DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013 is being examined under the AIA first inventor to file provisions.
Status of Claims
The following is a FINAL Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendments filed on 11/05/2025.
a. Claims 1, 3, 17-18 are amended
b. Claim 2 is cancelled
Overall, Claims 1, 3-18 are pending and have been considered below.
Priority
The application claims foreign priority to provisional application GB2201951.7, filed on 02/15/2022. The priority is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites "encrypted transaction key" should read "encrypted transaction". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 USC 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, 3-18 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to a judicial exception, i.e. an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, and without significantly more.
Per Step 1 of the multi-step eligibility analysis, claims 1, 3-4, 8-14, 16 are directed to a computer implemented method, claims 5-7, 15 are directed to a computer implemented method, claim 17 is directed to a system, and claim 18 is directed to a computer executable instructions stored on a non-transitory storage medium.
Thus, on its face, each independent claim and the associated dependent claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
Per Step 2A.1. Claim 1, (which is representative of Claims 17, 18) is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The limitations of the independent claim 1 recite an abstract idea, shown in bold, while the non-bolded claim elements recite additional element according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
[A] A computer implemented method for time-locking a blockchain transaction, the method comprising:
[B] computing a solution to a time-lock puzzle using a set of secret puzzle parameters, the time-lock puzzle being solvable using a set of puzzle parameters in a time equal to or greater than a minimum solving time, wherein the set of puzzle parameters does not comprise the secret puzzle parameters;
[C] generating a transaction encryption key K;
[D] encrypting the blockchain transaction using the encryption key K to generate an encrypted transaction key; and
[E] encrypting the transaction encryption key K using the solution to the time-lock puzzle; and
[F] making the set of puzzle parameters and the encrypted transaction encryption key available to one or more puzzle solvers.
Claim 1 (which is representative of claims 17, 18) recites: computing a solution ([B]); generating an encryption key ([C]); encrypting data ([D]-[E]); and sending puzzle ([F]), which, based on the claim language and in view of the application disclosure, represents a process aimed at solving puzzle.
The overall combination, covers agreement in the form of following rules or instructions because the claim language recites computing a solution for a puzzle. Additionally, applicant’s specification recites on page 2, lines 27-29 “The node who successfully solved the proof-of-work puzzle to create the latest block is typically rewarded with a new transaction called the "coinbase transaction" which distributes an amount of the digital asset, i.e. a number of tokens”. The one of skill in the art can determine that a user would need to follow the rules or instructions to solve the puzzle. Additionally, the recited claim limitation above falls under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships, or Interactions Between People grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Alternatively, and/or in addition, the limitations expresses mathematical concept like mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations because the claim language recites computing a solution for a time-lock puzzle. The one of skill in the art can determine that an equation or certain calculation is performed to find the solution. Additionally, the recited claim limitation above falls under the Mathematical Concepts. i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I).
Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that claim 1 (which is representative of claims 17, 18) recites an abstract idea that corresponds to a judicial exception.
Per Step 2A.2. The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the independent claims only amount to instructions to apply the judicial exception to a computer, or are a general link to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(h)). For example, the added element(s) “blockchain,” recite computing elements at a high level of generality, which is equivalent to instructions to implement the abstract idea “by a computer” or “on a computer.” The additional elements do not preclude from carrying out the identified abstract idea of processing transaction. Therefore, those additional elements do not serve to integrate the identified abstract idea into practical application.
The additional elements in the independent claims, shown not bolded above, recite: blockchain ([A], [D]).When considered individually, they amount to nothing more than reception, transmission and/or general computation (i.e., not specific enough computation) of claim elements that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea.
Therefore, the additional steps of claim 1 (which is representative of claims 17, 18) do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and the claims remain a judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Claim 1 (which is representative of claims 17, 18) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2. Therefore, when considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, the additional elements in the claim amount to instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. Moreover, as noted above, there is nothing the computing and additional elements (limitations [A], [D]), that is significant or meaningful to the underlying abstract idea because the identified abstract idea of solving puzzle could have been reasonably performed when provided with the relevant data and/or information.
Per Step 2A.1. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The limitations of the independent claim 1 recite an abstract idea, shown in bold, while the non-bolded claim elements recite additional element according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
[A] A computer-implemented method of decrypting an encrypted blockchain transaction, wherein the encrypted blockchain transaction is encrypted using a transaction encryption key, wherein the transaction encryption key is encrypted based on a solution to a time-lock puzzle, the time-lock puzzle being solvable using a set of puzzle parameter in a time equal to or greater than a minimum solving time, the method comprising:
[B] obtaining the set of puzzle parameters and the encrypted transaction encryption key;
[C] generating, based on the set of puzzle parameters, the solution to the time-lock puzzle;
[D] deriving, based on the solution and the encrypted transaction encryption key, the transaction encryption key; and
[E] decrypting the encrypted blockchain transaction using the decrypted transaction encryption key.
Claim 5 recites: encrypting and decrypting transaction data ([A]); obtaining parameter and keys ([B]); generating a solution ([C]); deriving a key ([D]); and decrypting transaction data ([F]), which, based on the claim language and in view of the application disclosure, represents a process aimed at solving puzzle.
The overall combination, covers agreement in the form of following rules or instructions because the claim language recites computing a solution for a puzzle. Additionally, applicant’s specification recites on page 2, lines 27-29 “The node who successfully solved the proof-of-work puzzle to create the latest block is typically rewarded with a new transaction called the "coinbase transaction" which distributes an amount of the digital asset, i.e. a number of tokens”. The one of skill in the art can determine that a user would need to follow the rules or instructions to solve the puzzle. Additionally, the recited claim limitation above falls under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships, or Interactions Between People grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Alternatively, and/or in addition, the limitations expresses mathematical concept like mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations because the claim language recites computing a solution for a time-lock puzzle. The one of skill in the art can determine that an equation or certain calculation is performed to find the solution. Additionally, the recited claim limitation above falls under the Mathematical Concepts. i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I).
Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that claim 5 recites an abstract idea that corresponds to a judicial exception.
Per Step 2A.2. The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the independent claims only amount to instructions to apply the judicial exception to a computer, or are a general link to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(h)). For example, the added element(s) “blockchain,” recite computing elements at a high level of generality, which is equivalent to instructions to implement the abstract idea “by a computer” or “on a computer.” The additional elements do not preclude from carrying out the identified abstract idea of solving puzzle. Therefore, those additional elements do not serve to integrate the identified abstract idea into practical application.
The additional elements in the independent claims, shown not bolded above, recite: blockchain ([A], [E]).When considered individually, they amount to nothing more than reception, transmission and/or general computation (i.e., not specific enough computation) of claim elements that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea.
Therefore, the additional steps of claim 1 (which is representative of claims 17, 18) do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and the claims remain a judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Claim 1 (which is representative of claims 17, 18) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2. Therefore, when considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, the additional elements in the claim amount to instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. Moreover, as noted above, there is nothing the computing and additional elements (limitations [A], [E]), that is significant or meaningful to the underlying abstract idea because the identified abstract idea of solving puzzle could have been reasonably performed when provided with the relevant data and/or information.
Therefore, it is concluded that independent claims 1, 5, 17, 18 are deemed ineligible.
Dependent Claims: Claims 3-4, 8-14, 15-16 are analyzed for subject matter eligibility. However, these claims fails to recite patent eligible subject matter for following reasons:
Claim 3, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recites additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim further recites:
[A] generating a puzzle parameter blockchain transaction, the puzzle parameter blockchain transaction comprising a first output for rendering output data of the first output available when the puzzle parameter blockchain transaction is committed to the blockchain, the output data comprising the encrypted blockchain transaction; and
[B] making the puzzle parameter blockchain transaction available to one or more nodes of a blockchain network.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of processing transaction. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 4, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recites additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the output data further comprises the set of puzzle parameters and the encrypted transaction encryption key.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of processing transaction. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 6, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recites additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the encrypted blockchain transaction is obtained from a puzzle parameter blockchain transaction.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of processing transaction. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 7, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recites additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the method further comprises obtaining the set of puzzle parameters and the encrypted transaction encryption key from the puzzle parameter blockchain transaction.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of processing transaction. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 8, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recites additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the time-lock puzzle is a modular squaring puzzle.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of processing transaction. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “mathematical concept” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 9, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recites additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the solution is defined by: sol = a^2^t mod n
[B] wherein a, t, and n are puzzle parameter, wherein 1 < a < n and t > 0
The claim further recites the abstract idea of calculating solution. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “mathematical concept” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 10, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recites additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the puzzle parameter n is defined by: modulus n = pq
[B] wherein p and q are larger prime numbers.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of calculating solution. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “mathematical concept” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 11, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recites additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the solution is defined by: sol = a^2^t (mod p(n) mod n
[B] wherein p(n) = (p-1)(q-1)
The claim further recites the abstract idea of calculating solution. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “mathematical concept” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 12, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recites additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the encrypted transaction encryption key is defined by: Ck = K = sol mod n
The claim further recites the abstract idea of calculating solution. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “mathematical concept” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 13, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recites additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the set of secret puzzle parameters comprises the large prime number p and q.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of calculating solution. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “mathematical concept” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 14, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recites additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the method further comprises, before computing the solution, randomly selecting the large prime numbers p and q and the puzzle parameter a, and computing the puzzle parameter t.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of calculating solution. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “mathematical concept” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 15, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recites additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the solution is defined by: sol = a^2^t mod n
[B] wherein a, t, and n are puzzle parameter, wherein 1 < a < n and t > 0
The claim further recites the abstract idea of calculating solution. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “mathematical concept” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 16, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recites additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the minimum solving time is defined by: T = t/S
[B] wherein S is a number of squarings modulo a per second a user computing the solution using the set of puzzle parameters can perform.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of calculating solution. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “mathematical concept” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
When the dependent claims are considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the claim elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense, i.e., a computer receives information from another computer, processes that information and then sends a response based on processing results. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified in the independent claims as an abstract idea. The fact that the computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer subject matter eligibility. Overall, the further elements do not confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance are not changing the nature of the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application do not amount to significantly
more. (See MPEP 2106.05).
In sum, Claims 1, 3-18 are rejected under 35 USC 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 3-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mandal (US 20190379646 A1), in view of Rivest (Time-lock puzzles and timed-release Crypto).
Regarding Claims 1, 17, 18. Mandal discloses:
generating a transaction encryption key K; [see at least (0062) processor 610 may generate system parameters, verification keys, private keys, and/or master key shares. Further, for example, processor 610 may encrypt and/or decrypt messages.]
encrypting the blockchain transaction using the encryption key K; to generate an encrypted transaction and [see at least (0052) Using delayed-access (e.g., time-locked) encryption, in accordance with one or more embodiments, a user may send a locked (e.g., time-locked) transaction to a peer node on blockchain]
Mandal discloses encrypting transaction, however, Mandal does not disclose:
computing a solution to a time-lock puzzle using a set of secret puzzle parameters, the time-lock puzzle being solvable using a set of puzzle parameter in a time equal to or greater than a minimum solving time, wherein the set of puzzle parameters does not comprise the secret puzzle parameters;
encrypting the transaction encryption key K using the solution to the time-lock puzzle [to generate an encrypted transaction key]
making the set of puzzle parameters and the encrypted transaction encryption key available to one or more puzzle solvers.
Nonetheless, Rivest discloses:
computing a solution to a time-lock puzzle using a set of secret puzzle parameters, the time-lock puzzle being solvable using a set of puzzle parameter in a time equal to or greater than a minimum solving time, wherein the set of puzzle parameters does not comprise the secret puzzle parameters; [see at least (Page 3, line 26) method for creating time-lock puzzles based on repeated squaring. (Page 4) She encrypts M with key K and encryption algorithm RC5 to obtain the ciphertext]
encrypting the transaction encryption key K using the solution to the time-lock puzzle [see at least (page 4, lines 1-10) she computes t = TS, where S is the number of squarings modulo n per second that can be performed by the solver. She generates a random key K for a conventional cryptosystem such as RC5. This key is long enough (say 160 bits or more) that searching for it is infeasible even with the advances in computing power expected during the lifetime of the puzzle. She encrypts M with key K and encryption algorithm RC5 to obtain the ciphertext]
making the set of puzzle parameters and the encrypted transaction encryption key available to one or more puzzle solvers. [see at least (page 4, equations 3-7) (page 4, lines 1-19) She produces as output the time-lock puzzle (n, a, t, CK, CM ), and erases any other variables (such as p, q) created during this computation.]
Note: MPEP 2144.01 sets forth that it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. Here, it is reasonable to infer a person with the ordinary skill in the art would require the formulas as disclosed by (Rivest, page 4) to compute the time-lock puzzle. And, therefore one of skill in the art would have understood the reference to teach the limitation.
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Mandal to include the features of Rivest. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the puzzle parameters to allow peer nodes to decrypt the time-locked encrypted transaction. Mandal discloses processing transaction. Rivest teaches time-lock encryption. Because both Mandal as well as Rivest are implemented through field of encryption technique and both references addresses establishing security and the encrypts data. Moreover, since the features disclosed by Mandal as well as Rivest would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Mandal/Rivest.
Regarding Claim 3. Mandal, Rivest discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Mandal further discloses:
wherein the method further comprises: generating blockchain transaction, blockchain transaction blockchain transaction is committed to the blockchain, blockchain transaction; and [see at least (0052) see at least [0052] Using delayed-access (e.g., time-locked) encryption, in accordance with one or more embodiments, a user may send a locked (e.g., time-locked) transaction to a peer node on blockchain. Further, the peer node may propagate the locked transaction to blockchain]
making the blockchain transaction available to one or more nodes of a blockchain network. [see at least see at least [0052] time parameter (e.g., for a time interval) may be settable (e.g., to make misbehavior hard). For example, the time interval may be selected to be of sufficient duration such that only malicious behavior may cause a transaction to not propagate before the time interval expires. In this example, a transaction may fail if it is not processed by expiration of the time interval. [0062] processor 610 may generate system parameters, verification keys, private keys, and/or master key shares. Further, for example, processor 610 may encrypt and/or decrypt messages.]
Rivest further discloses:
… a puzzle parameter … the puzzle parameter … comprising a first output for rendering output data of the first output available when the puzzle … the output data comprising the encrypted … [see at least (page 4, equations 3-7) (page 4, lines 1-19) She produces as output the time-lock puzzle (n, a, t, CK, CM ), and erases any other variables (such as p, q) created during this computation.]
puzzle parameters [see at least (page 4, equations 3-7) (page 4, lines 1-19) She produces as output the time-lock puzzle (n, a, t, CK, CM ), and erases any other variables (such as p, q) created during this computation.]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Mandal, Rivest to include the additional features of Rivest. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the puzzle parameters to allow peer nodes to decrypt the time-locked encrypted transaction. Mandal discloses processing transaction. Rivest teaches time-lock encryption. Because both Mandal as well as Rivest are implemented through field of encryption technique and both references addresses establishing security and the encrypts data. Moreover, since the subject matter is merely a combination of old features, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 4. Mandal, Rivest discloses the limitations of Claim 4. Mandal further discloses:
wherein the output data further comprises … and the encrypted transaction encryption key. [see at least (0062) program instructions are loaded into memory 620, processor 610 may execute the program instructions … processor 610 may generate system parameters, verification keys, private keys, and/or master key shares. Further, for example, processor 610 may encrypt and/or decrypt messages.]
Rivest further discloses:
the set of puzzle parameters [see at least (page 4, equations 3-7) (page 4, lines 1-19) She produces as output the time-lock puzzle (n, a, t, CK, CM ), and erases any other variables (such as p, q) created during this computation.]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Mandal, Rivest to include the additional features of Rivest. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the puzzle parameters to allow peer nodes to decrypt the time-locked encrypted transaction. Mandal discloses processing transaction. Rivest teaches time-lock encryption. Because both Mandal as well as Rivest are implemented through field of encryption technique and both references addresses establishing security and the encrypts data. Moreover, since the subject matter is merely a combination of old features, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 5. Mandal discloses:
wherein the encrypted blockchain transaction is encrypted using a transaction encryption key, [see at least (0052) Using delayed-access (e.g., time-locked) encryption, in accordance with one or more embodiments, a user may send a locked (e.g., time-locked) transaction to a peer node on blockchain]
obtaining the set of puzzle parameters and the encrypted transaction encryption key; {see at least (0062) processor 610 may run functions of an IBE scheme. For example, processor 610 may generate system parameters, verification keys, private keys, and/or master key shares. Further, for example, processor 610 may encrypt and/or decrypt messages.}
decrypting the encrypted blockchain transaction using the decrypted transaction encryption key. [see at least (0062) processor 610 may run functions of an IBE scheme. For example, processor 610 may generate system parameters, verification keys, private keys, and/or master key shares. Further, for example, processor 610 may encrypt and/or decrypt messages. (reads on: message reads on blockchain transaction)]
Mandal discloses encrypting transaction, however, Mandal does not disclose:
wherein the transaction encryption key is encrypted based on a solution to a time-lock puzzle, the time-lock puzzle being solvable using a set of puzzle parameter in a time equal to or greater than a minimum solving time, the method comprising:
generating, based on the set of puzzle parameters, the solution to the time-lock puzzle;
deriving, based on the solution and the encrypted transaction encryption key, the transaction encryption key; and
Nonetheless, Rivest discloses:
wherein the transaction encryption key is encrypted based on a solution to a time-lock puzzle, the time-lock puzzle being solvable using a set of puzzle parameter in a time equal to or greater than a minimum solving time, the method comprising: [see at least (Page 3, line 26) method for creating time-lock puzzles based on repeated squaring. (Page 4) She encrypts M with key K and encryption algorithm RC5 to obtain the ciphertext]
generating, based on the set of puzzle parameters, the solution to the time-lock puzzle; [see at least (Page 3, line 26) method for creating time-lock puzzles based on repeated squaring. (Page 4) She encrypts M with key K and encryption algorithm RC5 to obtain the ciphertext]
deriving, based on the solution and the encrypted transaction encryption key, the transaction encryption key; and [see at least (page 2 lines 24-25) The solution to the puzzle reveals a key that can be used to decrypt the encrypted information.]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Mandal to include the features of Rivest. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the puzzle parameters to allow peer nodes to decrypt the time-locked encrypted transaction. Mandal discloses processing transaction. Rivest teaches time-lock encryption. Because both Mandal as well as Rivest are implemented through field of encryption technique and both references addresses establishing security and the encrypts data. Moreover, since the features disclosed by Mandal as well as Rivest would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Mandal/Rivest.
Regarding Claim 6. Mandal, Rivest discloses the limitations of Claim 5. Mandal further discloses:
wherein the encrypted blockchain transaction is obtained from a puzzle parameter blockchain transaction. [see at least ([0052) Using delayed-access (e.g., time-locked) encryption, in accordance with one or more embodiments, a user may send a locked (e.g., time-locked) transaction to a peer node on blockchain. Further, the peer node may propagate the locked transaction to blockchain]
Regarding Claim 7. Mandal, Rivest discloses the limitations of Claim 6. Mandal further discloses:
wherein the method further comprises obtaining the set of puzzle parameters and the encrypted transaction encryption key from the puzzle parameter blockchain transaction. {see at least (0052) Using delayed-access (e.g., time-locked) encryption, in accordance with one or more embodiments, a user may send a locked (e.g., time-locked) transaction to a peer node on blockchain. Further, the peer node may propagate the locked transaction to blockchain]
Regarding Claim 8. Mandal, Rivest discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Rivest further discloses:
wherein the time-lock puzzle is a modular squaring puzzle. [see at least (page 4, lines 3-4) where S is the number of squarings modulo n per second that can be performed by the solver]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Mandal, Rivest to include the additional features of Rivest. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the puzzle parameters to allow peer nodes to decrypt the time-locked encrypted transaction. Mandal discloses processing transaction. Rivest teaches time-lock encryption. Because both Mandal as well as Rivest are implemented through field of encryption technique and both references addresses establishing security and the encrypts data. Moreover, since the subject matter is merely a combination of old features, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 9. Mandal, Rivest discloses the limitations of Claim 8. Rivest further discloses:
wherein the solution is defined by:
s
o
l
=
a
2
t
m
o
d
n
wherein a, t, and n are puzzle parameters, wherein 1 < a < n and t > 0. [see at least (page 4, section 2.2, equation 8)
b
=
a
2
t
(
m
o
d
n
); knowing
Φ
n
enables
2
t
to be reduced efficiently to e modulo
Φ
n
, so that b can be computed efficiently by equation 7.]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Mandal, Rivest to include the additional features of Rivest. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the puzzle parameters to allow peer nodes to decrypt the time-locked encrypted transaction. Mandal discloses processing transaction. Rivest teaches time-lock encryption. Because both Mandal as well as Rivest are implemented through field of encryption technique and both references addresses establishing security and the encrypts data. Moreover, since the subject matter is merely a combination of old features, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 10. Mandal, Rivest discloses the limitations of Claim 9. Rivest further discloses:
wherein the puzzle parameter n is defined by: modulus n=pq wherein p and q are large prime numbers. [see at least (page 3, section 2.1, equation 1) n = pq; as the product of two large randomly-chosen secret primes p and q]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Mandal, Rivest to include the additional features of Rivest. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the puzzle parameters to allow peer nodes to decrypt the time-locked encrypted transaction. Mandal discloses processing transaction. Rivest teaches time-lock encryption. Because both Mandal as well as Rivest are implemented through field of encryption technique and both references addresses establishing security and the encrypts data. Moreover, since the subject matter is merely a combination of old features, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 11. Mandal, Rivest discloses the limitations of Claim 9. Rivest further discloses:
wherein the solution is defined by:
s
o
l
=
a
2
t
m
o
d
φ
(
n
)
m
o
d
n
,
wherein
φ
n
=
p
-
1
q
-
1
.
[see at least (page, 3-4, sections 2.1-2.2, equations 2, 8)
Φ
n
=
p
-
1
q
-
1
]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Mandal, Rivest to include the additional features of Rivest. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the puzzle parameters to allow peer nodes to decrypt the time-locked encrypted transaction. Mandal discloses processing transaction. Rivest teaches time-lock encryption. Because both Mandal as well as Rivest are implemented through field of encryption technique and both references addresses establishing security and the encrypts data. Moreover, since the subject matter is merely a combination of old features, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 12. Mandal, Rivest discloses the limitations of Claim 9. Rivest further discloses:
wherein the encrypted transaction encryption key is defined by:
C
k
=
k
+
s
o
l
m
o
d
n
. [see at least (page 4, section 2.1, equation 5)
C
k
=
k
+
a
2
t
(
m
o
d
n
)
]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Mandal, Rivest to include the additional features of Rivest. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the puzzle parameters to allow peer nodes to decrypt the time-locked encrypted transaction. Mandal discloses processing transaction. Rivest teaches time-lock encryption. Because both Mandal as well as Rivest are implemented through field of encryption technique and both references addresses establishing security and the encrypts data. Moreover, since the subject matter is merely a combination of old features, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 13. Mandal, Rivest discloses the limitations of Claim 11. Rivest further discloses:
wherein the set of secret puzzle parameters comprises the large prime numbers p and q. [see at least (page 3, section 2.1, equation 1) n = pq; as the product of two large randomly-chosen secret primes p and q]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Mandal, Rivest to include the additional features of Rivest. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the puzzle parameters to allow peer nodes to decrypt the time-locked encrypted transaction. Mandal discloses processing transaction. Rivest teaches time-lock encryption. Because both Mandal as well as Rivest are implemented through field of encryption technique and both references addresses establishing security and the encrypts data. Moreover, since the subject matter is merely a combination of old features, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 14. Mandal, Rivest discloses the limitations of Claim 13. Rivest further discloses:
wherein the method further comprises, before computing the solution, randomly selecting the large prime numbers p and q and the puzzle parameter a, and computing the puzzle parameter t. [see at least (page 3, section 2.1, equation 1) n = pq; as the product of two large randomly-chosen secret primes p and q]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Mandal, Rivest to include the additional features of Rivest. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the puzzle parameters to allow peer nodes to decrypt the time-locked encrypted transaction. Mandal discloses processing transaction. Rivest teaches time-lock encryption. Because both Mandal as well as Rivest are implemented through field of encryption technique and both references addresses establishing security and the encrypts data. Moreover, since the subject matter is merely a combination of old features, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 15. Mandal, Rivest discloses the limitations of Claim 5. Rivest further discloses:
wherein the solution is defined by:
s
o
l
=
a
2
t
m
o
d
n
wherein a, t, and n are puzzle parameters, wherein 1 < a < n and t > 0. [see at least (page 4, section 2.2, equation 8)
b
=
a
2
t
(
m
o
d
n
); knowing
Φ
n
enables
2
t
to be reduced efficiently to e modulo
Φ
n
, so that b can be computed efficiently by equation 7.]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Mandal, Rivest to include the additional features of Rivest. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the puzzle parameters to allow peer nodes to decrypt the time-locked encrypted transaction. Mandal discloses processing transaction. Rivest teaches time-lock encryption. Because both Mandal as well as Rivest are implemented through field of encryption technique and both references addresses establishing security and the encrypts data. Moreover, since the subject matter is merely a combination of old features, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 16. Mandal, Rivest discloses the limitations of Claim 9. Rivest further discloses:
wherein the minimum solving time is defined by:
T
=
t
S
; wherein S is a number of squarings modulo n per second a user computing the solution using the set of puzzle parameters can perform. [see at least (page 4, lines 1-10) she computes t = TS, where S is the number of squarings modulo n per second that can be performed by the solver.]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Mandal, Rivest to include the additional features of Rivest. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the puzzle parameters to allow peer nodes to decrypt the time-locked encrypted transaction. Mandal discloses processing transaction. Rivest teaches time-lock encryption. Because both Mandal as well as Rivest are implemented through field of encryption technique and both references addresses establishing security and the encrypts data. Moreover, since the subject matter is merely a combination of old features, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Applicant submits: “The claims are not directed to an abstract process, and even if they are directed to an abstract process, the claims nevertheless integrate the invention into a practical application. Firstly, encrypting a blockchain transaction with an encryption key is not an abstract process. A blockchain transaction is not an abstract concept in the normal sense of the word 'transaction' but refers specifically to a data structure forming, or intended to form, part of a blockchain. As described in paragraph [0003] of the present application:'A blockchain refers to a form of distributed data structure, wherein a duplicate copy of the blockchain is maintained at each of a plurality of nodes in a distributed peer-to-peer (P2P) network (referred to below as a "blockchain network') and widely publicised. The blockchain comprises a chain of blocks of data, wherein each block comprises one or more transactions'. Further, encryption is not an abstract process, but rather a computational cryptography technique that cannot feasibly be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. The claimed process steps are not abstract, even in their broadest interpretation. Notwithstanding, these features are integrated into a practical application at least because the claimed combination of features allows blockchain transactions to remain encrypted for at least a minimum amount of time. That is, encrypting the transaction with a key, and then encrypting the key using the solution to the time-lock puzzle ensures that decryption of the blockchain transaction by a puzzle solver cannot happen in less than a minimum time. This provides a practical effect on the ability of the puzzle solver to access data in a blockchain transaction and solves a complicated problem in the field of cryptographic problem solving.
Examiner Responds: Examiner has fully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s argument persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant, the MPEP 2106.04(d) discloses that “an important consideration to evaluate when determining whether the claim as a whole integrates a judicial exception into a practical application is whether the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or other technology In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology. the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement.” (Emphasis added) “That is, the claimed invention may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by demonstrating that it improves the relevant existing technology although it may not be an improvement over well-understood, routine, conventional activity.” (Emphasis added). Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits: “Per step 2B, Applicant further disagrees that when the independent claims are viewed as a whole, the subject matter is abstract. We believe that the claim as a whole is clearly intended to provide practical effects in enabling access to data of a blockchain transaction in accordance with cryptographically-ensured constraints. In particular, the claimed invention is directed to cryptographic manipulation of data to enforce a minimum time period before a puzzle solver (or anybody who does not possess the secret parameters) can decrypt content of an encrypted blockchain transaction. We submit that this, on the whole, is not an abstract effect and is instead a specific, practical application of the claimed invention. Nevertheless, independent claims 1, 17, and 18 are amended to include the subject matter of claim 2, which we believe strengthens the claims against the 101 objection. The independent claims now further recite 'making the set of puzzle parameters and the encrypted transaction encryption key available to one or more puzzle solvers'. Independent claim 5 already includes steps of obtaining the parameters. Since this feature of releasing the puzzle parameters marks the beginning of the minimum solving time, and therefore practically defines a time in which the blockchain transaction can be decrypted, the amended claim more strongly defines a technical, non-abstract process. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 1, 17, and 18.”
Examiner Responds: Examiner has fully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s argument persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant, the applicant argues the recited claim limitation as whole provide practical effect enabling access to data of a blockchain transaction; however, the claim as whole uses “blockchain” as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Thus the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 103.
Applicant submits: “Applicant respectfully maintains that the Examiner has mischaracterized Trevethan. Trevethan describes a time-release encryption service, in which a client specifies parameters of a required time-lock encryption service, and the agent performs that service. Trevethan fails to disclose what these 'parameters of the required time-lock encryption service' are and notwithstanding does not explicitly describe generating the solution to a time-lock puzzle. There is no disclosure in the cited passage, nor anywhere else in Trevethan, of making the set of puzzle parameters (which do not comprise the secret puzzle parameters) and an encrypted transaction encryption key available to one or more puzzle solvers. That is, Trevethan does not disclose any such transaction encryption key, nor making it available to one or more puzzle solver. Applicants further note that the original rejection of claim 1 in view Mandal and Rivest should be withdrawn because there is no motivation to combine Mandal and Rivest. Mandal discloses the concept of "delayed-access encryption", wherein decryption is possible after one or more conditions are met. A condition may be time-based. A user may send a locked (e.g., time- locked) transaction to a node on blockchain. The node may propagate the locked transaction to other nodes on the blockchain. At a later point in time, the locked transaction may be decrypted by each node. Mandal is silent on encrypting an encryption key with a time-lock puzzle. Rivest discloses using time-lock puzzles to encrypt messages that can only be decrypted in the future. There is no mention of blockchain in Rivest, and certainly no mention of blockchain transactions. In the event that the skilled person did consider it necessary to look outside of Mandal (as the Examiner did), they would not look to Rivest for further information. As set out above, Rivest does not disclose the blockchain. Therefore, when searching for documents, the skilled person would not consider Rivest to be relevant to the present solution. If the skilled person did consider reading Rivest, it would be entirely unclear to the skilled person, without knowledge of hindsight, how the encryption methods of Rivest would be applied with the blockchain transactions of Mandal. Mandal teaches that the transaction should be decrypted when "consensus is reached", see para 52. However, Rivest does not require any consensus between nodes. As such, the skilled person would consider the two methodologies to be incompatible, and thus would not combine the documents. Claim 1, therefore, is allowable over the cited references. Claims depending from claim 1 are allowable at least pursuant to the chain of dependency. Independent claim 17 and 18 are allowable for reasons similar to those given above with respect to claim 1.”
Examiner response: Examiner has fully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s argument persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant, the applicant’s arguments are directed towards the references does not teach the recited claim limitation. Examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant, the claim limitation of set of parameters and encrypted key available to the solver; the combination of Mandal and Rivest discloses the parameter one in the skill in the art would need to solve the puzzle (i.e. decrypt the data). Furthermore, the applicant argues the decencies of each refences separately. The examiner would like to emphasize that the cited references are used in combination to teach the recited claim language. Furthermore, the examiner emphasizes there is a motivation to combine the features of Mandal with the teaching of Rivest. Please see the updated rejection. Thus the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 103.
Applicant submits: “Applicant respectfully maintains that the Examiner has mischaracterized Trevethan. Trevethan describes a time-release encryption service, in which a client specifies parameters of a required time-lock encryption service, and the agent performs that service. Trevethan fails to disclose what these 'parameters of the required time-lock encryption service' are and notwithstanding does not explicitly describe generating the solution to a time-lock puzzle. There is no disclosure in the cited passage, nor anywhere else in Trevethan, of making the set of puzzle parameters (which do not comprise the secret puzzle parameters) and an encrypted transaction encryption key available to one or more puzzle solvers. That is, Trevethan does not disclose any such transaction encryption key, nor making it available to one or more puzzle solver. Applicants further note that the original rejection of claim 1 in view Mandal and Rivest should be withdrawn because there is no motivation to combine Mandal and Rivest. Mandal discloses the concept of "delayed-access encryption", wherein decryption is possible after one or more conditions are met. A condition may be time-based. A user may send a locked (e.g., time- locked) transaction to a node on blockchain. The node may propagate the locked transaction to other nodes on the blockchain. At a later point in time, the locked transaction may be decrypted by each node. Mandal is silent on encrypting an encryption key with a time-lock puzzle. Rivest discloses using time-lock puzzles to encrypt messages that can only be decrypted in the future. There is no mention of blockchain in Rivest, and certainly no mention of blockchain transactions. In the event that the skilled person did consider it necessary to look outside of Mandal (as the Examiner did), they would not look to Rivest for further information. As set out above, Rivest does not disclose the blockchain. Therefore, when searching for documents, the skilled person would not consider Rivest to be relevant to the present solution. If the skilled person did consider reading Rivest, it would be entirely unclear to the skilled person, without knowledge of hindsight, how the encryption methods of Rivest would be applied with the blockchain transactions of Mandal. Mandal teaches that the transaction should be decrypted when "consensus is reached", see para 52. However, Rivest does not require any consensus between nodes. As such, the skilled person would consider the two methodologies to be incompatible, and thus would not combine the documents. Claim 1, therefore, is allowable over the cited references. Claims depending from claim 1 are allowable at least pursuant to the chain of dependency. Independent claim 17 and 18 are allowable for reasons similar to those given above with respect to claim 1.”
Examiner response: Examiner has fully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s argument persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant, the applicant’s arguments are directed towards the references does not teach the recited claim limitation. Examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant, the claim limitation of set of parameters and encrypted key available to the solver; the combination of Mandal and Rivest discloses the parameter one in the skill in the art would need to solve the puzzle (i.e. decrypt the data). Furthermore, the applicant argues the decencies of each refences separately. The examiner would like to emphasize that the cited references are used in combination to teach the recited claim language. Furthermore, the examiner emphasizes there is a motivation to combine the features of Mandal with the teaching of Rivest. Please see the updated rejection. Thus the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits: “With respect to independent claim 5, the Office Action objects that Mandal discloses obtaining the set of puzzle parameters and the encrypted transaction encryption key. Applicant disagrees not least because the examiner already acknowledges in the assessment of claim 1 that Mandal does not disclose an encrypted transaction encryption key. Mandal does not disclose obtaining such a key either. Further, the examiner cites a passage from para [0062] in Mandal, which describes 'decrypting messages'. This passage is provided in the context of an IBE (Identity Based Encryption) scheme, and does not anticipate receiving puzzle parameters of a time-lock puzzle, nor an encrypted transaction encryption key, as claimed. Additionally, there is no disclosure in Mandal of decrypting the encrypted blockchain using the decrypted transaction encryption key. Rivest appears to fail to disclose a transaction encryption key, and also appears to fail to disclose obtaining the set of puzzle parameters and the said encrypted transaction encryption key. There is no motivation to combine Mandal and Rivest. The examiner states that the skilled person would be motivated to introduce elements of Rivest, 'in order to efficiently process transactions'. Applicant does not agree with this reasoning, at least because there is no teaching in Rivest that relates to transactions, let alone blockchain transactions. Claim 5, therefore, and its dependent claims are allowable over the cited references. Claims 2-4, 6-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mandal, in view of Rivest, in further view of Trevethan et al (US 20200136815 A1). Claim 3-4 and 6-16 each depend from an allowable base claims and are therefore allowable at least pursuant to the chain of dependency.”
Examiner response: Examiner has fully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s argument persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant, the applicant’s arguments are directed towards the references does not teach the recited claim limitation. Examiner would like to emphasize that the combination of Mandal and Rivest discloses the claim limitation of claim 1-18. See the updated rejection above. Thus the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Relevant Prior Art Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon which, however, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20200279256 A1 WRIGHT; Craig Steven IMPROVED TIME LOCK TECHNIQUE FOR SECURING A RESOURCE ON A BLOCKCHAIN - The invention comprises a solution for securing an output (UTXO) in a single blockchain (e.g. Bitcoin) transaction (TX) so that it can only be unlocked by an authorised party at an allowed time, and in accordance with external data supplied to the transaction's locking script. The invention may comprise two steps which are implemented within a redeem script provided within the UTXO's locking script: 1) Calculation of a time-related value (which we will call T.sub.supplied) using the external data provided; and 2) use of the calculated T.sub.supplied value in a time lock technique to ensure that unlocking occurs at a time pre-determined time. The invention allows external data to be introduced into the time lock control of a transaction on the blockchain. It also includes a technique for combining absolute and relative time locks (e.g. CLTV and CSV as known in the Bitcoin protocol).
US 20180152513 A1 Bohli; Jens-Matthias et al. METHOD FOR STORING DATA IN A CLOUD AND NETWORK FOR CARRYING OUT THE METHOD - A method for storing data in a cloud includes providing at least one data file to be stored together with a predefined number t of replicas of the at least one data file within the cloud, at least one authentication tag corresponding to the at least one data file and t functions that are configurable to take at least a predefined time to compute. The at least one data file, the at least one authentication tag and the t functions are transmitted to the cloud. The at least one data file is stored within the cloud and t solutions of the t functions are computed within the cloud. The t replicas of the at least one data file are generated based on the t solutions of the t functions and the at least one data file within the cloud. The t replicas are stored within the cloud.
US 20040034771 A1 Edgett, Jeff Steven et al. Method and system for changing security information in a computer network - method of, and system for, changing encryption information in a computer network is provided. The method includes providing at least first cryptographic information and second cryptographic information. A first validity period is provided for the first cryptographic information and a second validity period is provided for the second cryptographic information wherein the first and second validity periods overlap.
US 20190356472 A1 Allen; Gavin BLOCKCHAIN-IMPLEMENTED METHOD AND SYSTEM -This invention relates generally to distributed ledger technology (including blockchain related technologies), and in particular the use of a blockchain in implementing, controlling and/or automating a task or process. It may relate to the use of a blockchain or related technology for recording or representing the execution of a portion of logic. This portion of logic may be arranged to implement the functionality of a logic gate, or plurality of logic gates, such as AND, XOR, NOT, OR etc. . . . . An embodiment of the invention may comprise the steps of: providing a blockchain Transaction comprising a redeem script for an output, wherein the redeem script comprises: i) a plurality of public keys, each associated with a corresponding private key; and wherein each public key is uniquely associated with a potential state of at least one data source; and wherein a minimum number of said private keys must be used to sign an unlocking script of a further blockchain Transaction in order to spend the output; and ii) logic arranged to provide a result based on: A) a determination of which of the plurality of associated private key(s) is/are used to sign the unlocking script, so as to provide an interim result: and B) a comparison of a parameter supplied via the unlocking script against the interim result. The method also comprises the step of attempting to spend the transaction output more than once, each attempt supplying a different parameter.
US 10176310 B2 Baghdasaryan; Davit System and method for privacy-enhanced data synchronization - A system, apparatus, method, and machine readable medium are described for establishing a trust circle between multiple devices. For example, one embodiment of a method comprises: transmitting first data from a first device to a second device over a secure communication channel, the first data including at least one key and an identification code identifying a trust circle which includes the first device; the second device generating second data using at least a portion of the first data including the identification code and transmitting the second data over a network to a service; the first device connecting to the service using the identification code to identify the second data, validating the integrity of the second data, and responsively generating third data; and the service storing at least a portion of the second data and the third data to establish a trust relationship between the first device and the second device.
US 20200136815 A1 TREVETHAN; Thomas COMPUTER-IMPLEMENTED SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR TIME RELEASE ENCRYPTION OVER A BLOCKCHAIN NETWORK - A computer-implemented method is described for generating a encryption public key on a blockchain network and enabling access to a corresponding encryption private key after a specified time period. The method comprising constructing a digital time-lock contract between an agent and a client on the blockchain network, the agent having an agent address on the blockchain network and an associated agent signature, and the client having a client address on the blockchain network and an associated client signature. The digital time-lock contract specifies that the agent holds the encryption private key corresponding to the encryption public key on the blockchain network and then releases the encryption private key to the blockchain network within a specified time window. The agent provides a first cryptographic asset for holding and then releasing the encryption private key to the blockchain network within the specified time window, the first cryptographic asset being transferrable to the agent address on the blockchain network when the encryption private key is released to the blockchain network within the specified time window. The client provides a second cryptographic asset to the agent for holding and then releasing the encryption private key to the blockchain network within the specified time window, the second cryptographic asset being transferrable to the agent address on the blockchain network when the encryption private key is released to the blockchain network within the specified time window. If the encryption private key is released prior to the time window opening then the second cryptographic asset is transferrable to the client address on the blockchain network. If the encryption private key is not released prior to the time window closing then the second cryptographic asset is transferrable to the client address on the blockchain network. The digital time-lock contract can be broadcast to the blockchain network for mining onto the blockchain.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD S HYDER whose telephone number is (571)270-1820. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 6:00pm.
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.
/M.S.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698