DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
This action is a Non-Final Rejection. This action is in response to the request for continued examination filed on May 11, 2026.
Claims 1 and 4-10 have been amended.
Claim 11 has been added.
Claims 1-11 are pending and rejected.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C 101, Applicant argues that the limitations of claim 1 “are not merely ancillary computer components or nominal data-gathering steps. These limitations define the technical mechanism by which the validator network operates under asynchronous and adversarial conditions. The claims therefore recite a particular technological solution to a particular technological problem: how to permit bounded concurrent validation in a distributed validator system while constraining conflicting validations and double spending.” Remarks at 11. However, Applicant is describing a business problem and not a technical problem. A programmed general purpose computer is being used to implement an abstract idea to solve a business problem.
Applicant further argues that “the claims are amended to recite the specific network-control mechanisms that govern selection of validator subsets and formation of quorums in the face of concurrency and adversarial operation. That is a concrete distributed-systems architecture, not mere linkage to a technological environment.” Remarks at 12. However, Applicant has not shown that technology related to the network-control mechanisms was improved.
Applicant further argues that the ordered combination “amount[s] to a concrete protocol for distributed transaction validation in a fault-prone network.” Remarks at 13. Applicant further asserts that the claims “recite a specific way in which computing nodes are selected, verified, and constrained to achieve a technical outcome in distributed operation.” Id. However, even when viewed as an ordered combination, the claims do not provide a technological improvement. For example, Applicant has not shown that the claimed embodiment improves any of the technology that is being used.
As such, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been maintained.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to for the following reason: The preamble of claim 11 recites “A method for validating a digital transaction, comprising:, comprising:.” As shown, the preamble includes a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Category? (see MPEP 2106.03)
Yes, with respect to claims 1-11, which recite a method and, therefore, are directed to the statutory class of process.
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited? (see MPEP 2106.04(a))
The following claims identify the limitations that recite the abstract idea in regular text and that recite additional elements in bold:
1. A method for validating a digital transaction, comprising:
accessing as input at a processor of a validator-selection node of a plurality of validator computing nodes interconnected by an asynchronous message-passing network, the plurality of validator computing nodes including validator computing notes subject to faulty or adversarial operation, both of a transaction identifier (TID) and a nonce;
selecting by the processor and based on the TID and the nonce, a set of validator computing nodes from among the plurality of validator computing nodes in accordance with a publicly verifiable selection rule, the selecting comprising:
(i) computing, for each of the plurality of validator computing nodes, a pseudorandom value using a cryptographic function of the TID, the nonce and an identifier of the validator computing node;
(ii) designating as the set of validator computing nodes those validator computing nodes whose pseudorandom values satisfy a selection predicate such that at least a threshold number T of the designated validator computing nodes are selected according to a uniform random distribution over the plurality of validator computing nodes, T being a predetermined integer threshold stored in a memory of the validator-selection node; and
(iii) enabling any third party, given the TID, the nonce and identifiers of the designated validator computing nodes, to verify that the set of validator computing nodes was selected in accordance with the publicly verifiable selection rule; and
selecting, by the processor, a quorum of validators from the set of validator computing nodes for validating payment transactions associated with a shared transaction identifier, the quorum having a cardinality m and being determined with respect to parameters k1 and k2, with k1 < k2, such that at least k1 payment transactions having the shared transaction identifier can be validated concurrently using respective quorums selected in accordance with the publicly verifiable selection rule and no more than a total of k2 payment transactions having the shared transaction identifier can be validated, whereby the digital transaction is validated in parallel in the asynchronous message-passing network while constraining double spending.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the processor selects the set of validators using a cryptographically secure hash function that is modeled as a random oracle model.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the processor selects the set of validators using a shared source of randomness comprising a pseudorandom value generated by a verifiable random function or a distributed coin-tossing protocol and made available to the plurality of validator computing nodes.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the quorum comprises a subset of validators selected uniformly at random from the set of validator computing nodes, the subset having the cardinality m.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the set of validator computing nodes is divided into groups of validators according to a predetermined criterion and the quorum comprises, for each group, a number of validators selected uniformly at random from that group, the number for each group corresponding to a predetermined fraction of validators in that group.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the cardinality m depends on at least one of a synchrony assumption specifying synchronous or asynchronous message passing, failure assumptions specifying an upper bound f on a number of faulty validators, or a power of an adversary specifying whether the adversary is adaptive or non-adaptive.
7. The method of claim 1, further comprising, for a chosen subset from the set of validator computing nodes, validating payment transactions and settling the payment transactions from a payor to ensure that one or more preconditions is satisfied with probability at least 1 - ε, where ε is a negligible function of a security parameter n.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more preconditions includes a condition that a total of payments from a fund that can be settled cannot exceed the initial balance of the fund, a second condition that a validated transaction to an honest payee is guaranteed to be settled, and a third condition that a settlement of a fund of an honest payor is no less than the initial balance minus the payments made from the fund.
9. The method of claim 1, further comprising, by a chosen subset from the set of validator computing nodes, validating and settling payment transactions from partially validated funds.
10. The method of claim 1, further comprising, by the chosen subset of validators, validating and settling payment transactions from partially validated funds, wherein the payment transactions are validated and settled to ensure that one or more preconditions is satisfied with probability at least 1 - ε, where ε is a negligible function of a security parameter n.
11. A method for validating a digital transaction, comprising:, comprising:
accessing at a processor of a validator-selection node of a plurality of validator computing nodes interconnected by a message-passing network a transaction identifier and a nonce;
selecting, by the processor and based on the transaction identifier and the nonce, a subset of the plurality of validator computing nodes in accordance with a publicly verifiable selection rule that applies a cryptographic function to the transaction identifier, the nonce, and respective identifiers of the plurality of validator computing nodes, such that the subset is reproducible for verification by another computing entity; and
determining, by the processor, from the subset a quorum for validating a transaction associated with the transaction identifier according to concurrency constraints that permit validation of up to a first number of transactions associated with the transaction identifier using respective quorums selected in accordance with the publicly verifiable selection rule and prevent validation of more than a second number of transactions associated with the transaction identifier, the first number being less than the second number.
Yes. But for the recited additional elements as shown above in bold, the remaining limitations of the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity. The claims are directed to validating a transaction. This type of method of organizing human activity is a fundamental economic practice because it includes validating a payment transaction and a commercial interaction such as agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application? (see MPEP 2106.04(d))
No. The claims as a whole merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The computing components (i.e., additional elements that are in bold above) are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to implement the steps. For example, only a programmed general purpose computing device is needed to implement the claimed process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the abstract idea is merely being linked to a particular technological environment, i.e., a blockchain or computing environment. Employing well known technology within a blockchain or computing environment to execute the abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the abstract idea to this environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application or add significantly more. Additionally, there is no improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology. Therefore, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept? (see MPEP 2106.05)
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements in the claims, both individually and in combination, amount to no more than tools to perform the abstract idea. Merely performing the abstract idea using a computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims do not provide an inventive concept.
As such, the claims are not patent eligible.
Note Regarding Prior Art
The claims are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103 because the claims were not found to be disclosed in or obvious in light of the prior art.
Relevant Prior Art
The following references are relevant to Applicant’s invention:
Agrawal, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0164153 A1. This reference teaches double spending protection (see paragraphs 0066-0069). This reference also discloses a random oracle model (see paragraph 0105).
Ma et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0286083 A1. This reference teaches implementing blockchain transactions.
Chan et al., U.S. Patent Number 10,565,570 B2. This reference discusses preventing double spending.
Diehl U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0102782 A1. This reference teaches processing a genuine instance of a digital good using blockchain. Specifically, this reference teaches a set of validators. See Figure 4, item 480.
Email Communications
Per MPEP 502.03, Applicant may authorize email communications by filing Form PTO/SB/439, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf, via the USPTO patent electronic filing system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH H ROSEN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1850 and email address is elizabeth.rosen@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 AM ET - 7 PM ET.
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, Michael Anderson, can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/ELIZABETH H ROSEN/Primary Examiner, 3693
Prosecution Insights