DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 9-14 are canceled.
Claims 21-26 are new.
Claims 15-25 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-8 and 26 are pending and examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 09/18/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) has/have been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 03/12/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that elected claim 1 and non-elected claim 15 share a common feature, and they lack separate, mutually exclusive classifications and require overlapping search fields. This is not found persuasive because the groups were shown to be distinct for the reasons given in the Restriction Requirement mailed on 12/12/2025 and have acquired a separate status in the art because of their recognized divergent subject matter. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 21-25 have been newly added, but are directed to a non-elected invention. Accordingly, claims 9-25 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
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 1-8 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Step 1 of the eligibility analysis asks is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter (See MPEP § 2106.03, subsections I and II). Claims 1-8 are directed to a computer-implemented method (i.e., process). Claim 26 is directed to a computer-implemented system (i.e., machine, and manufacture). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon (MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1)). Claims 1 and 26 under a broadest reasonable interpretation recite an abstract idea because the claims describe collecting stored transaction information and using connections between transactions to associate private accounts, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II). The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea are grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas because the limitations describe fundamental economic principles or practices, including mitigating risk, and describe commercial or legal interactions, including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea.
Claim 1:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
collecting, by a computing system, information respective of one or more transactions stored on a public blockchain;
determining, by the computing system, that a first private account hosted by the computing system is associated with a first transaction of the one or more transactions;
determining, by the computing system, that a second private account hosted by the computing system is associated with a second transaction of the one or more transactions;
associating, by the computing system, the first private account with the second private account based on a connection of the first transaction to the second transaction on the public blockchain; and
training, by the computing system, a machine learning model according to the association of the first private account with the second private account.
Claim 26:
A computing system comprising:
a processor; and
a computer-readable memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the computing system to perform operations comprising:
collecting information respective of one or more transactions stored on a public blockchain;
determining that a first private account hosted by the computing system is associated with a first transaction of the one or more transactions;
determining that a second private account hosted by the computing system is associated with a second transaction of the one or more transactions;
associating the first private account with the second private account based on a connection of the first transaction to the second transaction on the public blockchain; and
training a machine learning model according to the association of the first private account with the second private account.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2)). Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations discussed in more detail in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.04(d)(2), 2106.05(a) through (c) and 2106.05(e) through (h). Here, the non-underlined claim limitations above recite additional elements. The additional elements do not improve the functioning of computers, another technology, or a technical field (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)). The Specification does not assert that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. The claim does not purport to improve computer capabilities, but rather invokes computers merely as a tool by adding general purpose computers post-hoc to an abstract idea. A commonplace business method being applied on a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement to technology. The claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. The Specification and the claim language provide evidence that the focus of the claim is on a scheme. An improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology. Even if the Specification describes technical improvements, they are not claimed. The additional elements do not apply the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)). The additional elements do not implement the abstract idea with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim (MPEP § 2106.05(b)). A general-purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. The additional elements do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP § 2106.05(c)). The claim does not recite any transformation of an article where the article changes to a different state or thing. Nor do the additional elements apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way or impose a meaningful limit on it beyond linking its use to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05(e)). The additional elements generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. A wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of additional feature that provides any practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea itself. The additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks or 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. The additional elements are being used in their ordinary capacity. The additional elements do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. The additional elements generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Thus, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to the abstract idea identified above.
Step 2B
Step 2B determines whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP § 2106.05). In Step 2B examiners carry over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two; carry over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e), (f) and (h); re-evaluate any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; and evaluate whether any additional element or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d). The additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The additional elements generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Individually, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Here, the additional elements simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Here, the specification of the application indicates that additional elements are well-known or conventional (See Spec. 0061-0170). There is nothing in the specification to indicate that the operations recited in the claims require any specialized hardware or inventive computer components or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions. The ordered combination recites no more than the individual elements do. Thus, the additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to the abstract idea identified above without significantly more. The claims are not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Dependent Claims
Claim 2 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes collecting stored transaction information and using connections between transactions to associate private accounts, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0061-0170). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein determining that the first private account is associated with the first transaction comprises determining that the first transaction was conducted through a digital wallet hosted by the computing system and associated with the first private account.
Claim 3 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes collecting stored transaction information and using connections between transactions to associate private accounts, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0061-0170). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein determining that the second private account is associated with the second transaction comprises determining that the second transaction was conducted through a digital wallet hosted by the computing system and associated with the second private account.
Claim 4 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes collecting stored transaction information and using connections between transactions to associate private accounts, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0061-0170). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein determining that the first transaction was conducted through the digital wallet associated with the first private account comprises determining that a transactor address hash found on the public blockchain for a transaction matches a transactor address hash in the digital wallet associated with the first private account.
Claim 5 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes collecting stored transaction information and using connections between transactions to associate private accounts, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0061-0170). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the first transaction is the second transaction.
Claim 6 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes collecting stored transaction information and using connections between transactions to associate private accounts, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0061-0170). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
the first transaction involves a first user of the first private account and a third user;
the second transaction involves a second user of the second private account and a fourth user;
a third transaction of the one or more transactions involves the third user and the fourth user; and
the third transaction comprises the connection of the first transaction and the second transaction.
Claim 7 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes collecting stored transaction information and using connections between transactions to associate private accounts, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0061-0170). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein training the machine learning model according to the association of the first private account with the second private account comprises:
adding an edge between a node respective of the first private account and a node respective of the second private account to a graph and training a graph neural network according to the graph; or
adding the association to a training data set and training a machine learning classifier according to the data set.
Claim 8 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes collecting stored transaction information and using connections between transactions to associate private accounts, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0061-0170). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein training the machine learning model is further according to:
transactions on a private blockchain hosted by the computing system and involving the first private account or the second private account; and
inter-party transactions involving the first private account or the second private account and performed through the computing system.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2023/0328098 A1 ("Illum").
Claims 1 and 26:
Illum discloses:
a processor; and a computer-readable memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the computing system to perform operations comprising:
collecting, by a computing system, information respective of one or more transactions stored on a public blockchain; (0033, 0036, 0037, 0064)
determining, by the computing system, that a first private account hosted by the computing system is associated with a first transaction of the one or more transactions; (0068-0073)
determining, by the computing system, that a second private account hosted by the computing system is associated with a second transaction of the one or more transactions; (0068-0074)
associating, by the computing system, the first private account with the second private account based on a connection of the first transaction to the second transaction on the public blockchain; and (0068, 0069, 0074, 0080)
training, by the computing system, a machine learning model according to the association of the first private account with the second private account. (0057, 0058, 0059, 0067, 0068, 0069)
Claim 2:
Illum discloses all limitations of claim 1. Illum further discloses:
wherein determining that the first private account is associated with the first transaction comprises determining that the first transaction was conducted through a digital wallet hosted by the computing system and associated with the first private account. (0024, 0038, 0042, 0072, 0073)
Claim 3:
Illum discloses all limitations of claim 2. Illum further discloses:
wherein determining that the second private account is associated with the second transaction comprises determining that the second transaction was conducted through a digital wallet hosted by the computing system and associated with the second private account. (0024, 0038, 0042, 0072, 0073, 0074)
Claim 4:
Illum discloses all limitations of claim 2. Illum further discloses:
wherein determining that the first transaction was conducted through the digital wallet associated with the first private account comprises determining that a transactor address hash found on the public blockchain for a transaction matches a transactor address hash in the digital wallet associated with the first private account. (0024, 0038, 0042, 0072, 0073)
Claim 5:
Illum discloses all limitations of claim 1. Illum further discloses:
wherein the first transaction is the second transaction. (0027, 0068, 0080)
Claim 6:
Illum discloses all limitations of claim 1. Illum further discloses:
the first transaction involves a first user of the first private account and a third user; (0027, 0068, 0073) the second transaction involves a second user of the second private account and a fourth user; (0027, 0068, 0074) a third transaction of the one or more transactions involves the third user and the fourth user; (0027, 0028, 0068, 0080) and the third transaction comprises the connection of the first transaction and the second transaction. (0027, 0028, 0068, 0080)
Claim 7:
Illum discloses all limitations of claim 1. Illum further discloses:
wherein training the machine learning model according to the association of the first private account with the second private account comprises: adding an edge between a node respective of the first private account and a node respective of the second private account to a graph and training a graph neural network according to the graph; (0057, 0059, 0060, 0061) or adding the association to a training data set and training a machine learning classifier according to the data set. (0057, 0058, 0059, 0069)
Claim 8:
Illum discloses all limitations of claim 1. Illum further discloses:
wherein training the machine learning model is further according to: transactions on a private blockchain hosted by the computing system and involving the first private account or the second private account; (0038, 0042, 0050, 0069) and inter-party transactions involving the first private account or the second private account and performed through the computing system. (0038, 0042, 0069, 0092)
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2022/0414664 A1 ("Liu") discloses: Novel technical ways of analyzing a blockchain system using machine learning are presented, including structures and techniques that can facilitate blockchain address risk assessment via graph analysis. In various embodiments, a system can access a blockchain. The system can build a transaction graph based on analysis of the blockchain. Nodes of the transaction graph can respectively represent blockchain addresses that are recorded in the blockchain. In various cases, edges in the transaction graph can respectively represent blockchain transactions between different ones of the blockchain addresses that are recorded in the blockchain. The system can calculate risk scores respectively corresponding to the blockchain addresses, based on analyzing the transaction graph via at least one machine learning algorithm. These techniques can improve computer operational efficiency by avoiding the execution of unnecessary blockchain transactions.
US 2020/0160344 A1 ("Jevans") discloses: Blockchain transaction analysis and anti-money laundering compliance systems and methods are disclosed herein. An example method includes determining entities in a proposed cryptocurrency transaction, evaluating each of the entities in the proposed cryptocurrency transaction to determine if the entities have a known risk, generating a transaction risk score for the proposed cryptocurrency transaction based on the evaluation of each of the entities, and allowing, flagging, or denying the proposed cryptocurrency transaction based on the transaction risk score.
US 2023/0362010 A1 ("Reeve") discloses: Methods and systems that use of a multi-tiered machine learning architecture that aggregates traits of blockchain and off-chain operations. The multi-tiered machine learning architecture then uses this data to generate recommendations related to account identities for communications (e.g., blockchain operations) that occur across decentralized applications.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ari Shahabi whose telephone number is (571)272-2565. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00.
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, John W Hayes can be reached at 571-272-6708. 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.
/ARI SHAHABI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights