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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/25/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendments filed on 05/25/2026.
a. Claims 1, 5, 17-18 are amended
b. Claims 3-4, 6-7 are cancelled
c. Claim 2 was previously cancelled.
Overall, Claims 1, 5, 8-18 are pending and have been considered below.
Priority
The application claims priority to provisional application GB2201951.7, filed on 02/15/2022. The priority is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/25/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, such IDS is being considered by Examiner.
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, 5, 8-18 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, 5, 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. The limitations of independent claim 1 (which is representative of Claims 17, 18) shown in bold recite an abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below.
[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; 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.
[G] 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, the set of puzzle parameters, and the encrypted transaction encryption key; and
[H] making, at a first time, the puzzle parameter blockchain transaction available to one or more nodes of a blockchain network so that the blockchain transaction cannot be decrypted until after the time-lock puzzle is solved to prevent the blockchain transaction from being decrypted at a time that is before the first time plus the minimum solving time.
Claim 1 (which is representative of claims 17, 18) recites: computing a solution ([B]); generating an encryption key ([C]); encrypting data ([D]-[E]); sending puzzle ([F]); and generating puzzle parameters and making the parameters available ([G]-[H]), 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], [G], and [H]).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 shown in bold recite an abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below.
[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 encrypted blockchain transaction from a puzzle parameter blockchain transaction;
[C] obtaining the set of puzzle parameters and the encrypted transaction encryption key from the puzzle parameter blockchain transaction;
[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 encrypted transaction ([B]) obtaining parameter and keys ([C]); generating a solution ([D]); deriving a key ([E]); 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 5 do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and the claims remain a judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Claim 5 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 8-16 are analyzed for subject matter eligibility. However, these claims fails to recite patent eligible subject matter for following reasons:
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. There are no new additional elements recited for consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B. Accordingly, the claim is ineligible for the same reasons as claims above.
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. There are no new additional elements recited for consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B. Accordingly, the claim is ineligible for the same reasons as claims above.
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. There are no new additional elements recited for consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B. Accordingly, the claim is ineligible for the same reasons as claims above.
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. There are no new additional elements recited for consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B. Accordingly, the claim is ineligible for the same reasons as claims above.
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. There are no new additional elements recited for consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B. Accordingly, the claim is ineligible for the same reasons as claims above.
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. There are no new additional elements recited for consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B. Accordingly, the claim is ineligible for the same reasons as claims above.
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. There are no new additional elements recited for consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B. Accordingly, the claim is ineligible for the same reasons as claims above.
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. There are no new additional elements recited for consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B. Accordingly, the claim is ineligible for the same reasons as claims above.
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. There are no new additional elements recited for consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B. Accordingly, the claim is ineligible for the same reasons as claims above.
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, 5, 8-18 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, 5, 8-18 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; [ (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; and [(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]
generating a blockchain transaction, … the blockchain transaction … blockchain transaction is committed to the blockchain, [(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]
the output data comprising the encrypted blockchain transaction, … and the encrypted transaction encryption key; and [(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.]
making, at a first time, … blockchain transaction available to one or more nodes of a blockchain network so that the blockchain transaction cannot be decrypted until after the time-lock puzzle is solved to prevent the blockchain transaction from being decrypted at a time that is before the first time plus the minimum solving time. [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.]
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.
… the puzzle parameter … the puzzle parameter … comprising a first output for rendering output data of the first output available when the puzzle parameter … the output data comprising … the set of puzzle parameters …
… the puzzle parameter…
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.
… the puzzle parameter … the puzzle parameter … comprising a first output for rendering output data of the first output available when the puzzle parameter … the output data comprising … 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.]
… the puzzle parameter… [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 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 5. Mandal discloses:
wherein the encrypted blockchain transaction is encrypted using a transaction encryption key, [(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 encrypted blockchain transaction from a puzzle parameter blockchain transaction; [(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.]
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. (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. [(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 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 claim objection.
Applicant submits: “In the Office Action, claim 1 was objected to as reciting "encrypted transaction key." Applicant has amended claim 1 rendering the objection moot.”
Examiner response: Examiner has fully considered applicant’s arguments, and based on the amendment, claim objection has been withdrawn.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Applicant submits: “Applicant has amended the claims to recite a very specific and very practical application of the presentation. Namely, use of the present time-locking blockchain transaction approach to actively prevent, in the real world, decryption of a blockchain transaction before a predetermined amount of time has elapsed. As described in the present specification, this application relates to time-locking blockchain transactions. The blockchain transactions are encrypted using a key, which is itself encrypted based on a time-lock puzzle. The time-lock puzzle can only be decrypted after a specific amount of time has elapsed because the time-lock puzzle is constructed so as to require many calculations to be performed in a strict sequence or series before the puzzle can be solved. This specific construction of the time-lock puzzle means that this amount of time can be fine-tuned or selected based upon how many calculations a particular solving entity (computer) can perform per unit of time. By relying on that time-lock puzzle in the manner claimed, the present blockchain transaction is constrained such that it can only be decrypted after that specific amount of time has elapsed. That is, when the time-lock puzzle is solved to reveal the key used to encrypt the transaction. The technology, as claimed, therefore, imposes a real-world time constraint on a blockchain transaction. Namely "that the blockchain transaction cannot be decrypted until after the time-lock puzzle is solved to prevent the blockchain transaction from being decrypted at a time that is before the first time plus the minimum solving time." This constraint is imposed cryptographically, by "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." This is furthermore a process that is not abstract and cannot be performed in the human mind.”
Examiner Responds: Examiner has fully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s argument persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant. The claim, when considered as a whole, remain directed to the abstract idea previously identified, using mathematical calculations and rules to control access to encrypted information. The independent claim reciting “time-lock puzzles” are directed to computing a solution to a mathematical puzzle. Additionally, additional element such as blockchain, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and the additional element is an environment for storing and transmitting the data. Furthermore, the applicant argues that the claim imposes a “real-world time constraint”. However, the examiner does not find this argument persuasive, the amended language “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” is the intended result of performing the cryptographic process. The claim does not recite a specific improvement to blockchain technology. The claim uses generic computer and blockchain components as tools to perform the abstract idea of delated access to encrypted information. Thus the rejection is maintained.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 103.
Applicant submits: “This claim feature distinguishes over both cited prior art references. In particular, Mandal does not disclose any encryption of a transaction encryption key, and therefore does not disclose an encrypted transaction encryption key. In the Office Action, the examiner appears to acknowledge this distinction. It then follows that there is no disclosure of a puzzle parameter blockchain transaction which, in its output comprises the encrypted transaction encryption key. Rivest, though it does generate an encrypted transaction encryption key, does not disclose any blockchain context. Therefore, Rivest also cannot disclose a puzzle parameter blockchain transaction which, in its output comprises the encrypted transaction encryption key. Given that this claim element is not disclosed or suggested in either Mandal or Rivest, no combination of the prior art documents would lead to the claimed invention, and therefore the invention is non-obvious over the cited references. Claim 1, therefore is allowable over the cited references. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1, 3-18. Since none of the other prior art of record, whether taken alone or in any combination, discloses or suggests all the features of the claimed invention, Applicant respectfully submits that the independent claims, and all the claims that depend therefrom are allowable.”
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 to the references individually, whereas the rejection is based on the combined teaching of Mandal and Rivest. The Mandal reference discloses delayed-access encryption in a blockchain environment. And, the Rivest reference teaches the time-lock puzzle mechanism. A person having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivative to modify the features of Mandal with the features of Rivest to provide access to transaction information based on the time or condition being met. Furthermore, the amended claim language “so that the blockchain transaction cannot be decrypted until after the time-lock puzzle is solved to prevent the blockchain transaction from being decrypted at a time that is before the first time plus the minimum solving time” falls under intended result of using time-lock puzzle parameters. Furthermore, the rejection is maintained, and the dependent claims remain rejected by virtue of dependency and art rejection.
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
Prosecution Insights