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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on or reply to the remarks of 8/1/2024. The instant application has claims 1-19 pending. The system, method and medium for verifying transfer of tokens on distributed ledger. There a total of 19 claims.
Drawings
The drawing filed on 8/1/2024 has been accepted and in compliance of 37 CFR 1.83 & 37 CFR 1.84.
Specification
The disclosure filed on 8/1/2024 is accepted.
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.
Claim 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed system could be implemented exclusively in software see Spec. 0141.The Examiner recommends including a memory following comprising, i.e. the first limitation includes a memory followed by the rest of limitations. See MPEP 2106.03, I.
The Examiner further notes that “processor” used in the computer security arts, this term “processor” should often be interpreted as software. When that is the case and we are making a 101 rejection in a machine or manufacture claim because the specification fails to provide a special definition that the processor must be hardware and the claim itself based on context fails to limit the processor to hardware. The common definition found in Microsoft Computer Dictionary by Microsoft Press for processor; and Merriam Webster definition of processor includes an control program instructing another computer program interpretation see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/processor. Furthermore, the examiner also notes that term “server” can also mean computer program or software according to wikipedia see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_(computing) – § Introduction & § Operation. Thus the Examiner recommends including memory, rather than processor or server alone to overcome the instant rejection. Alternatively, an “hardware processor” be incorporated into the system/apparatus/machine claim to overcome the rejection.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Pub 2025/0156828(based on priority back to November 2, 2018) to Sliwka in view of A Comparative Analysis of DAG-based Blockchain Architectures to Pervez.
Regarding claim 1, 18-19, Sliwka discloses A method for verifying transfers of tokens on a distributed ledger, the method comprising: receiving an indication to record a transfer of a token from a first party to a second party(Fig. 3 item 302, 304 & Fig. 4 item 402 & Par. 0145-0147, the tokenization of items and used for transfer); performing a first verification on the distributed ledger for the transfer of the token from the first party to the second party, wherein the first verification is associated with a Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) employed by the distributed ledger, and includes verifying a PKI signature of the first party(Fig. 3 item 306 & Par. 0159, the token is verified based on keys & Par. 0131-0135, the signing of contract and transfer on tokens based on completing contract being recorded in ledger); and performing a second verification on the distributed ledger for the transfer of the token from the first party to the second party, wherein the second verification involves using an encrypted code, wherein the encrypted code is derived using a credential that is independent of the PKI(Fig. 101 item 11502-11508, the user is authenticated based on address & Fig. 12 item 1206 & Fig. 13 item 1306-1312, the token is assigned an ownership and recorded into agreement & Fig. 22 item 2202-2208).
Sliwka does not disclose upon performance of the first verification and the second verification, recording on the distributed ledger, the transfer of the token from the first party to the second party.
In the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, Pervez discloses upon performance of the first verification and the second verification, recording on the distributed ledger, the transfer of the token from the first party to the second party (C. Orumesh & E. Byteball, the users are verified and code from the user is added into ledger).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify Sliwka invention to upon performance of the first verification and the second verification, recording on the distributed ledger, the transfer of the token from the first party to the second party for the advantage of providing of recording of user’s transaction as taught in Pervez see C. Orumesh.
Regarding claim 2, the combined method of Sliwka and Pervez, Sliwka discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the credential is associated with at least one of a password, a passphrase, a contextual term, biometric information, a message, a query term, a device identifier, a personal identifier, a timestamp, a location identifier, an address, a label, location data, or a hash code(Fig. 101 item 11502-11508, the user is authenticated).
Regarding claim 3, the combined method of Sliwka and Pervez, Sliwka discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the credential is mutually established between the first party and a different party that transferred the token to the first party in a prior transaction(Par.0150-0151, the transfer of token to parties and payment).
Regarding claim 4, the combined method of Sliwka and Pervez, Sliwka discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the mutual establishment of the credential is associated with secret data shared between the first party and the different party Par.0150-0151, the transfer of token to parties and payment).
Regarding claim 5, the combined method of Sliwka and Pervez, Sliwka discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the secret data is shared using a Diffie Hellman protocol(Par. 1039, Diffie-Hellman protocol is used)
Regarding claim 6, the combined method of Sliwka and Pervez, Sliwka discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the secret data is negotiated via a contract implemented on the distributed ledger(Fig. 100 item 11406, the user is linked to blockchain).
Regarding claim 7, the combined method of Sliwka and Pervez, Sliwka discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the encrypted code is published on the distributed ledger in association with the prior transaction(Fig 100 item 11408-11416, the tokens are listed and user transmits transfer and it is recorded into ledger).
Regarding claim 8, the combined method of Sliwka and Pervez, Sliwka discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the prior transaction is digitally signed by the first party(Fig. 100 item 11418, signature is verified).
Regarding claim 9, the combined method of Sliwka and Pervez, Sliwka discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the encrypted code is associated with a public address for the first party on the distributed ledger(Fig. 101 item 11506, address is verified). .
Regarding claim 10, the combined method of Sliwka and Pervez, Sliwka discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the encrypted code includes an encryption of the public address for the first party using the credential(Fig. 101 item 11506, address is verified).
Regarding claim 11, the combined method of Sliwka and Pervez, Sliwka discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the encrypted code is associated with a one-time pad derived from the credential(Par. 0437 &Par. 0457 & Par. 0425, the hash value from event records) .
Regarding claim 12, the combined method of Sliwka and Pervez, Sliwka discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the encrypted code is associated with multiple hashings of the credential(Par. 304, the hash value of token & Par. 0327).
Regarding claim 13, the combined method of Sliwka and Pervez, Sliwka discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the second verification includes verification of a Zero Knowledge Proof (ZKP) associated with the credential(Fig. 102A item 11610-11616, the tokes are changed ownership is updated).
Regarding claim 14, the combined method of Sliwka and Pervez, Sliwka discloses the method of claim 13, wherein verification of the ZKP includes hashing the ZKP and using the hashed ZKP to verify the encrypted code(Par. 0327 & Par. 0425, the hash value is verified)
Regarding claim 15, the combined method of Sliwka and Pervez, Sliwka discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the ZKP is derived by hashing the credential(Par. 0327 & Par. 0425, the hash value is verified) .
Regarding claim 16, the combined method of Sliwka and Pervez, Sliwka discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the PKI signature of the first party is associated with a private PKI key of the first party, and wherein the private PKI key is stored in a remote hot wallet(Fig. 11 item 1102, the wallets for transaction).
Regarding claim 17, the combined method of Sliwka and Pervez, Sliwka discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the second verification is associated with a premium charge(Fig. 102B item 11660-11664, the sender wlatter is signed and sent the token & Par. 0134 & Par. 0131, the payment).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Venkat Perungavoor whose telephone number is (571)272-7213. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Rupal Dharia can be reached on 571-272-3880. 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.
/VENKAT PERUNGAVOOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492 Email: venkatanarayan.perungavoor@uspto.gov