DETAILED ACTION
This non-final office action is in response to claims 1-8 and 15-23 filed on 02/18/2026 for examination. Claims 1-8 and 15-23 are being examined and are pending.
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 .
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.
Preliminary Amendment
Preliminary amendment to the claims filed on 02/18/2026 is acknowledged by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/10/2024, 08/06/2024, 0820/2024, 12/05/2024, 03/11/2025, and 02/11/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Interview/Restriction Discussion
Examiner contacted applicant on February 4, 2026 regarding a restriction requirement to be made for the originally filed claim set 1-20 (dated 07/10/2024). The restriction indicated to applicant was as: Group I: Claims 1-8; Group II: Claims 9-14; and Group III, claims 15-20. Upon further discussion, proposed amendments were determined and filed as preliminary amendments (dated 02/18/2026). In view of the preliminary amendments, a restriction is not presently set forth. Claims 1-8 and 15-23 are being examined herewith.
Consideration Under 35 USC § 101
Note: the claims have been considered and analyzed by the Examiner under 35 USC § 101 with respect to statutory category and judicial exceptions, and appear to recite a form of subject matter statutorily compliant with § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8, 15-16, and 19-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grigg (NPL Video: “The EOS Arbitration Process Explained by Ian Grigg”; June 12, 2018; Hereinafter “Grigg”).
Regarding claim 1, Grigg teaches a computer-implemented method (0:00-2:12 – system implemented by a series of block miners/computer systems communicating over a network) comprising:
receiving a message for changing a state of a blockchain (0:00-2:12 – arbitration message is received saying, e.g., Alice must pay Bob cryptocurrency <i.e., a message received for changing a state of a blockchain. Alice/Bob’s account ownerships are a “state”>), wherein the message includes information relating to data previously written to the blockchain (0:00-2:12 – arbitration message is received saying, e.g., Alice must repay Bob cryptocurrency stolen by a previously approved transaction <i.e., the message includes information relating to a previous exchange/previously written data on the blockchain>), and wherein the information is not digitally signed by an owner of the state of the blockchain (0:00-2:12 – the message is an “invalid” request because it is not a request from Alice <i.e., not signed by Alice>);
retrieving, from an enforcement actions server, a representation of the information (0:00-2:12 – arbitration ruling <i.e., enforcement action information> is posted by an arbitrator to a community <i.e., posted to a server>. The community passes the arbitration ruling to the blockchain block producers);
verifying that the representation of the information from the enforcement actions server relates to the information (0:00-2:12 – the block producers review the arbitration ruling/arbitrator <i.e., verifying the information>, vote on the message’s implementation <i.e., verifying>, and construct a block on the chain implementing the arbitration message/pointing to the arbitration ruling); and
facilitating addition of the information into a copy of the blockchain (0:00-2:12 – a block implementing the arbitration message/pointing to the arbitration ruling is added to the blockchain).
Regarding claim 2, Grigg teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein verifying that the representation of the information from the enforcement actions server relates to the information is performed by a computing device configured to be a miner or validator for the blockchain (0:00-2:12 – arbitration ruling <i.e., enforcement action information> is posted by an arbitrator to a community <i.e., posted to a server>. The community passes the arbitration ruling to the blockchain block producers. The block chain produces are blockchain block miners/validators, which may then mine a block onto the chain implementing the arbitration message/pointing to the arbitration ruling).
Regarding claim 3, Grigg teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein facilitating addition of the information into the copy of the blockchain comprises causing a block containing the information to be added to the blockchain (0:00-2:12 – a block implementing the arbitration message/pointing to the arbitration ruling is constructed and added to the blockchain).
Regarding claim 4, Grigg teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the data previously written to the blockchain comprises a transaction between two or more parties (0:00-2:12 – a block implementing the arbitration message/pointing to the arbitration ruling is constructed and added to the blockchain. The block may require Alice repay Bob cryptocurrency because Alice stole from Bob <i.e., regards a previous transaction between two or more parties>), wherein one of the two or more parties is the owner of the state (0:00-2:12 – a block implementing the arbitration message/pointing to the arbitration ruling is constructed and added to the blockchain. The block may require Alice repay Bob cryptocurrency because Alice stole from Bob <i.e., Bob/Alice each own an account balance “state” that was party to the transaction>), and wherein the information reverses the transaction (0:00-2:12 – a block implementing the arbitration message/pointing to the arbitration ruling is constructed and added to the blockchain. The block may require Alice repay Bob cryptocurrency because Alice stole from Bob <i.e., the previous transaction is reversed>).
Regarding claim 6, Grigg teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein verifying that the representation of the information from the enforcement actions server relates to the information comprises one or more of verifying that: the message is digitally signed by a third party associated with the enforcement actions server, at least part of the representation retrieved from the enforcement actions server and the information match, or a third party has authority to compel a remedial action related to the information (0:00-2:12 – the block producers review the arbitration ruling/arbitrator <i.e., verifying the arbitrator/third party has authority>, vote on the message’s implementation, and construct a block implementing the arbitration message/pointing to the arbitration ruling).
Regarding claim 8, Grigg teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the state of the blockchain is disposed within a previously-mined block of the blockchain (0:00-2:12 – a block implementing the arbitration message/pointing to the arbitration ruling is constructed and added to the blockchain. The block may require Alice repay Bob cryptocurrency because Alice stole from Bob in a previous transaction/block <i.e., previously mined block>).
Regarding claim 15, Grigg teaches a computer-implemented method (0:00-2:12 – system implemented by a series of block miners/computer systems communicating over a network) comprising:
receiving a block for adding to a blockchain (0:00-2:12 – block proposal is received saying, e.g., Alice must pay Bob cryptocurrency), wherein the block includes information relating to data previously written to the blockchain (0:00-2:12 – block proposal is received saying, e.g., Alice must repay Bob cryptocurrency stolen by a previously approved transaction <i.e., the message includes information relating to a previous exchange/previously written data on the blockchain>), wherein the data represents a state of the blockchain (0:00-2:12 – block proposal is received saying, e.g., Alice must pay Bob cryptocurrency <i.e., a message received for changing a state of a blockchain. Alice/Bob’s account ownerships are a “state”>), and wherein the information is not digitally signed by an owner of the state of the blockchain (0:00-2:12 – the message is an “invalid” request because it is not a request from Alice <i.e., not signed by Alice>);
retrieving, from an enforcement actions server, a representation of the information (0:00-2:12 – arbitration ruling <i.e., enforcement action information> is posted by an arbitrator to a community <i.e., posted to a server>. The community passes the arbitration ruling to the blockchain block producers);
verifying that the representation of the information from the enforcement actions server relates to the information (0:00-2:12 – the block producers review the arbitration ruling/arbitrator <i.e., verifying the information>, vote on the block proposal’s implementation <i.e., verifying>, and construct the block on the chain implementing the block proposal/pointing to the arbitration ruling); and
adding the block to a copy of the blockchain (0:00-2:12 – a block implementing the block proposal/pointing to the arbitration ruling is added to the blockchain).
Regarding claim 16, Grigg teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 15, wherein the information relates to an address of the enforcement actions server (0:00-2:12 – the arbitration message/proposal comprises a tag pointing to the full arbitration ruling), and wherein retrieving the representation of the information comprises accessing the representation of the information from the address (0:00-2:12 – the arbitration message/proposal comprises a tag pointing to the full arbitration ruling. The block constructors/voters review the ruling and vote on whether the block may be added to the blockchain).
Regarding claim 19, Grigg teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 15, wherein the state of the blockchain comprises a transaction between two or more parties (0:00-2:12 – a block implementing the arbitration message/pointing to the arbitration ruling is constructed and added to the blockchain. The block may require Alice repay Bob cryptocurrency because Alice stole from Bob <i.e., regards a previous transaction between two or more parties>), wherein one of the two or more parties is the owner of the state (0:00-2:12 – a block implementing the arbitration message/pointing to the arbitration ruling is constructed and added to the blockchain. The block may require Alice repay Bob cryptocurrency because Alice stole from Bob <i.e., Bob/Alice each own an account balance “state” that was party to the transaction>), and wherein a remedial action related to the information reverses the transaction (0:00-2:12 – a block implementing the arbitration message/pointing to the arbitration ruling is constructed and added to the blockchain. The block may require Alice repay Bob cryptocurrency because Alice stole from Bob <i.e., the previous transaction is reversed>).
Regarding claim 20, Grigg teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 15, wherein the state of the blockchain is disposed within a previously-mined block of the blockchain (0:00-2:12 – a block implementing the arbitration message/pointing to the arbitration ruling is constructed and added to the blockchain. The block may require Alice repay Bob cryptocurrency because Alice stole from Bob in a previous transaction/block <i.e., previously mined block>).
Regarding claim 21, Grigg teaches a computing system comprising: one or more processors; memory; and program instructions, stored in memory, that upon execution by the one or more processors cause the computing system to perform operations (0:00-2:12 – system implemented by a series of computer systems <i.e., processor, memory> communicating over a network)comprising:
receiving a block for adding to a blockchain (0:00-2:12 – block proposal is received saying, e.g., Alice must pay Bob cryptocurrency), wherein the block includes information relating to data previously written to the blockchain (0:00-2:12 – block proposal is received saying, e.g., Alice must repay Bob cryptocurrency stolen by a previously approved transaction <i.e., the message includes information relating to a previous exchange/previously written data on the blockchain>), wherein the data represents a state of the blockchain (0:00-2:12 – block proposal is received saying, e.g., Alice must pay Bob cryptocurrency <i.e., a message received for changing a state of a blockchain. Alice/Bob’s account ownerships are a “state”>), and wherein the information is not digitally signed by an owner of the state of the blockchain (0:00-2:12 – the message is an “invalid” request because it is not a request from Alice <i.e., not signed by Alice>);
retrieving, from an enforcement actions server, a representation of the information (0:00-2:12 – arbitration ruling <i.e., enforcement action information> is posted by an arbitrator to a community <i.e., posted to a server>. The community passes the arbitration ruling to the blockchain block producers);
verifying that the representation of the information from the enforcement actions server relates to the information (0:00-2:12 – the block producers review the arbitration ruling/arbitrator <i.e., verifying the information>, vote on the block proposal’s implementation <i.e., verifying>, and construct the block on the chain implementing the block proposal/pointing to the arbitration ruling); and
adding the block to a copy of the blockchain (0:00-2:12 – a block implementing the block proposal/pointing to the arbitration ruling is constructed and added to the blockchain).
Regarding claim 22, Grigg teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the information is related to a remedial action (0:00-2:12 – a block implementing the arbitration message/pointing to the arbitration ruling is constructed and added to the blockchain. The block may require Alice repay Bob cryptocurrency because Alice stole from Bob in a previous transaction/block <i.e., is a remedial action>).
Regarding claim 23, Grigg teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 15, wherein the information is related to a remedial action (0:00-2:12 – a block implementing the arbitration message/pointing to the arbitration ruling is constructed and added to the blockchain. The block may require Alice repay Bob cryptocurrency because Alice stole from Bob in a previous transaction/block <i.e., is a remedial action>).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grigg in view of Wu et al. (US20180285837; Hereinafter “Wu”).
Regarding claim 5, Grigg teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1. While Grigg teaches the EOS system implementing arbitration rulings from arbitrators (see, e.g., Grigg at 0:00-2:12), Grigg appears to fail to specifically disclose wherein the message is digitally signed by a third party associated with the enforcement actions server.
However, Wu teaches a similar system for resolution of a dispute on blockchain (see, e.g., [0044-050] and [0079-080]), wherein the message is digitally signed by a third party associated with the enforcement actions server ([0044-050] and [0079-080] – the arbitration result requiring a mandatory transfer comprises the digital signature of the authority posting the ruling).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grigg with the teachings of Wu, wherein the message is digitally signed by a third party associated with the enforcement actions server, to ensure only legitimate arbitrators are issuing rulings (see, e.g., Grigg at 0:00-2:12; with Wu at [0044-050] and [0079-080]).
Regarding claim 17, Grigg teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 15.
While Grigg teaches the EOS system implementing arbitration rulings from arbitrators with authority over data previously written to the blockchain (see, e.g., Grigg at 0:00-2:12), Grigg appears to fail to specifically disclose wherein the representation of the information is digitally signed by an entity with authority over the data previously written to the blockchain.
However, Wu teaches a similar system for resolution of a dispute on blockchain (see, e.g., [0044-050] and [0079-080]), wherein the representation of the information is digitally signed by an entity with authority over the data previously written to the blockchain ([0044-050] and [0079-080] – the arbitration result requiring a mandatory transfer comprises the digital signature of the authority posting the ruling. The authority has the ability to force transfers on the blockchain <i.e., has authority over the data previously written>).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grigg with the teachings of Wu, wherein the representation of the information is digitally signed by an entity with authority over the data previously written to the blockchain, to ensure only legitimate arbitrators are issuing rulings (see, e.g., Grigg at 0:00-2:12; with Wu at [0044-050] and [0079-080]).
Regarding claim 18, Grigg teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 15, wherein a first party and a second party are subject to a remedial action related to the information (0:00-2:12 – a block implementing the arbitration message/pointing to the arbitration ruling is constructed and added to the blockchain. The block may require Alice repay Bob cryptocurrency because Alice stole from Bob <i.e., regards a previous transaction between two or more parties>) and one of which is the owner of the state (0:00-2:12 – a block implementing the arbitration message/pointing to the arbitration ruling is constructed and added to the blockchain. The block may require Alice repay Bob cryptocurrency because Alice stole from Bob <i.e., Bob/Alice each own an account balance “state” that was party to the transaction>), as well as wherein the information is from a third party that is not one of the first party of second party (0:00-2:12 – information is from an arbitrator). Yet, Grigg appears to fail to specifically disclose wherein the information is digitally signed by a third party that is not one of the first party or the second party.
However, Wu teaches a similar system for resolution of a dispute on blockchain (see, e.g., [0044-050] and [0079-080]), wherein the information is digitally signed by a third party that is not one of the first party or the second party ([0044-050] and [0079-080] – the arbitration result requiring a mandatory transfer comprises the digital signature of the authority posting the ruling. The authority has the ability to force transfers on the blockchain <i.e., has authority over the data previously written>).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grigg with the teachings of Wu, wherein the information is digitally signed by a third party that is not one of the first party or the second party, to ensure only legitimate arbitrators are issuing rulings (see, e.g., Grigg at 0:00-2:12; with Wu at [0044-050] and [0079-080]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grigg in view of Rose (NPL: “ECAF Order #ECAF00000264”; 2018; Hereinafter “Rose”).
Regarding claim 7, Grigg teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1. While Grigg the EOS system requiring a return of stolen funds between accounts, Grigg appears to fail to specifically disclose wherein the information identifies the state of the blockchain and additional information that justifies a remedial action related to the information.
However, Rose teaches a similar system for implementing EOS arbitration rulings (pgs. 1-4), wherein the information identifies the state of the blockchain and additional information that justifies a remedial action related to the information (pgs. 1-4 – an arbitrator creates a request for remedial action. The request comprises order/state information <e.g., “ban these specific accounts”, etc.>, identification of the arbitrator, as well as hash that must match the full-length arbitration decision document <i.e., identifies additional information justifying the order>. The arbitrator ID is verified, and the document hash is verified. When verified, the order is implemented).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grigg with the teachings of Rose, wherein the information identifies the state of the blockchain and additional information that justifies a remedial action related to the information, so that the block producers know how to implement rulings from arbitrators, as well as immutably provide the public with the justification for having done so (see, e.g., Grigg at 0:00-2:12; with Rose as pgs. 1-4).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: ecaf (NPL: “Draft Proposal for ECAF’s Official Notification System”, 2018) teaches a system for implementing the EOS rulings in transactions, and including a link to the file containing the ruling on the ECAF website in the transactions (see, e.g., ecaf at “Communication of Orders and Rulings”). Leidner et al. (US20180082390) teaches a system for controlling the execution of a smart contract between two parties, wherein an authority issued a judgement to a judgement database, the judgement database is checked, and the smart contract executes in accordance with the judgement (see, e.g., Leidner at abstract, [0016-020]). Chung (US20220300964) teaches a system for disputing a financial transaction made on a blockchain, wherein an arbitrator determines a dispute result, and the dispute result is enforced on the blockchain (see, e.g., Chung at abstract, [0039-048]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA RAYMOND WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-4365. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, & Alternate Fridays.
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, Taghi Arani can be reached at 5712723787. 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.
/J.R.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2438 /TAGHI T ARANI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2438