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 December 3, 2025 (hereinafter “Amendment”) and has been entered into the record and fully considered. The Amendment was filed in response to a Non-Final Rejection dated September 10, 2025.
Despite the Amendment to the Claims and Applicant’s remarks, the Rejections under §101 and §103 as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection are hereby maintained. However, the Rejection under §103 is based on NEW GROUNDS necessitated by the Amendment.
An explanation of the maintained Rejections and a response to Applicant’s arguments are 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 both 101 an 103. That said, the Examiner is open to an interview after final if such is desired. In particular, the Examiner is prepared to assist the Applicant with the eligibility issues. Please use the AIR form link found in the Conclusion section of this Action to schedule an interview.
Status of the Claims:
Claims 1 – 2 and 4 – 20 are pending in this Application.
Claim 3 has been cancelled in the Amendment.
The independent Claims are each similar in structure and scope and were amended in virtually an identical fashion.
The dependent Claims 2 were not amended or only amended in a trivial manner.
Features of cancelled Claim 3 were incorporated in Claim 1 along with other new limitations. Therefore, a new grounds of Rejection under §103 is necessitated. Furthermore, the following explanation of the maintained rejections with respect to Claim 1 is considered explanatory of the Rejection as a whole.
With regard to the Amendment:
Claim 1 was amended as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
707
712
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
568
645
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Objection to the Claim: It is noted that the word “score” appears to be inadvertently crossed-through in the Amendment to Claim 1 just above the sub-paragraph (i). Correction is required.
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. However, the term “insufficient data” appears to be undefined in the specification, except for the following:
[0041]In block 312, the oracle device 110 may determine whether sufficient public blockchain and/or external source data has been obtained for the blockchain address for which the forensic analysis was performed in block 312. The sufficiency of the data can be determined based on an accuracy metric (e.g., classification accuracy, logarithmic loss, or confusion matrix) with respect to the machine learning model 230 and the particular blockchain address, for example. In other examples, the sufficiency of the data can be based on a threshold number of historical blockchain addresses associated with the obtained public blockchain data, and other methods for analyzing the sufficiency of the data can also be used in other examples. (Emphasis Added)
As noted in the Amendment, the changes to Claim 1 relate generally to:
Obtaining identity data of a recipient
Sending this to the oracle
Receiving a confidence score that reflects the likelihood that the identity is the true identity that corresponds with the address on the blockchain
And reflects whether there is sufficient data to render the confidence score after applying an accuracy metric
These terms appear – subject to further consideration and the term noted above – to be defined in the specification based on their plain and ordinary meaning.
With regard to §101:
Respectfully, the Claim lacks the specificity required to integrate a practical application into the abstract idea of fraud detection. For example, “how” is the contextual data obtained? How is the identity obtained? This is particularly puzzling in a blockchain context. How does the confidence score “reflect” the additional information added in the Amendment? How does the ML model determine whether sufficient data is available? Again, this is critical in a blockchain environment. Which are the accuracy metrics or how is the threshold determined?
Thus, the Claim lacks these details to help it rise above an “apply it” situation.
Respectfully, the Amendment does advance prosecution but not substantially.
Thus, the amendments to the Claim do not alter the analysis set for the Non-Final Rejection regarding §101. The Claim merely recites a series of common computerized functions. These limitations are recited at a very high level of generality.
The Claim provides no specificity in terms of how this is accomplished or what algorithms are used or whether they are special or used or applied in any special way. Only the mere outcome or result of a confidence score being generated and the transaction being recorded on the blockchain is recited. These are common processes. No special functionality is recited. No new computerized components are recited.
These limitations recite results or “outcome” of computer processing without specifying “how” a technical problem is solved. That is, the solution of a technical problem is not reflected in the Claim.
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer elements at each step of the process is purely typical of processing identifiers for authentication purposes. Without greater specificity as to “how” certain functions solve a technical problem, the currently recited limitations can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of the Claim add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately.
Claim 1 does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer elements nor does the claim reflect how an improvement in any other technology or technical field is achieved. Thus, Claim 1 amounts to nothing significantly more than instructions to “apply” the abstract idea of generating an AI chatbot to provide an estimate of a home for the purpose of some insurance product using some unspecified, generic algorithm and computer components. Such is not sufficient to integrate a practical application in the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the Rejection is maintained.
A follow up interview is encouraged.
With regard to §103:
A new grounds of Rejection is applied:
Claims 1 – 2 and 4 - 20 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”).
The primary reference to Liu is well explained and applied in the Non-Final Rejection. It teaches the use of off chain resources. (See 0235 and 0239.)
It is also replete with teachings regarding the calculation of a “risk score” to confirm the veracity of a blockchain transaction. (See at least Abstract) The risk score relates to the correspondence between an identity and an address. (See at least [0033-0034.) The concept of a “real identity” is taught at least at 0204-0206. The accuracy of the data is discussed at 0169.
Thus, the Claims are obvious in view of the combination of 3 references and especially in view of the new publication to Krosinski. It is on point with the claimed invention and in the same field as the claimed invention and the prior art.
The title is as follows: Systems And Methods For Monitoring, Analyzing and Regulating Blockchain Transactions
The Abstract is as follows:
“Systems and methods for generating a metric based on blockchain data for use in controlling, evaluating, or otherwise regulating a transaction. The metric may be used to control the release of assets, to trigger an event, or as a measure of the satisfaction of contractual conditions based on whether the characteristics of a transaction or of a party engaging in a transaction are associated with a score that satisfies a threshold value. In some embodiments, a state-change derived score or metric allows the creation of a layer of trust or reliability that a blockchain network can reference in situations where a greater degree of trust is desired.” (Emphasis Added)
The described metric – or, score – is calculated off chain by an oracle using a ML model. (See at least 0145-0146.) In particular, Krosinski teaches that there must be sufficient accuracy – as determined by a threshold number of interactions – for an accurate metric to be generated:
“[0345] A contract owner (501), contract controlling entity, or an authorized 3rd party (502) defines what information or criteria will determine a decision to permit or deny interaction with the smart contract. For example, the decision to permit or deny interaction may depend upon a requesting address having a history of frequent decentralized exchange (DEX) transactions. As an example, five (5) or more DEX transactions per week may be what the controlling entity considers as sufficient to satisfy this criterion. The criterion is communicated via an Important State Change declaration (ISCd, as suggested by element or process 504). This ISCd can be dynamically set or hard coded in the smart contract. When a request to interact (as indicated by process step, stage, or operation 506) comes from an external address (Requester Address, 505) the smart contract (indicated by element or process 508) sends a query (indicated by process step, stage, or operation 509) to the scoring Oracle (element or process 510) requesting a score that reflects the criteria passed in the ISCd (indicated by process step, stage, or operation 504).
[0346] The Oracle 510 controls the performance of the process of score generation and/or retrieval and communicates the score back to the smart contract (as indicated by process step, stage, or operation 512). Smart contract 508 “reads” the score and evaluates it against the applicable criteria using a decision process/logic (514). Decision process/logic 514 may consider criterion provided by the ISCd (504) and/or criterion that is hardcoded into the contract (as indicated by process step, stage, or operation 513) in its logical processes. If the score satisfies the threshold value, then Smart contract 508 permits interaction; if the score does not satisfy the threshold, then the interaction is denied (as indicated by process step, stage, or operation 515).” (Emphasis Added)
It is respectfully submitted that this teaching is on point with the “insufficient data” limitation of the amended Claim 1. As noted above, a threshold number of interactions/transactions is what is considered sufficient to render an accurate confidence score or risk score within the context of Krosinski. This is on example of an accuracy metric.
Furthermore, it is well understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in this field to use AI-driven off-chain oracles which leverage machine learning (ML) to process, analyze, and score off-chain data before securely delivering it to smart contracts. An off-chain oracle using machine learning is an advanced middleware layer bridging blockchain networks with external data sources. It fetches, processes, and validates off-chain information before passing verifiable outputs to smart contracts. Integrating AI/ML adds two key capabilities: generating predictive or computational scores and providing a dynamic accuracy metric for each data response. To ensure reliability, AI-driven oracles use many types of rigorous evaluation metrics before data is sent on-chain.
These functions are well understood in the blockchain environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time of filing the claimed invention to have modified the combined ML fraud detection system of Liu in view of Benkreira, the latter having third party data sources teachings, to add the oracle calculation of risk scores teachings of Krosinski, where accuracy metrics are applied.. The motivation to do so comes from Liu. As quoted above, Liu teaches the use of off chain resources. It would greatly enhance the efficiency and accuracy of the system of Liu to use the off chain risk score calculations and accuracy metrics of Krosinski.
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 section 101 rejection, Applicant argues as follows:
PNG
media_image3.png
625
703
media_image3.png
Greyscale
While the specification may contain descriptions of technical solutions – albeit described above and in other places in Applicant’s remarks – they must be reflect in the Claim. The Examiner agrees that the Claim advances prosecution and stands ready to assist Applicant in addressing this 101 issue with proposed Claim language.
With regard to 103, Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
The Rejections must be maintained.
Conclusion
4. Applicant should carefully consider the following in connection with this Office Action:
A. Finality
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new grounds of Rejection. 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. 2022/0067752 to Fang et al. This reference relates to the concept of accuracy metrics in ML generated risk scores.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0342731 to Skaggs et al. This reference relates to the concept of accuracy metrics in scores generated off chain.
B. 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.
C. 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
February 6, 2026
/ABHISHEK VYAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3691