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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/18/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 6, 11, 16, and 21 have been amended. Claims 1-21 are pending and presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-21, filed 03/18/2026, have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
The headings used in Applicant’s remarks 03/18/2026 shall be presented below to ensure every relevant remark is addressed.
Remarks under The Problem and the Claim Solution
In response to the Applicant’s remarks that the claims as amended clarify the technical aspects and improvements disclosed in the instant specification, the claimed invention does not actively claim any techniques related to sharding and/or encrypting the private key. The amended limitation, “the first portion being encrypted independently of a second portion of the private key, wherein the second portion of the private key is different from the first portion of the private key,” has been recited in a manner that merely provides a background of the first portion and second portion of the private key. The amended limitation is not actively claiming any process or techniques of sharding and encrypting that the Applicant is arguing contributes to the technical solution. One of ordinary skill in the art cannot conclude from the amended claim language that the improvements from the specification are realized in the claim language since the language has failed to provide any steps or operations that would lead to such solution. Therefore, the remarks cannot be persuasive.
Remarks under Step 2A, Prong 1 – The Claims are Not Directed to an Abstract Idea
The remarks in this section filed on 03/18/2026 are the same as the remarks filed on 10/30/2025. Therefore, these remarks have already been addressed in the Final Rejection 01/12/2026. Please refer to the Final Rejection 01/12/2026.
Remarks under Step 2A, Prong 2 – The Claims Integrate Any Alleged Abstract Idea Into a Practical Application
The remarks in this section filed on 03/18/2026 are the same as the remarks filed on 10/30/2025. Therefore, these remarks have already been addressed in the Final Rejection 01/12/2026. Please refer to the Final Rejection 01/12/2026.
Remarks under Step 2B – The Claims Recite an Inventive Concept that Amounts to Significantly More than an Abstract Idea
The remarks in this section filed on 03/18/2026 are the same as the remarks filed on 10/30/2025. Therefore, these remarks have already been addressed in the Final Rejection 01/12/2026. Please refer to the Final Rejection 01/12/2026.
Claims 1-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/18/2026 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s remarks regarding the limitation “the first portion being encrypted independently of a second portion of the private key,” Suurkivi et al. U.S. 2022/0164790 discloses in Fig. 3A, 303 – encrypt key shares using SEKs, and in Fig. 3B, 305 – encrypt SEKs using operator keys. As noted in the previous Final Rejection 01/12/2026, the decrypted SEK is analogous to a first portion of a key and the decrypted encrypted share is analogous to the second portion of the key, see [0089], [0091]. Suurkivi discloses that the SEK and share are encrypted using different keys, i.e. SEK and operator key, respectively. Therefore, the SEK is encrypted independently of the share.
In response to the Applicant’s remarks regarding the limitation “wherein the second portion of the private key is different from the first portion of the private key,” Suurkivi’s decrypted SEK [0089] was identified as “a first portion of a key.” Suurkivi’s decrypted encrypted shares using the corresponding decrypted SEK [0091] was identified as “a second portion of the key.” Under the broadest, most reasonable interpretation, a “portion” is interpreted to be a part of a whole. As the Applicant stated, the SEKs and key shares are “at best different versions of the same signing key.” Two different versions of the same signing key can be reasonably interpreted to be two different portions of the same signing key because each of the SEK and share is a part, i.e. a portion, of the signing key, i.e. the whole. Neither the SEK nor the share alone constitutes the signing key. Therefore, each of the SEK and share is a portion of the signing key. Furthermore, Suurkivi discloses in [0052] that the SEK and share can be associated with each other, so they are not the same element. Therefore, the decrypted encrypted share is different from the decrypted SEK.
In response to the Applicant’s remarks regarding the limitation “wherein verifying that the transaction is a legitimate transaction comprises determining that an identifying information in the request is valid,” Examiner agrees that Suurkivi does not disclose such limitation. However, Berengoltz et al. U.S. 2021/0224797 discloses determining that if each of the signatures match, the transaction is verified [0042]. The signature(s) are analogous to “an identifying information.” Therefore, Suurkivi in view of Berengoltz reads on the amended claim language.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-21 fall into at least one of the four categories of statutory subject matter. The eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A.1.
Step 2A.1:
The limitations of independent claim 1 have been denoted with letters by the Examiner for easy reference. Independent claims 11 and 21 recite similar distinguishing features as claim 1, therefore the following eligibility analysis shall apply to claims 1, 11, and 21. The judicial exceptions recited in claim 1 are identified in bold below:
A computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving, from a key management system, a request to execute a transaction on a blockchain, the request including a first portion of a private key associated with a wallet from which the transaction is to be performed, the first portion being encrypted independently of a second portion of the private key, wherein the second portion of the private key is different from the first portion of the private key;
verifying that the transaction is a legitimate transaction to be executed on the blockchain, wherein verifying that the transaction is a legitimate transaction comprises determining that an identifying information in the request is valid;
based on verifying that the transaction is a legitimate transaction to be executed on the blockchain, recovering the second portion of the private key; and
accessing the wallet to execute the transaction on the blockchain based on the first portion of the private key and the second portion of the private key.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, A-E recite limitations that are reasonably categorized under certain methods of organizing human activity. Specifically, the claimed limitations can be grouped as commercial or legal interactions in the form of sales activities or behaviors. Receiving a request to execute a transaction, verifying the transaction, recovering a portion of a private key, and accessing a wallet to execute the transaction based on the private key are analogous to sales activities/behaviors that involve using credentials.
Claims 1, 11, and 21 recite at least one abstract idea. The eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A.2.
Step 2A.2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the additional element(s) not in bold above.
In limitations B-E, merely reciting “on a/the blockchain” is general usage of a data structure. When the additional element, “blockchain,” is considered individually and as an ordered combination with the abstract idea, the claims as a whole amount to no more than mere steps to implement an abstract idea on a data structure. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
In limitation B, “a key management system” has been generically recited. When the additional element, “a key management system,” is considered individually and as an ordered combination with the abstract idea, the claims as a whole amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Furthermore, claims 11 and 21 recite “a processing system,” “at least one memory having executable instructions stored thereon,” “one or more processors configured to execute the executable instructions to cause the processing system to,” and “a non-transitory computer-readable medium having executable instructions stored thereon which, when executed by one or more processors, performs an operation comprising” as additional elements. These additional elements are generic computing components and are all recited at a high-level of generality. The abstract idea in limitations A-E are merely software instructions that as an ordered combination with the additional elements amount to a computer that is programmed to carry out the abstract idea. Therefore, when the additional elements are considered individually and as an ordered combination with the abstract idea, claims 11 and 21 amount to no more than mere software instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 1, 11, and 21 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B:
The additional elements, both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the outcome of the considerations at Step 2B will be the same when considerations from Step 2A.2 are re-evaluated. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component/data structure. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component/data structure cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claims 1, 11, and 21 are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2 and 12 are directed to forwarding information specifying parameters of the transaction. The claims merely elaborate on the abstract idea identified above and do not recite any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 3-4 and 13-14 are directed to the request. The claims merely elaborate on the abstract idea identified above and do not recite any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 5 and 15 are directed to validating a signature associated with the request. The claims merely elaborate on the abstract idea identified above and do not recite any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 6-7 and 16-17 are directed to verifying the transaction. The claims merely elaborate on the abstract idea identified above and do not recite any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 8 and 18 are directed to decrypting the second portion of the private key. The claims introduce an additional abstract idea: mathematical concepts. Decrypting a private key is a mathematical calculation. The claims do not recite any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s).
Dependent claims 9 and 19 are directed to concatenating the first portion and second portion of the private key, generating, signing, and committing the transaction record. The claims introduce an additional abstract idea: mental processes. Concatenating the portions into a concatenated key can be performed by a human using a pen and paper. Generating, signing, and committing the transaction record elaborate on the abstract idea of sales activities/behaviors because they are analogous to creating a receipt of a transaction. The claims do not recite any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s).
Dependent claims 10 and 20 are directed to the key management system. Merely reciting that the “key management system” is associated with a centralized platform is considered generically recited because it is no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In summary, the dependent claims considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea(s) into a patent eligible application such that the abstract idea amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 8-9, 10-14, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suurkivi et al. U.S. 2022/0164790 (herein as “Suurkivi”) in view of Berengoltz et al. U.S. 2021/0224797 (herein as “Berengoltz”).
Re Claim 1, Suurkivi discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving, from a key management system, a request to execute a transaction on a blockchain [0073] – “at step 310, the cryptographic key storage and signature platform 210 may receive a transaction request,” “may receive the transaction request from the routing system 230,” the request including a first portion of a […] key associated with a wallet from which the transaction is to be performed ([0089] – “A step 321, the cryptographic key storage and signature platform 210 may receive the decrypted SEKs (i.e. a first portion of a key) sent at step 320,” “may receive the decrypted SEKs from the participant storage system(s) 220,” the routing system 230 and the participant storage system(s) 220 are collectively analogous to a key management system), the first portion being encrypted independently of a second portion of the private key, wherein the second portion of the private key is different from the first portion of the private key (Fig. 3A, 303 – encrypt key shares using SEKs, i.e. encrypted second portion, Fig. 3B, 305 – encrypt SEKs using operator keys, i.e. encrypted first portion, Fig. 3E, 324-325 – cryptographic signing key, i.e. the key);
verifying that the transaction is a legitimate transaction to be executed on the blockchain […] [0090] – “the cryptographic key storage and signature platform 210 may compare a number of decrypted SEKs, received at step 321, to the quorum threshold”;
based on verifying that the transaction is a legitimate transaction to be executed on the blockchain, recovering the second portion of the […] key ([0091] – “At step 323, based on or in response to identifying that the number of decrypted SEKs (i.e. a first portion of a key) meets or exceeds the quorum threshold value (i.e. verified), the cryptographic key storage and signature platform 210 may decrypt each of the encrypted shares (i.e. recovering a second portion of the key) using their corresponding decrypted SEK. In doing so, the cryptographic key storage and signature platform 210 may restore the cleartext shares that may be used to reconstruct the sensitive information,” the encrypted shares are encrypted key shares, see at least Fig. 3A, 303; Fig. 3E, 324, [0122] – reconstruct cryptographic signing key); and
accessing the wallet to execute the transaction on the blockchain based on the first portion of the […] key and the second portion of the […] key [0096] – “at step 326, the cryptographic key storage and signature platform 210 may use the sensitive information (which may, e.g., be a CSK) to sign one or more blockchain messages corresponding to the transaction request. In doing so, the cryptographic key storage and signature platform 210 may authorize the requested transaction, which may, in some instances, cause the requested amount of cryptocurrency to be transferred from the first account to the second account,” [0098] – “the first and/or second accounts (which may, e.g. be cryptocurrency hot wallets).”
However, Suurkivi does not expressly disclose the following limitations in italics
wherein verifying that the transaction is a legitimate transaction comprises determining that an identifying information in the request is valid;
a first portion of a private key,
a second portion of the private key.
Berengoltz discloses a system and method for securing crypto-asset transactions. Specifically, Berengoltz discloses
wherein verifying that the transaction is a legitimate transaction comprises determining that an identifying information in the request is valid [0042] – “If each, or the predetermined threshold, of the signatures match…the transaction is verified”;
a first portion of a private key ([0037] – “the private key of a wallet is sharded, i.e., split up into smaller parts,” each part is analogous to a portion),
a second portion of the private key ([0037] – “the private key of a wallet is sharded, i.e., split up into smaller parts,” each part is analogous to a portion, having multiple parts suggests there are at least a first and a second portion of the private key).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Suurkivi’s hot wallet security with the teachings of determining that an identifying information in the request is valid and using a first portion and second portion of a private key in Berengoltz. One would be motivated to make this combination to because matching signatures and using portions of a private key would prevent unwanted transactions and reduce the risk of the key being comprised by a malicious entity, thereby preventing unauthorized access to a wallet and funds, and enhancing security Berengoltz, [0006], [0022].
Re Claim 2, Suurkivi in view of Berengoltz teach the method of Claim 1, and Suurkivi in view of Berengoltz further teach further comprising forwarding, to the key management system from a client device, information specifying parameters of the transaction, wherein the request to execute the transaction is received based on forwarding the information specifying the parameters of the transaction (Suurkivi, [0073] – “the cryptographic key storage and signature platform 210 may receive the transaction request from the routine system 230 (which may, e.g., have received the transaction from a user or client device such as client computers 107 or 109),” “For example, the cryptographic key storage and signature platform 210 may receive a request to authorize a transfer of an amount of cryptocurrency from the first user account to a second user account,” thereby suggesting the transaction request includes parameters such as amount of cryptocurrency, first user account, and second user account).
Re Claim 3, Suurkivi in view of Berengoltz teach the method of Claim 1, and Suurkivi in view of Berengoltz further teach wherein the request to execute the transaction comprises a request to withdraw digital assets stored in the wallet to an external resource based on signing a transaction record based on the first portion of the private key and the second portion of the private key (Suurkivi, [0073] – “a request to authorize a transfer of an amount of cryptocurrency from the first user account (i.e. withdraw digital assets) to a second user account (i.e. external resource),” [0096] – “may use the sensitive information (which may, e.g., be a CSK), to sign one or more blockchain messages corresponding to the transaction request,” CSK is the cryptographic signing key).
Re Claim 4, Suurkivi in view of Berengoltz teach the method of Claim 1, and Suurkivi in view of Berengoltz further teach wherein the request to execute the transaction on the blockchain is signed based on the first portion of the private key (Suurkivi, [0096] – “may use the sensitive information (which may, e.g., be a CSK), to sign one or more blockchain messages corresponding to the transaction request,” CSK is the cryptographic signing key).
Re Claim 8, Suurkivi in view of Berengoltz teach the method of Claim 1, and Suurkivi in view of Berengoltz further teach wherein recovering the second portion of the private key comprises decrypting the second portion of the private key based on credentials associated with a transaction gateway through which the transaction is verified (Suurkivi, [0091] – “At step 323, based on or in response to identifying that the number of decrypted SEKs meets or exceeds the quorum threshold value (i.e. verified), the cryptographic key storage and signature platform 210 may decrypt each of the encrypted shares (i.e. recovering a second portion of the key) using their corresponding decrypted SEK (i.e. based on credentials),” Fig. 3D – the decrypted SEK is associated with participant storage system(s) 220, [0035] – “Participant storage system(s) 220 may be or include one or more computing devices that may be used to facilitate sensitive information,” i.e. a transaction gateway through which the transaction is verified).
Re Claim 9, Suurkivi in view of Berengoltz teach the method of Claim 1, and Suurkivi in view of Berengoltz further teach wherein accessing the wallet to execute the transaction comprises:
concatenating the first portion of the private key and the second portion of the private key into a concatenated key (Suurkivi, Fig. 3E, 324 – Reconstruct Cryptographic Signing Key, [0051] – “may split the sensitive information (e.g. cryptographic signing key, or CSK) using Shamir’s secret sharing, Blakely’s scheme, the Chinese remainder theorem, and/or other secret sharing schemes…may split the sensitive information using t of n sharding, in which at least t shards of the original n shards may be needed to reconstruct the sensitive information,” reconstructing is analogous to concatenating because the CSK is reconstructed using t shards, i.e. portions, such that the required number of t shards are “linked” or “combined” together to reconstruct the CSK);
generating a transaction record identifying assets to be transferred from the wallet to a destination wallet (Suurkivi, [0096] – “one or more blockchain messages corresponding to the transaction request,” thereby suggesting the blockchain message must be generated since it corresponds to the transaction request, “the requested transaction…cause the requested amount of cryptocurrency to be transferred from the first account (i.e. the wallet) to the second account,” i.e. destination wallet).
signing the transaction record using the concatenated key (Suurkivi, [0096] – “may use the sensitive information (which may, e.g., be a CSK) to sign one or more blockchain messages corresponding to the transaction request,” [0092] – “reconstruct the sensitive information,” therefore, the CSK used to sign the blockchain message, i.e. transaction record, is the reconstructed CSK); and
committing the signed transaction record to the blockchain (Suurkivi, [0096] – “In doing so (signing one or more blockchain messages), the cryptographic key storage and signature platform 210 may authorize the requested transaction, which may, in some instances, cause the requested amount of cryptocurrency to be transferred from the first account to the second account,” thereby committing the signed transaction record to the blockchain).
Re Claim 10, Suurkivi in view of Berengoltz teach the method of Claim 1, and Suurkivi in view of Berengoltz further teach wherein the key management system comprises a system associated with a centralized platform through which owners of the wallet perform transactions on the blockchain (Suurkivi, [0029] – the participant storage system(s) 220 and routing system 230 are collectively analogous to a key management system, and they are associated with the cryptographic key storage and signature platform 210, which may be centralized [0097] and authorizes cryptocurrency transactions [0030]).
Re Claims 11-14, and 18-20, they are the system claims of method claims 1-4, and 8-10, respectively. They recite similar distinguishing features as the method claims. Furthermore, Suurkivi discloses that the invention can be performed by one or more processors that executes instructions stored in a memory [0123]. Therefore, claims 11-14, and 18-20 are rejected for the same reasons above.
Re Claim 21, it is the non-transitory computer-readable medium claim of method claim 1. It recites similar distinguishing features as the method claim. Furthermore, Suurkivi discloses that the invention can be embodied in computer-executable instructions stored on a computer-readable medium and executed by one or more processors [0123]. Therefore, claim 21 is rejected for the same reasons above.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suurkivi et al. U.S. 2022/0164790 (herein as “Suurkivi”) in view of Berengoltz et al. U.S. 2021/0224797 (herein as “Berengoltz”) as applied to claims 4 and 14 above, and further in view of Zhou et al. Machine English Translation of CN 110969431 A (herein as “Zhou”).
Re Claim 5, Suurkivi in view of Berengoltz teach the method of Claim 4, however, Suurkivi in view of Berengoltz do not explicitly teach further comprising validating a signature associated with the request based on a public key counterpart to the first portion of the private key, wherein the recovering the second portion of the private key is further based on validating the signature associated with the request.
Zhou discloses a safe trusteeship method for blockchain private key. Specifically, Zhou discloses
validating a signature associated with the request based on a public key counterpart to the first portion of the private key, wherein the recovering the second portion of the private key is further based on validating the signature associated with the request pg. 5, 2nd paragraph – “verifying the signature and public key; recovering the symmetric encryption key…; decrypting the ciphertext by using the symmetric encryption key to obtain the private key fragment; and recovering the private key based on a part or all of the private key fragments.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Suurkivi in view of Berengoltz’s hot wallet security with the teachings of verifying a signature and public key to recover the private key fragment in Zhou. The combination teaches recovering a private key fragment based on verification of a signature. One would be motivated to make this combination to improve the robustness of safely securing the private key Zhou, pg. 4, last paragraph.
Re Claim 15, it is the system claim of method claim 5. It recites similar distinguishing features as the method claim. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons above.
Claims 6-7 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suurkivi et al. U.S. 2022/0164790 (herein as “Suurkivi”) in view of Berengoltz et al. U.S. 2021/0224797 (herein as “Berengoltz”) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of John U.S. 2021/0201322.
Re Claim 6, Suurkivi in view of Berengoltz teach the method of Claim 1, however, Suurkivi in view of Berengoltz do not explicitly teach wherein verifying that the transaction is a legitimate transaction to be executed on the blockchain further comprises requesting verification of the transaction from one or more approving parties.
John discloses fraud deterrence for secure transactions. Specifically, John discloses
verifying that the transaction is a legitimate transaction to be executed on the blockchain further comprises requesting verification of the transaction from one or more approving parties ([0067] – “the information of the token, can be sent by the seller to a third party which is a validation service (i.e. approving party) that issued the token, in order to assure that it is legitimate,” “the information of the token can be sent by the client to a third party which is a validation service that issued the token, which then contacts the seller’s FFT server “browser validation’ module 232 (of Fig. 8) (i.e. one or more approving parties) and verifies that the user or transaction is legitimate”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Suurkivi in view of Berengoltz’s hot wallet security to include the teachings of verifying the transaction using another party in John. The combination teaches verifying transactions using another party before executing them on the blockchain. One would be motivated to make this combination to deter fraud during electronic commerce operations John, [0008].
Re Claim 7, Suurkivi in view of Berengoltz and John teach the method of Claim 6, and Suurkivi in view of Berengoltz and John further teach further comprising identifying the one or more approving parties based on digital assets to be transferred from the wallet via the transaction (John, [0008] - [0067] – “the information of the token, can be sent by the seller to a third party which is a validation service (i.e. approving party) that issued the token (i.e. based on digital assets to be transferred), in order to assure that it is legitimate”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Suurkivi in view of Berengoltz’s hot wallet security to include the teachings of verifying the transaction using another party in John. The combination teaches verifying transactions using another party before executing them on the blockchain. One would be motivated to make this combination to deter fraud during electronic commerce operations John, [0008].
Re Claims 16-17, they are the system claims of method claims 6-7, respectively. They recite similar distinguishing features as the method claims. Therefore, claims 16-17 are rejected for the same reasons above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5880. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5pm MT.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571) 272-7575. 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.
/CHRISTINE DANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights