SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR VALIDATING ASSET DESTINATIONS IN BLOCKCHAIN NETWORKS

DETAILED ACTION 1. The present application, filed on or after March 13, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This is a CONTINUATION application which claims priority to the parent Application, U.S. Patent Application No. 17/695,755, now U.S. Patent No. 12,051,066. Response to Amendment 2.. An amendment was filed September 8, 2026 (hereinafter “Amendment”) and has been entered into the record and fully considered. The Amendment was filed in response to a Non-Final Rejection dated June 5, 2026. Despite the Amendment to the Claims and Applicant’s remarks, the Rejection under §103 as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection is hereby maintained; although, on NEW GROUNDS necessitated by the Amendment. However, the Office finds that the Amendment overcomes the Rejection under 101 as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection and that rejection is HEREBY WITHDRAWN. An explanation of the maintained Rejection and a response to Applicant’s arguments are set forth below. Also, a brief explanation of eligibility is set forth below. Please see the “Conclusion” section of this Action below for important information regarding responding to this Action. INTERVIEWS: While the previous interview was helpful in advancing prosecution, significant issues remain under 103. Please use the AIR form link found in the Conclusion section of this Action to schedule a follow up interview, if such is desired. Status of the Claims: Claims 1 – 2, 4 – 6, 8 – 13, and 15 – 19 are pending in this Application. Claims 3, 7, 14, and 20 have been cancelled. The independent Claims are each similar in structure and were amended in a similar fashion; although, independent Claims 8 and 15 are substantially broader in scope in terms of 103. The dependent Claims were not amended. Withdrawal of Rejection under 101: The Office finds that the Amendment renders the Claims eligible in that they define a practical application of the abstract idea and which is integrated into the Claim and reflected in the Claim. Claim 1, for example, now defines a confidence score and how that score is determined. It also defines the conditions under which a score cannot be generated. These conditions are defined by means of an “accuracy metric.” The Claim recites “additional limitations” – as reproduced below – which allegedly solve a technical problem. Applicant’s arguments found to be persuasive are as follows: PNG media_image1.png 603 862 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 485 827 media_image2.png Greyscale The rejection is HEREBY WITHDRAWN. With regard to the Maintained Rejection under 103: The following explanation of the Rejection of Claim 1 is considered explanatory of the Rejection as a whole. Claim 1 was amended as follows: PNG media_image3.png 562 865 media_image3.png Greyscale PNG media_image4.png 447 826 media_image4.png Greyscale PNG media_image5.png 570 833 media_image5.png Greyscale PNG media_image6.png 542 847 media_image6.png Greyscale Summary of the Amendment and Broadest Reasonable Interpretation: Claim terminology is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art, consistent with the specification. This is true, unless the terms are given a special meaning. See MPEP §2111.01 Here, no special meaning is detected. Therefore, no special meaning should be given to the terms of the Claims at this time, subject to further analysis of the specification. With regard to §103: The Amendment necessitated a new grounds of Rejection as follows: The Claims stand are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0414664 to Liu et al. (hereinafter “Liu) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0184479 to Benkreira et al. (hereinafter “Benkreira”) and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0118380 to Krosinski (hereinafter “Krosinski”) and still further in view of Non-Patent Literature to Yildirim, “10 Must-Know Classification Metrics for Machine Learning,” Towards Data Science, Artificial Intelligence, 2020 (hereinafter “Data Science”). First, it is noted that the Claims have been broadened substantially by deleting the definition of “contextual data.” It is suggested that these limitations be re-inserted into the Claim. Second, the adds a limitation relating to the oracle being “hosted external.” A person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that oracles are inherently “off chain.” Oracles are inherently off‑chain services that deliver verified external data onto the blockchain, so they are not part of the on‑chain consensus but act as a bridge between off‑chain sources and on‑chain smart contracts. This is readily made evident by Liu which teaches as follows: “[0235] Smart contracts may execute based on data received from entities that are not on the blockchain or off-chain resources. For example, a smart contract may be programmed to execute if a temperature reading from a smart sensor or IoT sensor falls below 10 degrees. Smart contracts are unable to pull data from off-chain resources. Instead, such data needs to be pushed to the smart contract. Additionally, even slight variations in data may be problematic since the smart contract is replicated across multiple nodes of the network. For example, a first node may receive a temperature reading of 9.8 degrees and a second node may receive a temperature reading of 10 degrees. Since validation of a transaction is based on consensus across nodes, even small variations in the received data may result in a condition of the smart contract to be evaluated as being not satisfied. Third party services may be utilized to retrieve off-chain resource information and push this to the blockchain. These third party services may be referred to as oracles. Oracles may be software applications, such as a big data application, or hardware, such as an IoT or smart device. For example, an oracle service may evaluate received temperature readings beforehand to determine if the readings are below 10 degrees and then push this information to the smart contract.” (Emphasis Added) Third, while clarifying how the confidence score is generated or not generated, the Claim now recites examples of the “accuracy metric.” However, the examples recited – classification accuracy, log loss, and confusion matrix – are extremely well known and obvious measures of accuracy of machine learning output. This is evident from Data Science which teaches as follows as to 10 popular accuracy measures: PNG media_image7.png 696 581 media_image7.png Greyscale Thus, all 3 given examples in the Claim are listed in Data Science. Accordingly, despite the Amendment, the Claims remain obvious in view of the combination of 4 references cited above and previously applied. Response to Arguments 3. Applicant's arguments set forth in the Remarks section of the Amendment have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regard to 103, Applicant’s arguments are moot given the new grounds of rejection. However, it is noted that, on p. 19 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant states that the amendments to Claims 8 and 15 are “analogous” to those made in Claim 1. This is misleading. These Claims do not recite the specific examples of accuracy metrics as does Claim 1. Applicant is admonished to use greater candor in making arguments to the Office. Therefore, the Rejection must be maintained. Conclusion 4. Applicant should carefully consider the following in connection with this Office Action: A. Finality The Amendment necessitated a NEW GROUNDS of Rejection; accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action. B. Search and Prior Art The search conducted in connection with this Office Action, as well as any previous Actions, encompassed the inventive concepts as defined in the Applicant’s specification. That is, the search(es) included concepts and features which are defined by the pending claims but also pertinent to significant although unclaimed subject matter. Accordingly, such search(es) were directed to the defined invention as well as the general state of the art, including references which are in the same field of endeavor as the present application as well as related fields ((e.g. machine learning to detect fraud in connection with blockchain addresses involving cryptocurrency transactions). Indeed, there is a plethora of prior art in these fields. Therefore, in addition to prior art references cited and applied in connection with this and any previous Office Actions, the following prior art is also made of record but not relied upon in the current rejection: U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0122258 to Bramberger et al. This reference relates to the concept of a confusion matrix. Chinese Patent Publication No. CN 114066438 to Lin. This reference relates to the concept of an accuracy metric. C. Responding to this Office Action In view of the foregoing explanation of the scope of searches conducted in connection with the examination of this application, in preparing any response to this Action, Applicant is encouraged to carefully review the entire disclosures of the above-cited, unapplied references, as well as any previously cited references. It is likely that one or more such references disclose or suggest features which Applicant may seek to claim. Moreover, for the same reasons, Applicant is encouraged to review the entire disclosures of the references applied in the foregoing rejections and not just the sections mentioned. D. Interviews and Compact Prosecution The Office strongly encourages interviews as an important aspect of compact prosecution. Statistics and studies have shown that prosecution can be greatly advanced by way of interviews. Indeed, in many instances, during the course of one or more interviews, the Examiner and Applicant may reach an agreement on eligible and allowable subject matter that is supported by the specification. Interviews are especially welcomed by this examiner at any stage of the prosecution process. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool (e.g. TEAMS). To facilitate the scheduling of an interview, the Examiner requests the use of the AIR form as follows: USPTO Automated Interview Request http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. Other forms of interview requests filed in this application may result in a delay in scheduling the interview because of the time required to appear on the Examiner's docket. Thus, the use of the AIR form is strongly encouraged. D. Communicating with the Office Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM BUNKER whose telephone number is (571)272-0017. The examiner can normally be reached on M - F 8:30AM - 5:30PM, Pacific. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abhishek Vyas, can be reached at 571-270-1836. Information regarding the status of an application, whether published or unpublished, may be obtained from the “Patent Center” system. For more information about the Patent Center system, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/ /William (Bill) Bunker/ U.S. Patent Examiner AU 3691 (571) 272-0017 - office william.bunker@uspto.gov October 9, 2026 /ABHISHEK VYAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3691