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 statements (IDS) submitted on July 2, 2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
This is a non-final rejection prepared in response to U.S. Patent Application 18/902,677 filed on
September 30, 2024.
Claims 1-9 are pending.
Continuation
This application is a continuation application of U.S. application no. 16/622,871 filed on December 13, 2019, now US Patent 12,141,798 (“Parent Application”). See MPEP §201.07. In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A. 2 and MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Application. Also in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered 'of record' in the Parent Application are now considered cited or 'of record' in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or 'of record' in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicant(s) desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A. 2.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 8 and 9 should be amended in independent form to avoid any confusions that may arise dues to statutory class differences in claim 1.
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.
5. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they fail to claim statutory subject matter.
6. Claim 8 is directed to "A computer readable storage medium...". The broadest reasonable
interpretation (BRI) of machine-readable media can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission, such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se. See MPEP 2106.03, subsection II; In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007). When the BRI encompasses transitory forms of signal transmission, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 as failing to claim statutory subject matter would be appropriate. Therefore, claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as failing to claim statutory subject matter. However, in the interest of compact prosecution, examination will continue as if claim 8 was amended to include the recitation “non-transitory.”
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an
abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-9 are directed to computer-implemented method (i.e., process). 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:
broadcasting, to nodes of a blockchain network, a first deposit transaction, the first deposit transaction configured to allow a first digital asset to be unlocked after a defined period of time through generation of a signature which is valid for a first public key and to be unlocked at any time through generation of a signature which is valid for a congress public key associated with a group of nodes operating under a threshold signature scheme;
before expiration of the defined period of time,
broadcasting to the blockchain network a first funding transaction which encumbers a second digital asset with the first public key, the congress public key and a third public key such that the encumbrance of the second digital asset may be removed by: 1) both a signature valid for the first public key and a signature valid for the third public key; or 2) a signature valid for the congress public key; and
after expiration of the defined period of time,
broadcasting a transaction unlocking the first digital asset with a signature which is valid for the first public key.
Claim 1, recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) a method for controlling access to assets and transfer of assets based on conditions. The claim achieves this by: 1) broadcasting a first deposit transaction that locks a first digital asset which maybe unlock after a defined period of time using a valid signature for a first public key or at any time using a signature valid for a group public key that is associated to a group of nodes. 2) broadcasting a first funding transaction, that restricts a second digital asset, before expiration of a defined time period and broadcasting an unlocking transaction after the expiration of a time period. The second asset may be released by utilizing a combination of signatures the first public key and a third public key or by a valid signature for the group key. 3) broadcasting, after expiration of the defined period of time, a transaction unlocking the first digital asset with a signature valid for the first public key. Specifically, but for the additional elements, the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas (i.e., fundamental economic practices).
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 an interface device, a processor, a memory, a computer readable storage medium, a blockchain network and nodes merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Further, the additional element “digital” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). 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 2-9 have also been analyzed for subject matter eligibility. However, claims 2-9 also fail to recite patent eligible subject matter for the following reasons:
Claim 2 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the congress public key is generated by at least a threshold number of the group of nodes, wherein each node is configured to generate a key share.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “Mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 3 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the key share is held within a trusted execution environment on the respective node.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements of a trusted execution environment and a node fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because they merely serve as tools 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 4 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the key share is held within an enclave of the trusted execution environment on the respective node
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements of a trusted execution environment, an enclave and a node fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because they merely serve as tools 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 5 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
prior to broadcasting the first funding transaction:
detecting confirmation of a second deposit transaction on the blockchain network, the second deposit transaction configured to allow a further digital asset to be unlocked after a defined period of time through generation of a signature which is valid for the third public key and to be unlocked at any time through generation of a signature which is valid for the congress public key.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements of a blockchain network 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 element “digital” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). 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 6 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
broadcasting a first encapsulated commitment transaction, the first encapsulated commitment transaction including a commitment transaction as metadata, the commitment transaction being signed using a first private key corresponding to the first public key.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 7 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
prior to broadcasting the first encapsulated transaction:
detecting confirmation of a second funding transaction on the blockchain network, the second funding transaction encumbering a further digital asset with the first public key, the congress public key and the third public key such that the encumbrance of the further digital asset may be removed by:
1) both a signature valid for the first public key and a signature valid for the third public key; or
2) a signature valid for the congress public key.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements of a blockchain network 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 element “digital” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). 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 8 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
A computer readable storage medium comprising computer-executable instructions which, when executed, configure a processor to perform the method of claim 1.
The non-bolded additional elements of a computer readable storage medium, computer and a processor 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 9 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
An electronic device comprising:
an interface device;
a processor coupled to the interface device; and
a memory coupled to the processor, the memory having stored thereon computer executable instructions which, when executed, configure the processor to perform the method of claim 1.
The non-bolded additional elements of a computer readable storage medium, computer and a processor 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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Fay (US 20160292672 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 9 Fay disclose:
broadcasting, to nodes of a blockchain network, a first deposit transaction, (¶0059, if the exchange computer system 100 determines that either trading party has failed to transfer the agreed to assets in an agreed upon timeframe, the exchange computer system 100 may issue a data instruction to the blockchain that revokes any partial or failed transaction in step 270, which then returns the assets to their original owners. In certain example embodiments, this revocation process may be built into the submitted transactions (e.g., as a script that is part of the generated blockchain transactions) or may be another transaction that transfers an asset back to the original owner. ¶0076, In certain example embodiments, exchange computer system 100 may implement a multi-signature feature which would allow the exchange computer system 100 to "break the trade" should either party fail to deliver. In particular, a generated blockchain transaction may require two different keys to show "ownership" of the outputs for the transactions. For example, a transaction from A to B may require B's key and the key of another third party ( e.g., the exchange, the company associated with the underlying asset, or a regulatory authority) before B can "spend" or further transact the asset associated with the transaction. In certain example embodiments, a generated blockchain transaction may require a threshold number of keys from a total number of possible keys to unlock a blockchain transaction ( e.g., to spend the outputs of that transaction). For example, 4 different keys may be used unlock a transaction and the transaction may be unlocked by 2 or more of the 4 required keys. ¶0077, In such an embodiment, client1 may use client2's wallet identifier (or a hashed version thereof) as well as the wallet ID associated with the exchange computer system 100 to create a multi-signature address (e.g., that references the escrow wallet). Conversely, client2 may use client1's wallet ID (or a hashed version thereof) as well as the wallet ID of the exchange to create a counter transaction. When both orders are submitted and transferred to the escrow wallet (e.g., by appropriately formulated blockchain transactions). ¶0079, In any event, the computing devices of client 1 and client2 send transactions to one or more nodes of the blockchain computer system 214 for processing (e.g., to be added to the blockchain 116). In certain examples, the transaction may be related to bitcoin amounts ( e.g., in the case of a fee from a client to the exchange). In certain examples, what is known as a colored-coin" is used to represent assets that are listed by exchange computing system 100. ¶0080, As indicated above, the transactions may be submitted to the blockchain 116 from exchange computer system 100 on behalf of computing devices from client1 and client 2.)
before expiration of the defined period of time, broadcasting to the blockchain network a first funding transaction (¶0076, exchange computer system 100 may implement a multi-signature feature which would allow the exchange computer system 100 to "break the trade" should either party fail to deliver. In particular, a generated blockchain transaction may require two different keys to show "ownership" of the outputs for the transactions… In certain example embodiments, a generated blockchain transaction may require a threshold number of keys from a total number of possible keys to unlock a blockchain transaction (e.g., to spend the outputs of that transaction). For example, 4 different keys may be used unlock a transaction and the transaction may be unlocked by 2 or more of the 4 required keys. ¶0077, When both orders are submitted and transferred to the escrow wallet (e.g., by appropriately formulated blockchain transactions))
after expiration of the defined period of time, broadcasting a transaction unlocking the first digital asset with a signature which is valid for the first public key. (¶0059, if the exchange computer system 100 determines that either trading party has failed to transfer the agreed to assets in an agreed upon timeframe, the exchange computer system 100 may issue a data instruction to the blockchain that revokes any partial or failed transaction in step 270, which then returns the assets to their original owners. In certain example embodiments, this revocation process may be built into the submitted transactions (e.g., as a script that is part of the generated blockchain transactions) or may be another transaction that transfers an asset back to the original owner. ¶0060, In certain examples, the time frame for completion of an order will be determined by the electronic exchange computer system 100 based on the type of asset or may be provided in the order handling instructions received from a trading party. For example, if the exchange computer system 100 has not verified a complete trade ( e.g., one transaction from A to B and another from B to A), it may automatically generate a new blockchain transaction that revokes any portions of the trade. For example, if a transaction from A to B is included in the blockchain, but a transaction from B to A is not present, the exchange computer system may generate a counter blockchain transaction that returns the assets that were "transferred" as a result of the A to B transaction. ¶0076, For example, a transaction from A to B may require B's key and the key of another third party ( e.g., the exchange, the company associated with the underlying asset, or a regulatory authority) before B can "spend" or further transact the asset associated with the transaction. In certain example embodiments, a generated blockchain transaction may require a threshold number of keys from a total number of possible keys to unlock a blockchain transaction ( e.g., to spend the outputs of that transaction). For example, 4 different keys may be used unlock a transaction and the transaction may be unlocked by 2 or more of the 4 required keys. )
Fay further discloses:
A computer readable storage medium comprising computer-executable instructions which, when executed, configure a processor to perform (claim 18, A non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored thereon computer readable instructions for use with a computer system that includes at least one processor…)
An electronic device comprising: an interface device; a processor coupled to the interface device; and a memory coupled to the processor, (¶0103, As just one example, the computing system may be arranged such that processors include: a multi (or single)-core processor; a first network interface device (which implements, for example, WiFi, Bluetooth, NFC, etc .); a second network interface device that implements one or more cellular communication technologies (e.g., 3G, 4G LTE, CDMA, etc .); memory or storage devices (e.g., RAM, flash memory, or a hard disk).)
Furthermore, the claimed limitation “configured to…” in “the first deposit transaction configured to allow a first digital asset to be unlocked after a defined period of time through generation of a signature which is valid for a first public key and to be unlocked at any time through generation of a signature which is valid for a congress public key associated with a group of nodes operating under a threshold signature scheme;”, “which…” in “broadcasting to the blockchain network a first funding transaction which encumbers a second digital asset with the first public key,…” and “which…” in “broadcasting a transaction unlocking the first digital asset with a signature which is valid for the first public key” consist of language disclosing an intended use/result, so they are 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.
Regarding claim 5, Fay further discloses:
prior to broadcasting the first funding transaction: detecting confirmation of a second deposit transaction on the blockchain network, the second deposit transaction configured to allow a further digital asset to be unlocked after a defined period of time through generation of a signature which is valid for the third public key and to be unlocked at any time through generation of a signature which is valid for the congress public key. (Fay ¶0040, In step 238, the exchange computer system 100 performs a validation process on the order indicated in the received electronic data message. In some embodiments, this includes the exchange computer system 100 checking that the trading party for the order is associated with the items that the order is offering to trade. For example, if the order indicates that 100 shares of AAPL should be sold, then the exchange computing system 100 will query the blockchain system 214 to ensure that the trading party associated with the order owns (or has access to) 100 shares of AAPL. In other words, the exchange computer system 100 may automatically determine if there an unspent transaction (or multiple transactions) on the blockchain that the trading party (or its walletlDs) is associated with that meets or exceeds the 100 shares of AAPL. In connection with step 238, if this validation process fails (e.g., the trading party does not own 100 shares of AAPL), then the submitted order is rejected and a corresponding message is sent to computing device A 120A in step 240. ¶0041, In certain example embodiments, the validation process of step 238 may alternatively or additionally include validations related to the particular asset. For example, the validation process may determine if the asset is one traded on the exchange computer system 100. The validation process may determine if the quantity or the price associated with the order or trade request is a valid value. In certain examples, the validations (e.g., the minimum/maximum price or quantity) may be based on the particular type of the asset which the order seeks to trade.)
Furthermore, the claimed limitation “configured to…” in “the second deposit transaction configured to allow a further digital asset to be unlocked after a defined period of time through generation of a signature which is valid for the third public key and to be unlocked at any time through generation of a signature which is valid for the congress public key.” consist of language disclosing an intended use/result, so they are 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.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fay as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Gennaro (Secure Distributed Key Generation for Discrete-Log Based Cryptosystems, 2003).
Regarding claim 2, Fay does not disclose, however Gennaro teaches discloses:
the congress public key is generated by at least a threshold number of the group of nodes, wherein each node is configured to generate a key share. (P.52 ¶1, It allows a set of n servers to generate jointly a pair of public and private keys according to the distribution defined by the underlying cryptosystem without ever having to compute, reconstruct, or store the secret key in any single location and without assuming any trusted party (dealer).
Furthermore, the claimed limitation “…is generated by at least a threshold number of the group of nodes, wherein each node is configured to generate a key share” is non-functional material that does not move to distinguish over prior art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to have modify Fay’s teaching with Gennaro’s teaching. One of ordinary skills
in the art would have been motivated in order to provide a system that has collective authority rather than a system that has individual control as well as provide a more secure system.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fay and Gennaro as applied to claim 2 above, in view of Smith (US 2015/0082024 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Fay and Gennaro do not disclose, however Smith teaches:
the key share is held within a trusted execution environment on the respective node. (¶0033, One example of a protected environment that may be used in the client devices of the present disclosure is a trusted execution environment (TEE). ¶0036, The protected environments of the present disclosure may be configured to store encrypted and unencrypted reference templates (such as biometric reference templates), either alone or in conjunction with other information. For example in addition to reference templates, a protected environment may store one or more keys that may be used to encrypt, decrypt, or sign data… A protected environment may also store one or more signing keys (e.g., a TEE and/or enclave signing key). Such signing key(s) may be specific to the protected environment and may enable the protected environment to sign with the key and thus "seal" the data to the protected environment.)
Furthermore, the claimed limitation “… is held within a trusted execution environment on the respective node.” is non-functional material that does not move to distinguish over prior art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to have modify the combination of Fay and Gennaro with Smith’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated in order to perform signing operation without exposing the private key.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fay, Gennaro and Smith as applied to claim 3 above, in view of Nellitheertha (WO 2015047285 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Fay, Gennaro and Smith further discloses:
the key share is held within an enclave of the trusted execution environment on the respective node. (P.3 ¶2, The trusted execution environment may further comprise an encryption key corresponding to the at least one virtual machine, the encryption key being generated by the encryption service when the encryption agent is registered. To protect at least the encryption service and the encryption key, consistent with the present disclosure the trusted execution environment may be based on secure enclave technology. P.6 ¶2, In one embodiment, Encryption keys 118 may include encryption keys corresponding to each VM 106A...n. Encryption keys 118 may be protected by being generated and stored all within TEE 108. This means that the generation of encryption keys 118 may be through a measured program (e.g., encryption service 116) and encryption keys 118 may be stored in an encrypted format that may only be decrypted by measured programs. P.13 Ex. 6, the trusted execution environment is based on secure enclave technology to protect at least the encryption service and encryption key.)
Furthermore, the claimed limitation “…is held within an enclave of the trusted execution environment on the respective node.” is non-functional material that does not move to distinguish over prior art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to have modify the combination of Fay, Gennaro and Smith with Nellitheertha’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated in order to further improve the security of the system by isolating the key in the secured enclave.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fay as applied to claim 1 above in view of Melika (US 20160350728 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Fay does not disclose, however Melika teaches:
broadcasting a first encapsulated commitment transaction, the first encapsulated commitment transaction including a commitment transaction as metadata, the commitment transaction being signed using a first private key corresponding to the first public key. (¶0029, In step 208, the application software creates an electronic title and adds the title to the customer's digital wallet through an encrypted transaction or an encrypted amount. The bank vault has the title in benefit of the customer and the customer is enabled to prove ownership of an asset through access of the application software on a web enabled device (such as a smartphone). In step 210, the application software decodes the encrypted data on the public ledger, and then forwards decrypted data (over a secure channel) to the user interface of the customer's web enabled device for viewing.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to have modify Fay’s teaching with Melika’s teaching. One of ordinary skills
in the art would have been motivated in order to ensure verifiability and auditability.
Furthermore, the claimed limitation “…including a commitment transaction as metadata, the commitment transaction being signed using a first private key corresponding to the first public key” is non-functional material that does not move to distinguish over prior art.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Fay and Melika further discloses:
prior to broadcasting the first encapsulated transaction: detecting confirmation of a second funding transaction on the blockchain network, the second funding transaction encumbering a further digital asset with the first public key, the congress public key and the third public key such that the encumbrance of the further digital asset may be removed by: 1) both a signature valid for the first public key and a signature valid for the third public key; or 2) a signature valid for the congress public key. (Fay ¶0034, At step 230, the trading party A's computing device 120A sends a request (e.g., that is carried in an electronic data message) to the electronic exchange computing system 100 to create a new wallet for a corresponding trading party account. A trading party (as opposed to the device used by the trading party) can represent a user (e.g., a person), organization (e.g., a corporation), or other entity that is assigned an account (a trading party account) for electronically interacting with the electronic exchange computer system 100. In certain example embodiments, step 230 may be an internal API call within the exchange computer system 100 (e.g., that is triggered based on a request from a user device controlled by a user).)
Furthermore, the claimed expression of “the second funding transaction encumbering a further digital asset with the first public key, the congress public key and the third public key such that the encumbrance of the further digital asset may be removed by: 1) both a signature valid for the first public key and a signature valid for the third public key; or 2) a signature valid for the congress public key.” does not move to distinguish over prior art as the description of what the second funding transaction encumbers (restricts) or how it may be removed does not affect the positively recited steps in the claim.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure.
US 20100183150 A1 to Lee discloses: A shared key management method for a Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition (SCADA) system in which a master terminal unit (MTU), a plurality of sub master terminal units (SUB-MTUs), and a plurality of remote terminal units (RTUs) are configured in a sequential hierarchy, is provided. The method includes: (a) at the MTU, generating a plurality of secret keys and respectively allocating the secret keys to the RTUs; (b) at the MTU, generating a group key in a tree structure, wherein a leaf node of the tree structure corresponds to each RTU, a parent node of a node corresponding to an RTU corresponds to a SUB-RTU to which the RTU is connected, a shared key of each node of the group key is generated by hashing shared keys of all child nodes, and a shared key of a leaf node of the group key is set as a secret key of the RTU; (c) at the RTU or the SUM-MTU, receiving and storing shared keys of every node from a node corresponding to itself to a root node; (d) when the RTU or the SUM-MTU is added or deleted, at the MTU, generating shared keys of nodes along a path from a node corresponding to the added or deleted terminal unit to the root node again; and (e) at the RTU or the SUB-MTU, receiving and storing the generated shared keys. According to the key management method for the SCADA system described above, in the case of encrypting and broadcasting or multicasting a message, a computation amount can be reduced.
US 20190089537 A1 to Gray discloses: The disclosed technology is generally directed to secure transactions. In one example of the technology, a first enclave to be used for executing a cryptlet binary of a first cryptlet is identified. The first enclave may be a secure execution environment that stores an enclave private key, and the first cryptlet may be associated with at least a first counterparty. A cryptlet binding that is associated with the first cryptlet may be generated, and may include counterparty information that is associated with at least the first counterparty. Cryptlet binding information may be provided to a cryptlet binding key graph, and a location of a first hardware security module (HSM) that stores a key that is associated with the first counterparty may be received from the cryptlet binding key graph.
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