DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/14/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
This is a Final Office Action prepared in response to applicant’s amendment filed on 06/12/2026.
Claims 5-6, 9-13 and 18-20 are cancelled.
Claims 1-4, 7-8 and 14-17 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 14 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, 14 and 15 recite the limitation "the blockchain network" in “receiving an alert P2P message over the blockchain network and extracting a transaction from the alert P2P message”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1, 14 and 15, the recited limitation of “a blockchain network” in “identifying, at a mining node in a blockchain network, that the transaction is an alert transaction” should be amended to “the blockchain network” as “a blockchain network” was previously recited.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 7-8 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-4 and 7-8 are directed to computer- implemented method (i.e., process). Claims 14 and 16-17 are directed to a system (i.e., machine, and manufacture). Claim 15 is directed to a computer-storage media (i.e., manufacture). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention and thus must be further analyzed at Step 2A to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.03, subsection II).
Step 2A Prong One: Claim 1, recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea. More specifically, the following bolded claim elements recite abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
A computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving an alert P2P message over the blockchain network and extracting a transaction from the alert P2P message
identifying, at a mining node in a blockchain network, that the transaction is an alert transaction;
extracting an alert message from an output field of the alert transaction, where in the alert message is a signed serialized alert message;
validating, using one or more alert administrator public keys, one or more signatures within the alert message by extracting the one or more signatures from the signed serialized alert message leaving a null signature field to result in a modified serialized alert message, hashing the modified serialized alert message to obtain a hash result, and verifying the one or more signatures using the hash result and corresponding one or more public keys associated with an alert administration service; and
based on the one or more signatures being validated, processing an instruction within the alert message, wherein processing includes one of invaliding a block, banning a peer node, freezing a transaction outpoint, or validating and propagating a confiscation transaction.
Claim 1 recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) a method for processing alert transactions. The claim achieves this by receiving a P2P message, extracting a transaction from the P2P message, identifying that a transaction is an alert, extracting the message from the transaction, validating the message by extracting one or more signatures from the message, hashing the message, verifying the one or more signatures using the hash result, the extracted signature and a corresponding public key and processing the instructions in the message upon validating it. Claims 14 and 15 are significantly similar to claim 1. As such claim 14 and 15 also recite an abstract idea. Specifically, but for the additional elements, the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas (i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
In regards to “validating, using one or more alert administrator public keys, one or more signatures within the alert message by extracting the one or more signatures from the signed serialized alert message leaving a null signature field to result in a modified serialized alert message, hashing the modified serialized alert message to obtain a hash result, and verifying the one or more signatures using the hash result and corresponding one or more public keys associated with an alert administration service” the examiner finds these to further recite an abstract idea as the recitations recite mental process using pen and paper and mathematical concept. Claims 14 and 15 are significantly similar to claim 1. As such claim 14 and 15 also recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: Because the claim recites abstract ideas, the analysis proceeds to
determine whether the claim recites additional elements that recite a practical application of the
abstract ideas. Here, the additional elements of a mining node, a blockchain network, a block and a peer node merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claim as a whole fail to recite a practical application of the abstract ideas.
Step 2B: Determines whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the exception itself. Evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Here, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements merely serve as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Dependent Claims: Claims 2-4, 7-8 and 16-17 have also been analyzed for subject matter eligibility. The claims recite bolded claim elements as abstract ideas and non-bolded claim elements, if
any, as additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). Accordingly, claims 2-4, 7-8 and 16-17 also fail to recite patent eligible subject matter for the following reasons:
Claims 2 and 16 recite:
identifying that a transaction is an alert transaction is at least partly based on identifying an alert code in the output field.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The claim does not recite any additional elements for consideration under Step 2A prong two and Step 2B. Therefore, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claims 3 and 17 recite:
the alert message includes an alert type field signaling one of a predefined set of alert types.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The claim does not recite any additional elements for consideration under Step 2A prong two and Step 2B. Therefore, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claim 4 recite:
the predefined set of alert types include, at least, an information alert, a ban peer alert, an unban peer alert, a freeze alert, an unfreeze alert, an invalidate block alert, a reconsider block alert, and a confiscate alert.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The claim does not recite any additional elements for consideration under Step 2A prong two and Step 2B. Therefore, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claim 7 recite:
the freezing the transaction output includes obtaining the transaction outpoint from the instruction within the alert message and recording the transaction output as frozen within an order database.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The claim does not recite any additional elements for consideration under Step 2A prong two and Step 2B. Therefore, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claim 8 recites:
the validating and propagating a confiscation transaction includes extracting the confiscation transaction from within the alert message and whitelisting the confiscation transaction within an order database, and wherein validating and propagating the confiscation transaction includes validating based on its inclusion in the whitelist.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional element of an order database fails 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)). Further, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 7-8, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sewell (US 2021/0124731 A1), in further view of Microsoft (Verifying a Signed Message. January 07, 2021. < Verifying a Signed Message - Win32 apps | Microsoft Learn>), in further view of Dalton (US 20220198559 A1), in further view of Bitcoin (Protocol documentation. July 30, 2021. < https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_documentation#alert>).
Regarding claims 1, 14 and 15, Sewell discloses:
receiving an alert P2P message over the blockchain network and extracting a transaction from the alert P2P message; (Sewell, abstract, A computer-implemented method for transferring a total data record from an input node to an output node using a blockchain. The total data record may be a total payment, in some cases, such as using Bitcoin. The output node shares public key material and the input node selects unspent transaction outputs to use in paying the total value, and determines a plurality of outputs payable to the output node in fixed denominations. The input node generates an output address for each output using the public key material and a respective random number, and mixes the inputs and outputs in one or more coin mixing transactions. ¶0044, In accordance with the present application a method and device are described that facilitate the transfer of a total data record from an input node to an output node in a manner that increases the privacy and security of the distribution and provides impediments to linking the distribution to a particular input and/or output and for tracing the distribution or revealing associated information about the input node. Doing so within the structure of a blockchain protocol while ensuring security presents significant technical implementation challenges. ¶0057, In this situation, the owner of the input node 202 intends to transfer a total value to the owner of the output node 204. ¶0091, Reference will now be made to FIG. 4, which shows, in flowchart form, one example method 400 for making a blockchain-based payment from an input node to an output node in accordance with an aspect of the present application. The method 400 includes obtaining public key material from the output node in operation 402. In this example, the public key material includes BPriv.sub.x and BPriv.sub.y, although in some other implementations the output node public key material may take a different form.)
identifying, at a mining node in a blockchain network, that the transaction is an alert transaction; (¶0025, In some implementations, searching the blockchain includes identifying coin mixing transactions containing a non-transactional code… ¶0054, In some cases, the input node 202 may be a full node, or even a mining node, but in the present example, the input node 202 is a lightweight node, which in many cases may be referred to as a “wallet”. ¶0076, In cases where the output node 204 is not directly given the nonce public keys but rather it searches the blockchain to find transactions containing non-transactional data and trying to identify corresponding outputs in coin mixing transactions… ¶0082, The searching may be based on identifying transactions that contain a particular signal or code signifying the presence of non-transactional data, which could potentially be the nonce public key(s). In one implementation, the signal detected is a non-transactional code, such as OP_RETURN (or its functional equivalent) in the Bitcoin protocol, which indicates that the data following the code is non-transactional. ¶0100, In operation 506, having identified a candidate transaction that contains non-transactional data, the output node extracts the non-transactional data and tests whether the data can be used to generate one of the output addresses in the transaction.
extracting an alert message from an output field of the alert transaction, (¶0074, If it finds such a transaction, it extracts the non-transactional data on the basis that it may be a nonce public key and uses that data together with its public key material to generate a possible output address. ¶0082, For each field, in turn, the output node 204 extracts the data (which it presumes could be a nonce public key R.sub.i)… ¶0100, In operation 506, having identified a candidate transaction that contains non-transactional data, the output node extracts the non-transactional data and tests whether the data can be used to generate one of the output addresses in the transaction.)
Sewell further discloses:
one or more processors; memory; and computer-executable instructions stored in the memory (¶0026, Yet other implementations described herein include computing devices having memory, processor(s) and executable instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to carry out the operations of one or more of the methods described herein.)
A computer-readable medium storing processor-executable instructions (claim 16, A non-transitory processor-readable medium storing processor-executable instructions to transfer a total data record between an input node and an output node using a blockchain, wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed by a processor in one of the input node or the output node, cause the processor to carry out the method claimed in claim 1.)
Sewell does not disclose, however Microsoft teaches:
validating, using one or more alert administrator public keys, one or more signatures within the alert message by extracting the one or more signatures from the signed serialized alert message leaving a null signature field to result in a modified serialized alert message, (P.1 #3, Using the signer ID contained in the message, get the sender's certificate and get a handle to its public key. P.2 #4, Using the signer's public key, decrypt the digital signature, producing the original digest of the data in the message.)
hashing the modified serialized alert message to obtain a hash result, and (P.2 #5, Using the hash algorithm contained in the message, hash the data contained in the message, yielding a new digest.)
verifying the one or more signatures using the hash result and corresponding one or more public keys associated with an alert administration service; and (P.2 #6, Compare the digest retrieved from the message with the new digest just created. P.2 #7, If the two digests match, the signature is verified. This means that the private key that was used to sign the data matches the public key just used to decrypt the signature, and that the data has not changed since the data was signed.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Sewell by incorporating Microsoft’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements in ensure that the receiver can independently verify the authenticity of the alert message using the public key without having to contact the sender or a third-party service.
The combination of Sewell and Microsoft does not disclose, however Dalton teaches:
based on the one or more signatures being validated, processing an instruction within the alert message, wherein processing includes one of invaliding a block, banning a peer node, freezing a transaction outpoint, or validating and propagating a confiscation transaction. (¶0020, In some embodiments, the use of a UTXO token transaction model by a DLTN may allow a token administrator to track and freeze/clawback tainted UTXO tokens (e.g., UTXO tokens used in an illicit transaction on a DLTN).¶0037, In some embodiments, when discovering that a UTXO token is a tainted token, the token administrator may wish to freeze or clawback the UTXO token. In some cases, a UTXO token may be “frozen” on the DLTN by listing the UTXO token (e.g, its UTXO token identifier) in the clawback list so that the UTXO token may not be transferred between accounts on the DLTN.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Sewell and Microsoft by incorporating Dalton’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements in order to process an alert message including instructions to freeze a token as a security measure.
Further, the claimed limitation “to…” in “validating, using one or more alert administrator public keys, one or more signatures within the alert message by extracting the one or more signatures from the signed serialized alert message leaving a null signature field to result in a modified serialized alert message” consists of language disclosing an intended use, so it is considered but given no patentable weight. (see MPEP 2111.05, MPEP 2114 and authorities cited therein). The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
The combination of Sewell, Microsoft and Dalton does not disclose, however Bitcoin teaches:
the alert message is a signed serialized alert message and wherein (Bitcoin P.24, The payload is serialized into a uchar[] to ensure that versions using incompatible alert formats can still relay alerts among one another. P.24, The payload is serialized into a uchar[] to ensure that versions using incompatible alert formats can still relay alerts among one another. See Alert format table (P.23) that shows the message is signed and serialized.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Sewell, Microsoft and Dalton by incorporating Bitcoin’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements in order to “ensure that versions using incompatible alert formats can still relay alerts among one another” (Bitcoin).
Regarding claims 2 and 16, the combination of Sewell, Microsoft, Dalton and Bitcoin further discloses:
identifying that a transaction is an alert transaction is at least partly based on identifying an alert code in the output field. (Sewell ¶0082, The searching may be based on identifying transactions that contain a particular signal or code signifying the presence of non-transactional data, which could potentially be the nonce public key(s). In one implementation, the signal detected is a non-transactional code, such as OP_RETURN (or its functional equivalent) in the Bitcoin protocol, which indicates that the data following the code is non-transactional.)
Regarding claims 7 and 8, the combination of Sewell, Microsoft, Dalton and Bitcoin teach all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, the combination of Sewell, Microsoft, Dalton and Bitcoin reads on claims 7-8 as claims 7-8 are directed to further limiting optional limitations in claim 1.
Claims 3, 4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sewell, Microsoft, Dalton and Bitcoin as applied to claims 1 and 14, in view of Schaefer (US 20050193056 A1).
Regarding claims 3 and 17, the combination of Sewell, Microsoft, Dalton and Bitcoin does not disclose, however Schaefer teaches:
the alert message includes an alert type field signaling one of a predefined set of alert types. (Abstract, Novel message formats for use in a distributed transaction environment are disclosed. Each message includes a message type field, a message length field, and a data field, typically in the foregoing order, and each field in the message has a fixed number of bytes. See claim 1.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Sewell, Microsoft, Dalton and Bitcoin by incorporating Schaefer’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements in order to differentiate what kind of alert it is so the node knows what action to perform.
Further, the claimed limitation “…includes an alert type field signaling one of a predefined set of alert types” only describes characteristics of the fields included in the alert message, which is stored data, and these characteristics are not processed or used to carry out any functionality that specifically relies on these particular characteristics. Therefore, the limitation recites non-functional descriptive material and does not serve to differentiate the claims from the prior art. When descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in terms of patentability. It has been held that where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Sewell, Microsoft, Dalton, Bitcoin and Schaefer further discloses:
the predefined set of alert types include, at least, an information alert, a ban peer alert, an unban peer alert, a freeze alert, an unfreeze alert, an invalidate block alert, a reconsider block alert, and a confiscate alert (¶0069, Table 3 below lists the Message Types in accordance with a preferred embodiment of the invention… 23 Data This message type is used for everything else that is exchanged over a connection.)
Further the claimed limitation “… include, at least, an information alert, a ban peer alert, an unban peer alert, a freeze alert, an unfreeze alert, an invalidate block alert, a reconsider block alert, and a confiscate alert” only describes characteristics of the alert types, which is stored data, and these characteristics are not processed or used to carry out any functionality that specifically relies on these particular characteristics. Therefore, the limitation recites non-functional descriptive material and does not serve to differentiate the claims from the prior art. When descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in terms of patentability. It has been held that where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Sewell, Microsoft, Dalton, Bitcoin and Schaefer by incorporating Schaefer’s additional teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements in order to standardize communication between the nodes and improve the system efficiency.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 101
The applicant presents several assertions regarding claim rejection 101 in the previous office action. The basis of these assertions are based on the applicant’s argument on pages 12-16.
The applicant asserts that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The examiner finds this assertion not persuasive and respectfully disagrees. The examiner maintains that the claims remain directed to an abstract idea, specifically directed toward certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), mathematical concepts and mental processes. The abstract idea described in the claims belongs to the group of commercial or legal interactions because it focusses on receiving, validating and processing messages. As per MPEP 2106.04(a), in step 2A prong one to determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea, the specific limitations in the claim under examination must be identified and analyzed to determine whether they fall within at least one of the recognize groupings of abstract ideas. If one of the limitations in the examined claim falls within one of the groups, it is reasonable to conclude that the claims recite an abstract idea, and the examination continues to step 2A prong two.
The applicant asserts that the claimed subject matter recites a specific, ordered sequence of cryptographic operations performed at a mining node of a blockchain network… The examiner finds this assertion not persuasive and respectfully disagrees. The amended claim does not recite an ordered sequence of operations. Even assuming that the claim recites a specific sequence of operations, the mere recitation of a specific sequence of operations at a mining node does not establish a technological improvement. A specific sequence of operations merely indicates the order in which the information is received, verified and acted upon within the blockchain network. It does not recite a technological improvement to the blockchain network or any other computer technology.
The applicant asserts that the claimed subject matter addresses a specific technological problem in the field of blockchain technology by implementing an in-protocol, cryptographically authenticated mechanism for effecting network wide enforcement actions on an otherwise immutable, trustless, decentralized ledger without requiring network wide software changes and cites portions of the specification related to the alleged problem being solved. The examiner finds this assertion not persuasive and respectfully disagrees. The claim as amended recites receiving and extracting a transaction, validating signatures through cryptographic operations and processing an instruction based on the validation results utilizing known information processing and cryptographic techniques within a blockchain network.
The applicant asserts that the validation operations recited in the claim are not merely routine and commonplace operations and instead they integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Further, the applicant asserts that the claimed subject matter solves a technical challenge unique to blockchain networks by providing new, ordered set of computer implemented operations and constitutes a concrete improvement to the operation of the blockchain network itself rather than a mere use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The examiner finds this assertion not persuasive and respectfully disagrees. The validation operation, including extracting a signature leaving a null signature, hashing the modified message and verifying the signature using the hash and corresponding public key, are known cryptographic techniques used to authenticate data. Reciting them in a particular sequence does not establish that they are non-routine or that they improve the blockchain technology. Further, the subsequent processing of an instruction based on the successful validation of the signatures merely applies the validation results to a desired blockchain action (i.e. invalidating a block, banning a peer node, freezing a transaction outpoint or validating and propagating a confiscation transaction). The amended claim does not recite how these actions improve the operation of the blockchain itself.
The applicant asserts that the claimed subject matter amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception because it provides an ordered combination of elements that are not conventional, and the claimed subject matter includes features that are not well-understood, routine or conventional in the field of blockchain networks. The examiner finds this assertion not persuasive and respectfully disagrees. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 was not based on the determination that the recited steps are routine or conventional. Rather, the claims are directed to an abstract idea and do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, whether the claimed steps are routine or unconventional does not overcome the rejection. Even assuming, arguendo, that the steps are not routine or conventional, the claim still recites the abstract idea implemented using generic computer components and does not amount to significantly more than the underlining abstract idea.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim rejection 103 have been considered but are not persuasive. The applicant assert’s that the Microsoft reference does not teach “extracting the one or more signatures from the signed serialized alert message leaving a null signature field to result in a modified serialized alert message, hashing the modified serialized alert message to obtain a hash result, and verifying the one or more signatures using the hash result and corresponding one or more public keys associated with an alert administration service”. The examiner respectfully disagrees with this assertion. Microsoft does teach the same underlining signature verification process. Both processes use a public key to verify the signature, recover the original hash (or digest) by extracting the digital signature utilizing the public key, hash the message data to obtain a new hash and compare both hashes to determine that the signature is valid. Further, the recited “one or more public keys associated with an alert administration service” merely specifies the signer that the public key belongs to and does not the cryptographic verification process.
Relevant Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 8607334 B2 to Brown discloses: Systems and methods for secure e-mail message processing. A device is configured to receive a secure electronic message. The message may then be processed to determine whether the sender's address provided in the message is indicative of the sender's address provided in a sender's security-related certificate. A message's recipient can be notified based upon the determination.
US 20190306173 A1 to Reddy discloses: Provided is a process that includes: calling an alert program configured to execute on a decentralized computing platform and access records on a blockchain, wherein: the decentralized computing platform is configured to execute multiple instances of the program to produce multiple instances of candidate results, the decentralized computing platform is configured to determine an output of the alert program in response to the call with a first consensus algorithm, the alert program is configured to verify a cryptographic signature of the call and determine whether an alerting entity is authorized to issue the alert, and the alert program is configured to publish the information about the software asset to alert recipients or to the blockchain upon verifying the cryptographic signature and determining that the alerting entity is authorized to issue the alert.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JANICE LOZA whose telephone number is (571)270-3979. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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.
/J.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/STEVEN S KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights