DETAILED ACTION
This is an office action on the merits in response to the communication filed on 6/27/2024.
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 .
Claims’ Status
Claims 1-12 are pending and are considered in this office action.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1 (The Statutory Categories): Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? MPEP 2106.03
Per Step 1, Claims 1-10 are drawn to method claims; claim 11 is drawn an apparatus; claim 12 is drawn a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, which are within the four statutory categories (i.e., a process).
Independent claim recites: (claims 11 and 12 being similar in scope):
Claim 1:
receiving, by a first node of a blockchain network, a request, by a first entity, to detach a deposit from an exchange platform;
determining, by the first node, whether detachment of the deposit is allowed, comprising:
determining that the first entity is a current owner of the deposit; and
determining that a first period of time has not expired;
transmitting, by the first node, an exchange private key to the first entity;
generating, by the first entity, a first shared key based at least in part on the exchange private key and an attachment private key of the first entity;
verifying, by the first entity, the first shared key with the exchange platform; and
generating, by the first entity, using the first shared key, a blockchain transaction to detach the deposit from the exchange platform and provide the deposit to the first entity.
Step 2A Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? MPEP 2106.04
The limitations, as drafted, constitute a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing, 1) Fundamental economic principles by mitigating risk; 2) Commercial interaction in the form of contracts, under the Certain methods of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. The abstract idea, recited above, includes: receiving a request to detach a deposit from an exchange platform; determining whether detachment of the deposit is allowed, comprising: determining that the first entity is a current owner of the deposit; and determining that a first period of time has not expired; generating using the first shared key, a blockchain transaction to detach the deposit from the exchange platform and provide the deposit to the first entity. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of limitations commercial interactions, but for the recitation of generic computer components, it falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – 1) Fundamental economic principles by mitigating risk; 2) Commercial interaction in the form of contracts, grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? MPEP 2106.04.
The recited computing elements (claim 11: a processor; and memory; claim 12: a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium) are recited at a high-level of generality, i.e. as generic computing element performing generic computer functions such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, since it amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, as set forth in MPEP 2106.05(f).
The other additional positive elements: “transmitting an exchange private key to the first entity; generating a first shared key based at least in part on the exchange private key and an attachment private key of the first entity; verifying the first shared key with the exchange platform;” in claim 1, which amounts to linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) or simply “applying it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
Accordingly, these additional claim elements, alone and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because (1) they do not effect improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)); (2) they do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition (see the Vanda memo); (3) they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)); (4) they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); (5) they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designated to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and the Vanda memo). Therefore, per Step 2A, Prong Two, the claim is directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B (The Inventive Concept): Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? MPEP 2106.05.
Step 2B of the eligibility analysis concludes that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner carries over the analysis from Step 2A related to the generic computing elements being no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional claim elements are simply linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use” are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, are carried over for further analysis in Step 2B.
When the independent claims are considered as a whole, as a combination, the claim elements noted above do not amount to any more than they amount to individually. The operations appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense, i.e. a microcontroller; a non-volatile flash memory; an electronic device; a digital wallet; a payment card. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. Therefore, it is concluded that the elements of the independent claims are directed to one or more abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. (MPEP 2106.05)
Further, Step 2B of the analysis takes into consideration all dependent claims as well, both individually and as a whole, as a combination:
Claims 2-10 are further directed to additional abstract ideas because the steps performed are simply narrowing the scope of the abstract idea of claim 1 since their individual and combined significance is still not significantly more than the abstract concept at the core of the claimed invention. For example, claim 2 further describes recording of the transaction causes an unspent transaction output (UTXO) to be prevented from being used; claim 3 describes calculating a second shared key from an attachment private key of the exchange platform and comparing the second shared key; claim 4 describes combining an attachment public key and comparing a result of the combination to the first shared key; claim 5 on determining that the first entity is not the current owner of the deposit; claim 6 on notifying the first entity that the detachment is not allowed; claim 7 on broadcasting a refund transaction to the blockchain network; claim 8 describes refund transaction is cooperatively signed by the exchange platform and a second entity using a two-entity elliptic curve digital signature algorithm; claim 9 on the first shared key is generated by multiplying the attachment private key of the exchange platform with the attachment private key; claim 10 destroying the attachment private key, which all of the limitation are narrowing the steps performed in claim 1.
The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified in the independent claims as an abstract idea. The fact that the associated computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility. In sum, the additional elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not heavier than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application do not amount to significantly more either. (see MPEP 2106.05)
In sum, claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 1 contains allowable subject matter. As per claim 1, the closest prior art of record, US20210304198A1 to Lingappa, teaches systems and methods of managing a cryptocurrency payment network comprising one or more issuer nodes and one or more distributor nodes. What is missing from Lingappa is the fact that Lingappa does not teach “determining that the first entity is a current owner of the deposit; determining that a first period of time has not expired; generating, by the first entity, using the first shared key, a blockchain transaction to detach the deposit from the exchange platform and provide the deposit to the first entity.” Therefore, the closest prior arts of record fail to teach or suggest, in the context of the ordered combination of the claim, “generating, by the first entity, using the first shared key, a blockchain transaction to detach the deposit from the exchange platform and provide the deposit to the first entity.” Furthermore, Examiner cannot find prior art of reference dated before 5/15/2017 that teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Claims 2-10 are dependent on claim 1 and are allowable because of dependency on claim 1. In addition, claims 11 and 12 are analogous to claim 1, and thus contains allowable subject matter for the same reasons stated above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE Non-FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YIN Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-1094 or yin.choi@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30 - 5:30pm EST.
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, Neha Patel can be reached on 571-270-1492. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YIN Y CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 3699 1/19/2026