DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, 18/890,562, filed 09/19/2024 is a Continuation of PCT/US2023/016089, filed on 03/23/2023, which in turn claims priority from U.S. Provisional Application 63/323,665, filed on 03/25/2022.
The effective filing date is after the AIA date of March 16, 2013, and so the application is being examined under the “first inventor to file” provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Status of the Application
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to Applicant’s communication of xxxx xx, xxxx.
Claims 1-19 and 22 are pending, of which claim 18 is independent.
All pending claims have been examined on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on Apr. 2, 2025 has been considered.
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 1-19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea, without “significantly more”.
Based on the flowchart in MPEP § 2106, Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo analysis is: “Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?”
In regards to Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo analysis, independent claim 1 is an apparatus claim.
For the sake of compact prosecution, we continue with the Alice/Mayo “abstract idea” analysis.
Step 2A, prong 1 of the Alice/Mayo analysis is: “Does the claim recite a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature), or an abstract idea?”
In regards to Step 2A, prongs 1 and 2 of the Alice/Mayo analysis, the abstract idea elements recited in independent claim 1 are shown in italic font. (The “additional elements” and “extra solution steps” are shown in italic and underlined font):
1. (Original) A blockchain-based lending or loan processing platform comprising:
a blockchain onboarding system comprising a smart contract execution environment (CEE), wherein the blockchain onboarding system is configured to:
(1) automatically process loan data from a loan origination system (LOS) for virtual execution of one or more loan contracts within the CEE, wherein the loan data comprises a plurality of loan-related facts;
(2) encrypt the loan-related facts to generate a plurality of encrypted facts associated with one or more loan assets; and
(3) generate a plurality of hashes for the encrypted facts, wherein the hashes are recorded on a blockchain, and wherein combinations of each encrypted fact with its corresponding hash are deposited in an encrypted object store (EOS) separate from the blockchain.
More specifically, claims 1-19 and 22 recite an abstract idea: “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity", specifically “Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices (including Hedging, Insurance, Mitigating Risk)”, “Commercial or Legal Interactions (Including Agreements in the form of Contracts; Legal Obligations; Advertising, Marketing, or Sales Activities or Behaviors; Business Relations)”, or “Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People (Including Social Activities, Teaching, and Following Rules or Instructions)” as discussed in MPEP §2106(a)(2) Parts (I) and (II), and in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
The “Commercial or Legal Interactions” elements include:
“automatically process loan data from a loan origination system (LOS) for virtual execution of one or more loan contracts within the CEE”.
“wherein the loan data comprises a plurality of loan-related facts”.
Moreover, claims 1-20 recite “Mathematical Concepts", specifically “Mathematical Relationships”, “Mathematical Formulas or Equations”, and “Mathematical Calculations”, as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2) Part (IV), and in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
The mathematic elements, recited at a very high level of abstraction and generality, include:
“encrypt the loan-related facts to generate a plurality of encrypted facts associated with one or more loan assets”.
“generate a plurality of hashes for the encrypted facts”.
The “additional elements” include: “a blockchain onboarding system” and “a smart contract execution environment (CEE)”.
Moreover, “additional extra-solution elements” include: “wherein the hashes are recorded on a blockchain”, and “wherein combinations of each encrypted fact with its corresponding hash are deposited in an encrypted object store (EOS) separate from the blockchain”.
Step 2A, prong 2 of the Alice/Mayo analysis is “Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?”
In regards to Step 2A, prong 2 of the Alice/Mayo analysis, this abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, because:
The claim amounts to adding the "apply it" steps (or an equivalent) on a general purpose computer, with the abstract idea, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
The generically recited computer elements (“a blockchain onboarding system” and “a smart contract execution environment (CEE)”) do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea, because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
The extra-solution activities (“wherein the hashes are recorded on a blockchain”, and “wherein combinations of each encrypted fact with its corresponding hash are deposited in an encrypted object store (EOS) separate from the blockchain”) do not add a meaningful limitation to the method.
The combination of the abstract idea with the additional elements (generically recited computer elements), with the extra-solution activities, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo analysis is: “Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?”
In regards to Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo analysis, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, because:
When considering the elements "alone and in combination" (“a blockchain onboarding system” and “a smart contract execution environment (CEE)”), they do not add significantly more (also known as an "inventive concept") to the exception, because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Instead, they merely add the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
In regards to the extra solution activities (“wherein the hashes are recorded on a blockchain”, and “wherein combinations of each encrypted fact with its corresponding hash are deposited in an encrypted object store (EOS) separate from the blockchain”), these are recognized as such by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
More specifically, in regards to the “recording” and “depositing” steps, see the court cases Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (storing and retrieving information in memory); and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (storing and retrieving information in memory).
Moreover, in regards to “apply it”, according to MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2):
Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The Examiner holds that the independent claims “use a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data)” or “simply add a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea”.
All dependent claims are also rejected, because they merely further define the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1-19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-2019/0130399-A1 to Wright et al. (“Wright”. Eff. Filed on Apr. 11, 2016. Published on May 2, 2019) in view of US-2022/0027988-A1 to Leonard et al. (“Leonard”. Eff. Filed on Dec. 10, 2020. Published on Jan. 27, 2022).
In regards to claim 1, Wright teaches:
1. (Original) A blockchain-based lending or loan processing platform comprising:
(See Wright, Abstract: “The invention comprises a computer-implemented method and system for controlling an exchange process, such as a loan, conducted between at least two parties via a blockchain such as the Bitcoin blockchain.”)
(See Wright, para. [0001]: “This invention relates generally to a tokenisation method and a tokenisation system. In particular, it relates to the transfer of contracts. It may be suited for use with a P2P lending process. It may be used in conjunction with any peer-to-peer distributed network. This may be blockchain-related technology, including (but not limited to) the Bitcoin Blockchain.”)
a blockchain … system comprising a smart contract execution environment (CEE), wherein the blockchain … system is configured to:
(See Wright, para. [0006]: “One area of current research is the use of the blockchain for the implementation of “smart contracts”. These are computer programs designed to automate the execution of the terms of a machine-readable contract or agreement. Unlike a traditional contract which would be written in natural language, a smart contract is a machine executable program which comprises rules that can process inputs in order to produce results, which can then cause actions to be performed dependent upon those results.”)
(See Wright, para. [0056]: “The smart contact may be generated if it is determined that there is a match (correspondence) between data contained within the invitation and the response. The smart contract may be generated by an automated process i.e. by computer.”)
(1) automatically process loan data from a loan origination system (LOS) for virtual execution of one or more loan contracts within the CEE,
(See Wright, para. [0012]: “Therefore, in accordance with the invention there may be provided a method and corresponding system for controlling the performance of a process conducted via (i.e. using) a blockchain. The block chain may or may not be the Bitcoin blockchain. The process may be a communication, exchange or transfer process. It may comprise the transfer, communication or exchange of a digital asset, or any type of asset which is referenced or represented on the blockchain. The controlled process may, for example, be a lending process. It may be a peer-to-peer lending process conducted between a plurality of blockchain users. The terms “user” or “party” may refer to a human or machine-based entity. Each blockchain user may use suitably configured hardware and software to participate in the process (e.g. a computer with a bitcoin client installed on it). The invention may also be referred to as a security solution, system and/or method as it comprises the use of cryptographic techniques to ensure the secure communication/transfer between parties.”)
However, under a conservative interpretation of Wright, it could be argued that Wright does not explicitly teach the following features, which are taught by Leonard:
a blockchain onboarding system comprising a smart contract execution environment (CEE), wherein the blockchain onboarding system is configured to:
(See Leonard, para. [0102]: “Onboarding of Legacy Records 715 via an Ingestion Controller 717 includes presentation of the Legacy Records 715 to the Ingestion Controller 717, the presentation may be accomplished via digital communication across a communications network 718, or via a storage medium, such as a storage disk, a solid state memory, tape of other device suitable for storage of digital data.”)
(See Leonard, para. [0109]: “Legacy Records 715 may be ingested in variously sized onboarding activities. For example, Legacy Records 715 pertaining to a single Mortgage Loan may be ingested, such as, for example, a Mortgage Loan originated by a mortgage broker that is passed over to the Blockchain system 700 for Mortgage Loan servicing tracking. In such cases, the Legacy Records 715 may not include even a single payment record, and accounting benefits associated with the Blockchain 701 will apply for the term of the Mortgage Loan, with the Legacy Records 715 including the parties to the Mortgage Loan transactions, terms of the Mortgage Loan and the like.”)
wherein the loan data comprises a plurality of loan-related facts;
(See Leonard, para. [0044]: “According to the present invention, a Participant to a Loan operates a computerized node to access a Blockchain memorializing executed actions that relate to a Mortgage Loan. When a Participant initiates a new Loan Action based on an event, such as receipt of a work order, the Participant creates a new Block on an associated Blockchain, encodes associated new Action data on the new Block, and transmits an updated Blockchain to Participants. A Participant may include a Person accessible via an automated network access device or an automaton, such as an Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) bot or the like.”)
(2) encrypt the loan-related facts to generate a plurality of encrypted facts associated with one or more loan assets; and
(See Leonard, para. [0054]-[0055]: ““Hash” as used herein means an encrypted value of a fixed length. “Hashing” as used herein means that act of converting a string of unencrypted data of variable length into a string of encrypted data of a fixed length.”)
(3) generate a plurality of hashes for the encrypted facts, wherein the hashes are recorded on a blockchain, and
(See Leonard, para. [0100]-[0101]: “In some embodiments, the Legacy Records 715 will be contained in a relational database. In some embodiments, the Legacy Records 715 are extracted from the relational database and parsed into multiple blocks that are entered into the Blockchain 701 as a Ledger Entries 702-704.
Each Leger Entry 702-704 is associated with a Hash pointer that points to a previous Ledger Entry 702-704 (Block). Each Ledger Entry 702-704 contains data that may be encrypted. In addition, a Hash pointer contains a Hash of data contained in the previous Ledger Entry 702-704. The Hash pointers provide a secure link between two blocks entered as Ledger Entries 702-704. A Ledger Entry 702-704 may also include a unique identifier (which may be coded), as described in more detail in connection with FIG. 8.”)
wherein combinations of each encrypted fact with its corresponding hash are deposited in an encrypted object store (EOS) separate from the blockchain.
(See Leonard, para. [0111]: “In another aspect, a system 700 of Blockchain ingestion will store some data in an Off-Blockchain database 705 such that access to confidential, sensitive or regulated data may be controlled, while one or more Ledger Entries 702-704 indicate that such Off Blockchain Data 705 exists. Typically, access to Off Blockchain Data 705 is controlled via metadata. In some embodiments, each access to the Off Blockchain Data 705 may be recorded on the Blockchain 701 as an event and memorialized as a Ledger Entry 702-704.”)
(See Leonard, para. [0114]: “Still further, some embodiments may include portions of Legacy Records 715 that are stored as Off-Blockchain Data and accessible via the Blockchain 701. Storage of Legacy Records 715 as Off-Blockchain Data 705 allows for more efficient data management. Off-Blockchain Data may also include Loan Servicing Files.”)
(See Leonard, para. [0122]: “At method step 806, data associated with Legacy Records may be placed in Off-Blockchain storage. Off Blockchain storage may include artifacts, such as documents, or related data. The Off-Blockchain storage is effective in limiting the size of the Blockchain.”)
(See Leonard, para. [0123]: “At method step 807, portions of the Off-Blockchain data may be associated with one or more particular Blockchain Ledger Entries.”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA), before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include in the “method for secure peer-to-peer communication on a blockchain”, as taught by Wright above, with “methods and apparatus for mortgage loan securitization based upon mortgage servicing stored on blockchain”, as further taught by Leonard above, because: “Storage of Legacy Records 715 as Off-Blockchain Data 705 allows for more efficient data management” (See Leonard, para. [0114]) and “The Off-Blockchain storage is effective in limiting the size of the Blockchain” (See Leonard, para. [0122]).
In regards to claim 2,
2. (Original) The platform of claim 1, wherein each fact corresponds to a single or discrete piece of data whose hash is to be recorded on the blockchain.
(See Leonard, para. [0009]: “Relatedly, not all users are permitted to view all data for a Mortgage Loan. For example, while a Borrower should generally be able to see every document pertaining to the Borrower's Loan, the Borrower may not be entitled to listen to a recording between a Lender and Legal Counsel concerning a loan. Similarly, a Vendor providing an appraisal should not have access to all data in the Mortgage Loan serving file, for example, the appraiser may not be privy to a Borrowers Social Security Number, or other Personal data.”)
(See Leonard, para. [0014]: “Some aspects of data included in the Blockchain Ledger may be protects, but a record of its existence always remains on the blockchain. Entities with different roles related to a loan may have access to different information. Such as, by way of non-limiting example, a Certified Mortgage Banker (CMB) may be permissioned to view data on the platform and owners/servicers of a Collateralized Debt Obligation (CDO) may have access to information related to a last failure, an owner/servicer of a collateralized mortgage obligation may have still different permissions to piece of the information included on the blockchain, all identified via the unique loan identifier.”)
(See Leonard, para. [0111]: “In another aspect, a system 700 of Blockchain ingestion will store some data in an Off-Blockchain database 705 such that access to confidential, sensitive or regulated data may be controlled, while one or more Ledger Entries 702-704 indicate that such Off Blockchain Data 705 exists. Typically, access to Off Blockchain Data 705 is controlled via metadata. In some embodiments, each access to the Off Blockchain Data 705 may be recorded on the Blockchain 701 as an event and memorialized as a Ledger Entry 702-704.”)
In regards to claim 3,
3. (Original) The platform of claim 1, wherein the CEE is configured to keep confidential data relating to the one or more loan assets off from the blockchain, while maintaining the ability to use the blockchain for ensuring data integrity.
(See Leonard, para. [0014]: “Some aspects of data included in the Blockchain Ledger may be protects, but a record of its existence always remains on the blockchain. Entities with different roles related to a loan may have access to different information. Such as, by way of non-limiting example, a Certified Mortgage Banker (CMB) may be permissioned to view data on the platform and owners/servicers of a Collateralized Debt Obligation (CDO) may have access to information related to a last failure, an owner/servicer of a collateralized mortgage obligation may have still different permissions to piece of the information included on the blockchain, all identified via the unique loan identifier.”)
(See Leonard, para. [0111]: “In another aspect, a system 700 of Blockchain ingestion will store some data in an Off-Blockchain database 705 such that access to confidential, sensitive or regulated data may be controlled, while one or more Ledger Entries 702-704 indicate that such Off Blockchain Data 705 exists. Typically, access to Off Blockchain Data 705 is controlled via metadata. In some embodiments, each access to the Off Blockchain Data 705 may be recorded on the Blockchain 701 as an event and memorialized as a Ledger Entry 702-704.”)
In regards to claim 4,
4. (Original) The platform of claim 3, wherein the hashes of the encrypted facts are recorded on the blockchain, and wherein the encrypted facts are not recorded on the blockchain.
(See Leonard, para. [0014]: “Some aspects of data included in the Blockchain Ledger may be protects, but a record of its existence always remains on the blockchain. Entities with different roles related to a loan may have access to different information. Such as, by way of non-limiting example, a Certified Mortgage Banker (CMB) may be permissioned to view data on the platform and owners/servicers of a Collateralized Debt Obligation (CDO) may have access to information related to a last failure, an owner/servicer of a collateralized mortgage obligation may have still different permissions to piece of the information included on the blockchain, all identified via the unique loan identifier.”)
(See Leonard, para. [0111]: “In another aspect, a system 700 of Blockchain ingestion will store some data in an Off-Blockchain database 705 such that access to confidential, sensitive or regulated data may be controlled, while one or more Ledger Entries 702-704 indicate that such Off Blockchain Data 705 exists. Typically, access to Off Blockchain Data 705 is controlled via metadata. In some embodiments, each access to the Off Blockchain Data 705 may be recorded on the Blockchain 701 as an event and memorialized as a Ledger Entry 702-704.”)
In regards to claim 5,
5. (Original) The platform of claim 3, wherein the EOS is local to or part of the CEE.
(See Leonard, para. [0014]: “Some aspects of data included in the Blockchain Ledger may be protects, but a record of its existence always remains on the blockchain. Entities with different roles related to a loan may have access to different information. Such as, by way of non-limiting example, a Certified Mortgage Banker (CMB) may be permissioned to view data on the platform and owners/servicers of a Collateralized Debt Obligation (CDO) may have access to information related to a last failure, an owner/servicer of a collateralized mortgage obligation may have still different permissions to piece of the information included on the blockchain, all identified via the unique loan identifier.”)
(See Leonard, para. [0111]: “In another aspect, a system 700 of Blockchain ingestion will store some data in an Off-Blockchain database 705 such that access to confidential, sensitive or regulated data may be controlled, while one or more Ledger Entries 702-704 indicate that such Off Blockchain Data 705 exists. Typically, access to Off Blockchain Data 705 is controlled via metadata. In some embodiments, each access to the Off Blockchain Data 705 may be recorded on the Blockchain 701 as an event and memorialized as a Ledger Entry 702-704.”)
In regards to claim 6,
6. (Original) The platform of claim 1, wherein the plurality of loan-related facts comprise credit scores, borrower information or profile, electronic copies of signed security instruments, copies of electronic promissory notes (eNotes), third party review (TPR) diligence results, and/or terms of a loan.
(See Leonard, para. [0009]: “Relatedly, not all users are permitted to view all data for a Mortgage Loan. For example, while a Borrower should generally be able to see every document pertaining to the Borrower's Loan, the Borrower may not be entitled to listen to a recording between a Lender and Legal Counsel concerning a loan. Similarly, a Vendor providing an appraisal should not have access to all data in the Mortgage Loan serving file, for example, the appraiser may not be privy to a Borrowers Social Security Number, or other Personal data.”)
(See Leonard, para. [0014]: “Some aspects of data included in the Blockchain Ledger may be protects, but a record of its existence always remains on the blockchain. Entities with different roles related to a loan may have access to different information. Such as, by way of non-limiting example, a Certified Mortgage Banker (CMB) may be permissioned to view data on the platform and owners/servicers of a Collateralized Debt Obligation (CDO) may have access to information related to a last failure, an owner/servicer of a collateralized mortgage obligation may have still different permissions to piece of the information included on the blockchain, all identified via the unique loan identifier.”)
The Examiner holds that the claimed specific types of data are merely intended use examples of the “permissioned to view data” disclosed in Leonard.
In regards to claim 7,
7. (Original) The platform of claim 1, wherein the loan data is originated by an originating party, and wherein the platform is configured to enable the originating party to create a unique wallet having a root key pair comprising of a public key and a private key.
(See Leonard, para. [0071]: “Due to a potentially sensitive nature of an Electronic File (e.g. a file with content relating to Personally identifiable financial documents), the Electronic File may be encrypted. For example, encryption may be implemented via Rivest-Shamir-Adleman (“RSA”) cryptosystem for secure data transmission or another cryptography method for data transmission and/or storage. RSA cryptography is an asymmetric encryption scheme, comprising the use of a private and public key.”)
(See Leonard, para. [0072]: “In some embodiments of the present invention, Participants receive a public key to allow encryption of information included in an Electronic File stored on a Blockchain. However, in some embodiments, at 105, only those Participants authorized to view an Electronic File receive an affiliated private decryption key.”)
The Examiner interprets that “a unique wallet” is merely a computer account that contains the private and public keys.
In regards to claim 8,
8. (Original) The platform of claim 7, wherein the loan-related facts are encrypted using the originating party’s public key.
(See Leonard, para. [0071]: “Due to a potentially sensitive nature of an Electronic File (e.g. a file with content relating to Personally identifiable financial documents), the Electronic File may be encrypted. For example, encryption may be implemented via Rivest-Shamir-Adleman (“RSA”) cryptosystem for secure data transmission or another cryptography method for data transmission and/or storage. RSA cryptography is an asymmetric encryption scheme, comprising the use of a private and public key.”)
In regards to claim 9,
9. (Original) The platform of claim 8, wherein the hashes of the encrypted facts are recorded on the blockchain along with the originating party’s public key and timestamps.
(See Wright, para. [0014]: “Additionally or alternatively, the invention may comprise a computer-implemented method arranged. It may be arranged to control an exchange process conducted between at least two parties via a blockchain. The method may comprise the steps:
generating a first blockchain transaction comprising:
a redeem script comprising a cryptographic public key associated with an initiating party and metadata which includes a hash of a document;
a redeem address; and
an amount of digital currency;
generating a second blockchain transaction to spend the digital currency to the redeem address.”)
(See Wright, para. [0133]: “Each repayment is made in turn and the corresponding transaction timestamped in accordance with known blockchain techniques. The repayment could be split between the actual repayment amount and any interest incurred. This enables any party involved in the loan to see, via the blockchain, if and when a payment has been made. It is also possible for the borrower to pay a scheduled payment early and for this to be visible in the timestamp. Therefore, the invention provides an enhanced mechanism for sharing and exchanging loan-related data via a blockchain.”)
In regards to claim 10,
10. (Original) The platform of claim 7, wherein the private key is useable by the originating party or another party who is given permission by the originating party, to decrypt the encrypted facts stored in the EOS.
(See Wright, Table 6:
“600.20 The Borrower creates a transaction, using the appropriate inputs from their portfolio to pay the collateral to this redeem script. The Borrower signs this transaction using their private key.
600.30 If the asset being transferred requires a signature from the Issuer then the Borrower forwards this transaction to the Issuer who signs it using their private key.
600.40 The transaction is then committed to the public Blockchain.”)
The Examiner holds that that disclosure in Wright inherently includes “decrypt the encrypted facts stored in the EOS”.
In regards to claim 11,
11. (Original) The platform of claim 1, wherein the blockchain contains records of all transactions including loan onboarding and loan asset transfers.
(See Leonard, para. [0014]: “Some aspects of data included in the Blockchain Ledger may be protects, but a record of its existence always remains on the blockchain. Entities with different roles related to a loan may have access to different information. Such as, by way of non-limiting example, a Certified Mortgage Banker (CMB) may be permissioned to view data on the platform and owners/servicers of a Collateralized Debt Obligation (CDO) may have access to information related to a last failure, an owner/servicer of a collateralized mortgage obligation may have still different permissions to piece of the information included on the blockchain, all identified via the unique loan identifier.”)
(See Leonard, para. [0111]: “In another aspect, a system 700 of Blockchain ingestion will store some data in an Off-Blockchain database 705 such that access to confidential, sensitive or regulated data may be controlled, while one or more Ledger Entries 702-704 indicate that such Off Blockchain Data 705 exists. Typically, access to Off Blockchain Data 705 is controlled via metadata. In some embodiments, each access to the Off Blockchain Data 705 may be recorded on the Blockchain 701 as an event and memorialized as a Ledger Entry 702-704.”)
In regards to claim 12,
12. (Original) The platform of claim 1, wherein a collection of loan-related facts collectively constitute a token that is recorded on the blockchain.
(See Leonard, para. [0014]: “Some aspects of data included in the Blockchain Ledger may be protects, but a record of its existence always remains on the blockchain. Entities with different roles related to a loan may have access to different information. Such as, by way of non-limiting example, a Certified Mortgage Banker (CMB) may be permissioned to view data on the platform and owners/servicers of a Collateralized Debt Obligation (CDO) may have access to information related to a last failure, an owner/servicer of a collateralized mortgage obligation may have still different permissions to piece of the information included on the blockchain, all identified via the unique loan identifier.”)
(See Leonard, para. [0111]: “In another aspect, a system 700 of Blockchain ingestion will store some data in an Off-Blockchain database 705 such that access to confidential, sensitive or regulated data may be controlled, while one or more Ledger Entries 702-704 indicate that such Off Blockchain Data 705 exists. Typically, access to Off Blockchain Data 705 is controlled via metadata. In some embodiments, each access to the Off Blockchain Data 705 may be recorded on the Blockchain 701 as an event and memorialized as a Ledger Entry 702-704.”)
In regards to claim 13,
13. (Original) The platform of claim 12, wherein the token comprises a non-fungible token (NFT).
(See Wright, para. [0006]: “Another area of blockchain-related interest is the use of ‘tokens’ (or ‘coloured coins’) to represent and transfer real-world entities via the blockchain. A potentially sensitive or secret item can be represented by the token which has no discernable meaning or value. The token thus serves as an identifier that allows the real-world item to be referenced from the blockchain.”)
The Examiner interprets that these tokens are non-fungible (non-changeable), because if they were changeable the result would be fraud when they were conveyed between parties (by changing the item that the token represents).
In regards to claim 14,
14. (Original) The platform of claim 12, wherein a collection of tokens collectively constitute a loan asset.
(See Wright, para. [0003]: “A blockchain is a peer-to-peer, electronic ledger which is implemented as a computer-based decentralised, distributed system made up of blocks which in turn are made up of transactions. Each transaction is a data structure that encodes the transfer of control of a digital asset between participants in the blockchain system, and includes at least one input and at least one output.”)
(See Wright, para. [0006]: “Another area of blockchain-related interest is the use of ‘tokens’ (or ‘coloured coins’) to represent and transfer real-world entities via the blockchain. A potentially sensitive or secret item can be represented by the token which has no discernable meaning or value. The token thus serves as an identifier that allows the real-world item to be referenced from the blockchain.”)
In regards to claim 15,
15. (Original) The platform of claim 13, wherein each token is assigned a unique identifier.
(See Wright, para. [0006]: “Another area of blockchain-related interest is the use of ‘tokens’ (or ‘coloured coins’) to represent and transfer real-world entities via the blockchain. A potentially sensitive or secret item can be represented by the token which has no discernable meaning or value. The token thus serves as an identifier that allows the real-world item to be referenced from the blockchain.”)
In regards to claim 16x,
16. (Currently Amended) The platform of claims 12, wherein the platform is configured to designate ownership at the token level.
(See Wright, para. [0006]: “Another area of blockchain-related interest is the use of ‘tokens’ (or ‘coloured coins’) to represent and transfer real-world entities via the blockchain. A potentially sensitive or secret item can be represented by the token which has no discernable meaning or value. The token thus serves as an identifier that allows the real-world item to be referenced from the blockchain.”)
(See Wright, para. [0159]: “Ownership of the house's title deeds is tokenised (i.e. represented in metadata in a blockchain transaction) enabling users to easily swap ownership of the 5% mortgage. The system is then used to broadcast the need to raise the 10 bitcoin. Only when the required amount has been raised is a repayment schedule created, with the line of credit maintained in a two line signature address containing details of the Borrower and Investor.”)
In regards to claim 17,
17. (Original) The platform of claim 16, wherein the platform is configured to bifurcate ownership of a token between data owner and value owner.
(See Leonard, para. [0014]: “Some aspects of data included in the Blockchain Ledger may be protects, but a record of its existence always remains on the blockchain. Entities with different roles related to a loan may have access to different information. Such as, by way of non-limiting example, a Certified Mortgage Banker (CMB) may be permissioned to view data on the platform and owners/servicers of a Collateralized Debt Obligation (CDO) may have access to information related to a last failure, an owner/servicer of a collateralized mortgage obligation may have still different permissions to piece of the information included on the blockchain, all identified via the unique loan identifier.”)
The Examiner interprets that the Leonard bifurcates between “an owner/servicer of a collateralized mortgage obligation” and the parties that have “different permissions to piece of the information included on the blockchain”, wherein “all [parties are] identified via the unique loan identifier”.
In regards to claim 18,
18. (Original) The platform of claim 17, wherein the platform recognizes the value owner as an entity that is entitled to the monetary value of the loan asset encompassing the token(s), and permits the value owner to transfer value rights to other parties.
(See Leonard, para. [0014]: “Some aspects of data included in the Blockchain Ledger may be protects, but a record of its existence always remains on the blockchain. Entities with different roles related to a loan may have access to different information. Such as, by way of non-limiting example, a Certified Mortgage Banker (CMB) may be permissioned to view data on the platform and owners/servicers of a Collateralized Debt Obligation (CDO) may have access to information related to a last failure, an owner/servicer of a collateralized mortgage obligation may have still different permissions to piece of the information included on the blockchain, all identified via the unique loan identifier.”)
(See Leonard, para. [0090]: “Referring now to FIG. 5 some embodiments of the present invention are illustrated that include a smart contract protocol applied to the Blockchain. FIG. 5 demonstrates a non-limiting example of a smart contract for transferring an Investor role from a Company Y to a Company X. One pertinent portion of the Loan Blockchain is shown at 505, with read access for each Block demonstrated at 520.”)
In regards to claim 19,
19. (Currently Amended) The platform of claim 18, wherein the platform recognizes the data owner as an entity that controls the facts encompassed in the token, permits only the data owner to affect the facts in the token, by adding one or more facts, changing one or more facts, or deleting one or more facts, and permits the data owner to share ownership freely such that there can be multiple data owners, and wherein each data owner among the multiple data owners is required to individually sign off on any subsequent changes to the token after the token has been onboarded to the blockchain.
(See Leonard, para. [0026]: “In another aspect, notification of a payment related to a Mortgage Loan may be memorialized in the Mortgage Loan agreement and the notification of the payment may be stored in a third additional Block on the Blockchain. An access right for the Loan Participant may be established to the third additional Block. Access rights typically include one or more of the abilities for a Loan Participant to know that the Block exists but not be able to access information included in the Block, the ability to write to the Block and the ability to read the Block.”)
(See Leonard, para. [0090]: “Referring now to FIG. 5 some embodiments of the present invention are illustrated that include a smart contract protocol applied to the Blockchain. FIG. 5 demonstrates a non-limiting example of a smart contract for transferring an Investor role from a Company Y to a Company X. One pertinent portion of the Loan Blockchain is shown at 505, with read access for each Block demonstrated at 520. Note that 520 only shows presence or absence of read access for X and Y; other Participants such as Borrower may have read access to these blocks. Thus, Y is the Servicer and has read access to blocks BN−2 at 511 and BN−1 at 512, prior to any agreement to transfer the Servicer role.”)
In regards to claims 20 and 21, they are cancelled.
In regards to claim 22,
22. (Currently Amended) The platform of claim 19, wherein the platform is configured to
permit the data owner to grant read-only access to the token for one or more other non-owner parties and
enable the one or more other non-owner parties to decrypt the token and view/access the facts within the token,
without allowing the non-owner parties to make any changes to the token on the blockchain and
wherein any attempted changes made by the non- owner parties that have only read-only access will not be accepted or validated for recording on the blockchain.
(See Leonard, para. [0026]: “In another aspect, notification of a payment related to a Mortgage Loan may be memorialized in the Mortgage Loan agreement and the notification of the payment may be stored in a third additional Block on the Blockchain. An access right for the Loan Participant may be established to the third additional Block. Access rights typically include one or more of the abilities for a Loan Participant to know that the Block exists but not be able to access information included in the Block, the ability to write to the Block and the ability to read the Block.”)
(See Leonard, para. [0090]: “Referring now to FIG. 5 some embodiments of the present invention are illustrated that include a smart contract protocol applied to the Blockchain. FIG. 5 demonstrates a non-limiting example of a smart contract for transferring an Investor role from a Company Y to a Company X. One pertinent portion of the Loan Blockchain is shown at 505, with read access for each Block demonstrated at 520. Note that 520 only shows presence or absence of read access for X and Y; other Participants such as Borrower may have read access to these blocks. Thus, Y is the Servicer and has read access to blocks BN−2 at 511 and BN−1 at 512, prior to any agreement to transfer the Servicer role.”)
In regards to claims 23-38, they are cancelled.
Conclusion
Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications should be directed to Examiner Ayal Sharon, whose telephone number is (571) 272-5614, and fax number is (571) 273-1794. The Examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 9 AM and 6 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SPE Christine Behncke can be reached at (571) 272-8103 or at christine.behncke@uspto.gov. The fax 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.
Sincerely,
/Ayal I. Sharon/
Examiner, Art Unit 3695
October 29, 2025