform at distinct nodes or modules therein … A digital currency hosted by a network as part of the system interfacing with the platform has been named GEMCoin, whose structure and function are equivalent to that of the cryptocurrency, "Bitcoin," which is well described in the prior art “ [0075] “…the present invention comprises a central server and means for reconciling all accounts across the entire network and all users from that central authority, which is (effectively) a partial redundancy comprising one authoritative ledger and at least one parallel consensus ledger…” [0085] “… Mining activities are advantageously controlled with a Gateway. Novel means are provided for enabling the verification of transactions on the Block Chain with Clusters of Nodes separated into separate Division that holds parts of the Ledger to increase validation times and reduce the size of the ledger being held. Miners are organized into Communities that support and share with each other the coins mined, validation of new blocks and verification of transactions…” [0097] “…storing coin in a node ("proof of stake") in a cryptocurrency network,…”).
As per claim 17, Decastro teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium containing program instructions for validating a transaction, wherein execution of the program instructions by one or more processors of a computer system causes the one or more processors to carry out the method ([0024-0025] [0037] [0049] [0072-0073] [0081] [0087] operating system performed on a DALY (computer)).
The limits of this claim are rejected using the same prior art and rationale as previously addressed in Claim 1.
As per claim 18, Decastro teaches a validation node connected to a plurality of other nodes in a network ([0037] “The primary preferred embodiment of the invention supports a cryptocurrency, including the means for mining and issuing that cryptocurrency to account holders; and, it comprises an interface device to update a card, specially adapted software applications to run said interface device, at least one application providing means for the card to interface with the platform at distinct nodes or modules therein…” [0075] [0089] [0097] DALY (computer)).
The limits of this claim are rejected using the same prior art and rationale as previously addressed in Claim 1.
As per claim 19, Decastro teaches a system comprising a plurality of nodes, the nodes being connected via a network ([0037] “The primary preferred embodiment of the invention supports a cryptocurrency, including the means for mining and issuing that cryptocurrency to account holders; and, it comprises an interface device to update a card, specially adapted software applications to run said interface device, at least one application providing means for the card to interface with the platform at distinct nodes or modules therein … A digital currency hosted by a network as part of the system interfacing with the platform has been named GEMCoin, whose structure and function are equivalent to that of the cryptocurrency, "Bitcoin," which is well described in the prior art “ [0075] “…the present invention comprises a central server and means for reconciling all accounts across the entire network and all users from that central authority, which is (effectively) a partial redundancy comprising one authoritative ledger and at least one parallel consensus ledger…” [0085] “… Mining activities are advantageously controlled with a Gateway. Novel means are provided for enabling the verification of transactions on the Block Chain with Clusters of Nodes separated into separate Division that holds parts of the Ledger to increase validation times and reduce the size of the ledger being held. Miners are organized into Communities that support and share with each other the coins mined, validation of new blocks and verification of transactions…” [0097]).
The limits of this claim are rejected using the same prior art and rationale as previously addressed in Claim 1.
As per claim 20,
The limits of this claim are rejected using the same prior art and rationale as previously addressed in Claim 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pianese (PGPub No. 20150033301 ) – teaches a decentralized electronic transfer system. A first digital code that represents a first transaction is generated from a first user's secure repository to the first user's unsecure repository. The first digital code is sent to a secure storage memory related to the unsecure repository to be stored in an area of the memory. A processor related to the unsecure repository generates a second digital code that represents a second transaction from the unsecure repository to the second user's repository. The processor retrieves the first digital code stored in the secure storage memory and publishes the retrieved digital code to validate the first transaction. In addition, the processor publishes the second digital code to validate the second transaction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gregory A Pollock whose telephone number is (571) 270-1465. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 4 PM.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on 571 270-1836. 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.
/Gregory A Pollock/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
01/08/2026