DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Applicant has amended claims 1, 4-6, 9, 12, 15-17 and 19-20. No claims have been added or canceled. Thus, claims 1-20 remain pending in this application. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 13 May 2026 with respect to:
rejections of claims 9 and 19 under U.S.C. § 112(a),
rejections of claims 4 and 15 under U.S.C. § 112(b),
rejection to claims 1-20 under U.S.C. § 101,
rejections of claims 1-3, 10-14 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Albrechtsen et al (US Pub. No. 20250005544 A1) in view of DeLuca et al (US Pub. No. 20240314095 A1), and
rejections of claims 4-9 and 15-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Albrechtsen in view of DeLuca, in further view of Ahmad et al (US Pub. No. 20240257105 A1)
have been fully considered. Amendments to claims have been entered.
Examiner acknowledges amendments to claims to overcome claim objections and 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and § 112(b) rejections and, in turn, withdraws rejections. However, new claim objections and § 112(b) rejections have been cited.
Examiner acknowledges amendments to, and arguments regarding, claims to overcome 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection and, in turn, withdraws rejections.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to claims regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection.
If, in the opinion of the Applicant, a telephone conference would expedite the prosecution of the subject application, the Applicant is encouraged to contact the undersigned Examiner at the phone number listed below.
Priority
This application was filed on 15 October 2024. Accordingly, this application is given priority from 15 October 2024.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claims 1 and 20, clauses such as:
to determine whether a blockchain wallet address is associated with the personal identifier
are merely statements of intended use which do not further limit the claim.
Regarding claims 2 and 13, clauses such as “in response to a determination that the blockchain wallet address is associated with the personal identifier” in representative claim 2, is an optional limitation and, as such, is not further limiting if no determination (that the blockchain wallet address is associated with the personal identifier) was made.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 20 are objected to because, in the representative limitation:
using data stored on a blockchain to determine whether a blockchain wallet address is associated with the personal identifier by indexing an on-chain resolution directory stored on the blockchain using the masked unique identifier;
the phrase “to determine whether a blockchain wallet address is associated with the personal identifier” is a statement of intended use which does not further limit the claim. Consider revising limitation to recite something similar to:
comparing the masked unique identifier against an on-chain resolution directory stored on the blockchain; and
determining whether a blockchain wallet address is associated with the personal identifier based on the masked unique identifier.
if that is clearly what the Applicant means to convey. Correction is requested.
Claim 11 is objected to because it is not clear if “a one-way hash function” refers to the “one-way hash function” in independent claim 1 or another ”one-way hash function”; the antecedent issue is not clear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention. It is not clear if “determining the unique identifier” means to convey “determining the masked unique identifier”; it is not clear if “a one-way hash function” means to convey “the one-way hash function” in independent claim 1; antecedent issues are not clear.
For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as not further limiting. Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 10-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albrechtsen et al (US Pub. No. 20250005544 A1) in view of Manningham et al (US Pub. No. 20200320039 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 20, Albrechtsen teaches methods, systems, and articles of manufacture, including computer program products, for distribution of non-fungible tokens (NFTs) representing receipts for blockchain transactions [0003]. He teaches:
receiving a personal identifier of a recipient of a crypto asset to be sent from a sender – [0003],wherein the personal identifier includes at least one of the following: an email address, a phone number, a driver's license number, a physical mailing address, a government assigned identifier, a school assigned identifier, or a social media account identifier – [0042] “The seller data 202 can include a wallet address, a name, a username, an email address and other contact information and/or identifiers (e.g., integers)… The buyer data 228 can include a wallet address, a name, a username, an email address, a nonce, and other contact information and/or identifiers (e.g., integers)”, and
using data stored on a blockchain to determine whether a blockchain wallet address is associated with the personal identifier – [0042] “connecting an email to a blockchain address”, [0043]by indexing an on-chain resolution directory stored on the blockchain using the “masked unique identifier” – [0036] “The nodes 106A-106N are a continuously growing list of records, which are linked using cryptography (e.g., hashing) or similar data security methods”.
Albrechtsen teaches seller data (including wallet address, name, username, email), being linked to entity data (including name, logo, physical address, tax ID); and entity data being linked to store data (including name, logo, physical address, tax ID); and store data being linked to account data (including name, balance, balance date, time, payment gateway data including name, address, license status), and products (including name, description, image, price) [0043]. Albrechtsen does not explicitly disclose:
calculating a masked unique identifier from the personal identifier using a one-way hash function (emphasis added).
However, Manningham teaches systems and methods for distilling data, wherein distilling data removes redundancies in generated and/or stored user data without revealing sensitive data [0018]. He teaches a digital signature comprising the hash of transaction data using a cryptographic hash function [0039]. The cryptographic hash function may comprise a one-way hash function, wherein the identifier associated with the user may comprise personal identifying information associated with the user [0117].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Albrechtsen’s disclosure to include using a one-way hash function as taught by Manningham since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Albrechtsen teaches in response to a determination that the blockchain wallet address being associated with the personal identifier, providing the blockchain wallet address – [0038] and [0043].
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Albrechtsen teaches transferring the crypto asset to the provided blockchain wallet address – [0005], [0033], [0045] “The requested transaction can include a transfer of assets (products of a particular type and a particular amount provided for transactions by a particular seller) between a target node (e.g., seller system 106, 106A-N described with reference to FIGS. 1A and 1B) to a recipient node (e.g., buyer, such as the user device 108 described with reference to FIGS. 1A and 1B)”.
Regarding claim 10, Albrechtsen teaches determining a unique identifier for the personal identifier, wherein the data stored on the blockchain maps the unique identifier to the blockchain wallet address – [0020].
Claim 11 is not further limiting of claim 10, the claim upon which it depends, in view if 112(b) rejection.
Claims 4-9 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albrechtsen in view of Manningham, in further view of Ahmad et al (US Pub. No. 20240257105 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, neither Albrechtsen nor Manningham explicitly discloses, in response to a determination that no blockchain wallet address is associated with the personal identifier, generating a new blockchain wallet for the personal identifier.
However, Ahmad teaches systems and methods for registration of identified blockchain wallets using payment cards [0005]. He teaches the generation of a new blockchain wallet to be associated with the transaction account, where the cryptographic key pair for the blockchain wallet can be supplied (e.g., by the financial institution or other suitable entity) or generated directly by the consumer's integrated circuit payment card or their computing device [0009]. He teaches an activation request which includes at least the card identifier associated with the payment card and the wallet identifier associated with the generated blockchain wallet [0028].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Albrechtsen’s disclosure to include generation of a new blockchain wallet as taught by Ahmad because it is a technological solution that can provide for identification of consumers in a blockchain network thus preventing fraudulent transactions – Ahmad [0003] and [0004].
Regarding claims 5 and 16, neither Albrechtsen nor Manningham explicitly discloses transferring the crypto asset to the new blockchain wallet.
However, Ahmad teaches this at [0021].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Albrechtsen’s disclosure to include transferring the crypto asset to the new temporary blockchain wallet as taught by Ahmad because one would have recognized that doing so improves the system and makes the system cost effective.
Regarding claims 6 and 17, neither Albrechtsen nor Manningham explicitly discloses notifying the recipient of an option to claim the new blockchain wallet or the crypto asset.
However, Ahmad teaches an activation server recording an association between the transaction account and the blockchain wallet and providing an activation message to the consumer's computing device [0005].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Albrechtsen’s disclosure to include an activation message upon the generation of a new blockchain wallet as taught by Ahmad because one would have recognized that doing so improves the system and makes the system cost effective.
Regarding claims 7 and 18, neither Albrechtsen nor Manningham explicitly discloses verifying an identity of the recipient.
However, Ahmad teaches the blockchain network requiring the identity of the consumer in control of a blockchain wallet to be registered before the blockchain wallet is unlocked for use in blockchain transactions stored on the regulated blockchain [0022]. Examiner interprets the consumer being registered as indicative of Applicant’s verifying an identity of the recipient.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Albrechtsen’s disclosure to include registering a consumer in control of the blockchain wallet as taught by Ahmad in order to unlocked the blockchain wallet for use in blockchain transactions stored on the regulated blockchain – Ahmad [0022], thus improving the system and making it cost effective.
Regarding claim 8, neither Albrechtsen nor Manningham explicitly discloses verifying the identity of the recipient as including confirming ownership or control of the personal identifier of the recipient.
However, Ahmad teaches the blockchain network requiring the identity of the consumer in control of a blockchain wallet to be registered before the blockchain wallet is unlocked for use in blockchain transactions stored on the regulated blockchain [0022], as taught in the rejection of claim 6. Accordingly, these claims are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, neither Albrechtsen nor Manningham explicitly discloses, in response to a successful verification of the identity of the recipient, associating the new temporary blockchain wallet to the recipient.
However, Ahmad teaches this at [0022], as taught in the rejection of claim 6. Accordingly, these claims are rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
MARSHALL et al: “METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR PRE-VALIDATING TOKEN-BASED ACCESS CONTROL”, (US Pub. No. 20240013199 A1).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD J BAIRD whose telephone number is (571)270-3330. The examiner can normally be reached 7 am to 3:30 pm M-F.
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 Applicant wishes to correspond to the Examiner via email, Applicant needs to file an AUTHORIZATION FOR INTERNET COMMUNICATIONS IN A PATENT APPLICATION form. The form may be downloaded at:
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/EDWARD J BAIRD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights