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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendment filed 04/10/2026.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined on the merits (claims 1, 9, and 19 being independent).
The amendment filed 04/10/2026 to the claims has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/09/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed 04/10/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicants assert that the pending claims fully comply with the requirement of 35 U.S.C. 101. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s argument and amendments have been considered and are not persuasive. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been maintained and clarified in view of the USPTO MPEP 2106.
Applicant’s arguments (see Applicant’s remarks, pages 10-13):
(1) Step 1 / Prong 1: Determine Whether the Claims Are Directed to a Judicial Exception
Applicant's arguments that “Claims 1, 9, and 17 are directed to sharing KYC data among financial institutions using a blockchain. While verifying identity and sharing information may involve a business concept, the claims are not directed to an abstract idea in isolation.” (see page 10), are not found persuasive.
Response (1): In the instant application, under Step 2 A, Prong 1 of the 2019 Revised § 101 Guidance, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception such as a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355) by identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim that recites abstract idea(s); and then determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the MPEP 2106.04. The cited limitations as drafted are systems and/or methods that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a method of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of the generic computer components. Further, none of the limitations recite technological implementations details for any of the steps but, instead, only recite broad functional language being performed by the generic use of at least one processor. Managing a risk for sharing a know your customer (KYC) data is a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in commerce systems. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a fundamental economic principle or practice but for the general linking to a technological environment (e.g., a blockchain), then it falls within the organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(2) Step 1 / Prong 2: Technological Improvement
Applicant's arguments that “The claims improve computer and network technology by: enforcing secure cryptographic access to KYC data; using ledger-stored hashed values to ensure data integrity and tamper resistance; automating KYC sharing, reducing manual verification, preventing fraud, and maintaining privacy” (see page 11), are not found persuasive.
Response (2): It is determined whether the claim is directed to the abstract concept itself or whether it is instead directed to some technological implementation or application of, or improvement to, this concept, i.e., integrated into a practical application. See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981 ). The mere introduction of a computer or generic computer technology into the claims need not alter the analysis. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223-24. "[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer." Alice, 573 U.S. at 225.
In the present case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by claiming an improvement to the functioning of the computer or to any other technology or technical field. Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. In particular the claim limits of “by the at least one processor”, “at least one database”, “distributed ledger”, “smart contract”, and “blockchain” are claimed and described at a high level of generality and are functions any general purpose computer performs such that it amounts no more than mere instruction to apply the exception to a particular technological environment. Further, none of the limitations recite technological implementations details for any of the steps but, instead, only recite broad functional language being performed by the generic use of computer. The claim limits also recite the use of blockchain, processor, database, distributed ledger, smart contract as additional elements. However, the use of these additionally elements, described at a high level of generality, perform generic computer functions such that it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaning limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed toward an abstract idea.
(3) Step 2B / Inventive Concept
Applicant's arguments that “Even if the Examiner considers the claims to involve an abstract idea, the claims recite an inventive concept transforming the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. Execution is performed by at least one processor, integrated with smart contracts and blockchain technology (specification [0092], [0111], [0125]-[0127]). The claimed invention requires conditional access via technical mechanism.” (see page 12), are not found persuasive.
Response (3): The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exactly using a computer. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea.
With regard to the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been considered but are moot as a new ground of rejection has been added and Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that Applicant is arguing newly amended claim language. As noted in the citation above the prior art and it is addressed by the rejections under 35 USC 103.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
9. 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
10. Claim 1-20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
11. Claim 1 recites the limitation “the hashed value of the private key” in line 20 of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, and further claims 9 and 17 have same insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation of “the hashed value of the private key”. It is suggested to be -- a hashed value --.
Dependent claims (2-8, 10-16, and 18-19) stand rejected also, under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) by virtue of their dependency.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, (1) it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, (2a) it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so (2b), it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. (2014).
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. In the instant case, the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Step (1): In the instant case, the claims are directed towards to a method for sharing a know your customer (KYC) data which contains the steps of receiving, obtaining, registering, storing, loading, and providing. The claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process. The claims do fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 1 is direct to a method, claim 9 is direct to a computing device, and claim 17 is direct to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, i.e. machines programmed to carrying out process steps, Step 1-yes.
Step (2A) Prong 1: A method for sharing a know your customer (KYC) data is akin to the abstract idea subject matter grouping of: Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as fundamental economic principles or practices and/or commercial or legal interactions. As such, the claims include an abstract idea.
The specific limitations of the invention are (a) identified to encompass the abstract idea include: {receiving, …… , a first request from a user to access at least one service of a first institution; obtaining, …… , user identity details from the user in response to the first request; registering, ……. , at least one KYC data for the user upon a successful verification of the user identity details; storing, …….. , the at least one KYC data into …… associated with the first institution; loading, ……. , the at least one KYC data onto ……. , wherein the at least one KYC data is accessible with a private key associated with the at least one KYC data; receiving, ……. , a second request to access the at least one KYC data of the user …… , from a second institution; and providing, …… , access to the at least one KYC data to the second institution based on an execution of …… using a successful verification of the private key, wherein …… is executed ….. upon successful matching of the hashed value of the private key with a hashed value stored ……., wherein successful execution of ……. allows the second institution to access the at least one KYC data, and failure in execution of …….. denies access to the at least one KYC data.}
As stated above, this abstract idea falls into the (b) subject matter grouping of: Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as fundamental economic principles or practices and/or commercial or legal interactions as managing a risk for sharing a know your customer (KYC).
Step (2A) Prong 2: The instant claims do not integrate the exception into a practical application because additional elements: 1) “by the at least one processor” and “database” amount to simply applying the abstract idea to a computer component. (e.g. “apply it”) 2) “using a blockchain”, “distributed ledger”, and “smart contract” are not described in the specification in such a way require anything more than merely applying it, and therefore also amounts to simply applying the abstract idea to a generic computer component, or generically over the internet. (e.g. “apply it” or the equivalent) do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception (i.e. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(h) or apply it with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The instant recited claims including additional elements (i.e. blockchain, processor, database, distributed ledger, smart contract) do not improve the functioning of the computer or improve another technology or technical field nor do they recite meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations merely use a generic computing technology (Specification paragraphs [0008-0009]: servers, devices, programs, media, platforms, blockchain, processor, database, distributed ledger, and smart contract, ) as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(h) or apply it with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea
Step (2B): The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements (Claims: e.g., blockchain, processor, database, distributed ledger, smart contract) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exactly using generic computer component. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea.
The computer is merely a platform on which the abstract idea is implemented. Simply executing an abstract concept on a computer does not render a computer “specialized,” nor does it transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2012). There are no improvements to another technology or technical field, no improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing or any other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment as a result of performing the claimed method. Also, the addition of merely novel or non-routine components to the claimed idea does not necessarily turn an abstraction into something concrete (See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, _ F.3d_, 2014 WL 5904902, (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2014). Hence, the claims do not recite significantly more than an abstract idea. In conclusion, merely “linking/applying” the exception using generic computer components does not constitute ‘significantly more’ than the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05 (f) (h)). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 when analyzed as a whole and in an ordered combination are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below. The additional recited limitations in the dependent claims only refine the abstract idea.
For instance, in claims 2 and 10, the step of “… wherein the user identity details comprise personal identity details, contact details, income details,…” (i.e., user identity details), in claims 3 and 11, the step of “… wherein the at least one KYC data comprises verified documents….” (i.e., KYC data), in claims 4 and 12, the step of “… comprises at least one from among a block identifier, a transaction identifier, a chain identifier, a contract address ...” (i.e., having identifiers), in claims 5, 13, and 18, the step of “… using encryption techniques to avoid an unauthorized access ...” (i.e., using encryption techniques), in claims 6, 14, and 19, the step of “… wherein upon a successful completion of …, the at least one KYC data is loaded...” (i.e., storing KYC data), in claims 7, 15, and 20, the step of “… wherein the successful completion of … further comprises: validating, ...” (i.e., validating data), and in claims 8 and 16, the step of “… wherein the method further comprises: updating, … the at least one KYC data upon receipt of a data updating request...” (i.e., updating data) are all processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a fundamental economic practice but for the recitation of a generic computer component. Sharing and updating data are a most fundamental commercial process.
This is an abstract concept with nothing more and is also considered mere instructions to apply an exception akin to a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd.; Gottschalk and Versata Dev. Group, Inc.; see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
In dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20, the step claimed are rejected under the same analysis and rationale as the independent claims 1, 9, and 17 above. Merely claiming the same process using a blockchain to share and update the user’s data does not change the abstract idea without an inventive concept or significantly more. Clearly, the additional recited limitations in the dependent claims only refine the abstract idea further. Further refinement of an abstract idea does not convert an abstract idea into something concrete.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
In the rejections below, where claims are currently amended, this is indicated by underlining.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 9-10, 13-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (hereinafter Wang), US Publication Number 2021/0326868 A1 in view of Agbamu, US Publication Number 2023/0316261 A1 in further view of Jayachandran et al. (hereinafter Jayachandran), US Publication Number 2019/0028277 A1.
Regarding claim 1:
Wang discloses the following:
A method for sharing a know your customer (KYC) data using a blockchain, the method being implemented by at least one processor, the method comprising: (see Wang, [0026] discloses “embodiments of an information sharing method provided in the present specification can include roles in FIG. 1. A first institution can directly receive user information, so as to complete certain processing work based on the user information, for example, KYC verification mentioned in the KYC scenario. In addition, the first institution can provide a KYC verification result externally, or can provide basic data required for KYC verification externally. A second institution can be directly connected to the first institution. In addition, both the first institution and the second institution can be connected to a blockchain system, and can be connected to a privacy computing platform. By using the privacy computing platform, a predetermined rule can be executed in a trusted security computing environment, thereby completing a task such as KYC verification.”)
receiving, by the at least one processor, a first request from a user to access at least one service of a first institution; (see Wang, [0032] discloses “The user purchases financial products of the financial institution through the sales agency.”)
obtaining, by the at least one processor, user identity details from the user in response to the first request; (see Wang, [0032] discloses “The sales agency can request the user to provide basic data for KYC verification. For an individual user, the basic data can include a part or all of information such as name, gender, nationality, certificate type, certificate number, age, occupation, mobile phone number, contact address, etc. of the individual.”)
registering, by the at least one processor, at least one KYC data for the user upon a successful verification of the user identity details; (see Wang, [0033] discloses “The user ID can be an account registered by the user at the sales agency, or an account allocated to the user by a system of the sales agency when the user initiates a purchase operation at the sales agency. The user ID should specifically identify a user.”)
storing, by the at least one processor, the at least one KYC data into at least one database associated with the first institution; (see Wang, [0021] discloses “verify and record an identity of the customer based on an actual and valid identity card, and update the customer's identity information in time during the existence of the service relationship.”)
loading, by the at least one processor, the at least one KYC data onto a distributed ledger through a smart contract, wherein the at least one KYC data is accessible with a private key associated with the at least one KYC data; (see Wang, [0057] discloses “After consensus is reached between the nodes by using the consensus mechanism, the smart contract invoked as declared by the above transaction is independently executed on each node of the Ethereum network under regulation, and all execution records and data are stored in the blockchain.”, and also [0105] discloses “As such, only the first institution can decrypt the user ID in the data sharing request, because only the first institution has a private key corresponding to the public key.”)
receiving, by the at least one processor, a second request to access the at least one KYC data of the user on the distributed ledger, from a second institution; and (see Wang, [0037] discloses “The sales agency can send the user ID to the financial institution, for example, can send the user ID to the financial institution in a process of transmitting order information of the financial product to the financial institution. Specifically, the sales agency can directly send the user ID to the financial institution, for example, send the previously mentioned digest value obtained through hash processing to the financial institution, or can encrypt and send the user ID to the financial institution to improve security of data transmission”)
wherein the smart contract is executed by the at least one processor upon successful matching of the hashed value of the private key with a hashed value stored on the distributed ledger, (see Wang, [0066] discloses “The deployer can locally generate a hash value for the deployed contract. Therefore, the deployer can compare whether a hash value of the deployed contract is the same as the local contract hash value. If they are the same, it indicates that the contract deployed on the off-chain privacy computing node is a contract deployed by the deployer. Content sent from the off-chain privacy computing node can be signed by using a private key stored in the TEE, so as to prove that the content is a result of execution by the TEE. Actually, a plurality of smart contracts can be deployed in the TEE, and the TEE can generate a separate pair of public and private keys for each smart contract. Therefore, each deployed smart contract can have an ID (for example, a public key corresponding to the smart contract or a character string generated based on the public key), and a result of execution of each smart contract can also be signed by using a private key that is properly stored in the TEE and corresponding to the smart contract.”)
Wang dose not explicitly disclose the following, however Agbamu further teaches:
providing, by the at least one processor, access to the at least one KYC data to the second institution based on an execution of the smart contract using a successful verification of the private key, (see Agbamu, [0062] discloses “the system may have programmable agreements utilizing smart contracts 130 that interact on blockchain 110 networks to confer and execute the terms of the agreements in a programmable manner. The sender of the document may consider the document as being signed and the agreement consummated once the private/private keys have been signed (biometrically or digitally) executing the smart contract agreement.” And [0135] “a new portable ID 130a may be minted by providing and authenticating the UUID or unique ID of a valid DID. For example, if a valid KYC is done by entity 1 (a brokerage company), and the onboarding standards of the portable ID 130a are acceptable at entity 2 ( an insurance company), once the portable ID 130a from entity 1 is authenticated (ex: by signing w /private keys), entity 2 (insurance company) may issue a unique portable ID 130a that may retrieve identity, document, and transaction information for application or use case. Similarly, entity 2 may also use the same portable ID 130a and simply sync transactions to that portable ID 130a by entity 2' s unique identifier.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the field of blockchain technologies that relate to an information sharing method of Wang to include sharing a valid KYC with different entities using a verification of the private key, as taught by Agbamu, in order to provide a more secure handing of sensitive information. (see Agbamu, [0135])
Wang and Agbamu do not explicitly disclose the following, however Jayachandran further teaches:
wherein successful execution of the smart contract allows the second institution to access the at least one KYC data, and failure in execution of the smart contract denies access to the at least one KYC data. (see Jayachandran, [0027] discloses “The smart contracts can themselves be used to identify rules associated with authorization and access requirements and usage. For example, the consent 259 sent from the customer device may be processed by one or more processing entities (virtual machines) in the blockchain execution layer 272. The result may include access being granted 269 to a third party entity/application from the blockchain computing environment (VM). In this example, customer account information or data template information may be stored in the blockchain 270. The physical machines 271 may be accessed to retrieve the customer information which can then be decrypted by the anonymous and authorized third parties.”, [0029] discloses “A chaincode is program code deployed on the network, where it is executed and validated by chain validators together during a consensus process. In operation, a customer device may submit an access request which triggers a smart contract authentication routine via chaincode.”, and [0030] discloses “The customer device may then use a KYC application to request onboarding with another organization 'B'. The third party 'B' may query the blockchain for KYC information. In all likelihood, the request may be denied without prior access privileges being granted. A request for the customer consent may be sent for access to the customer's KYC data.”, and Notes: An access request to a KYC data which triggers a smart contract authentication routine, and then the request that can be denied or granted based the smart contract authentication result by the execution of the smart contract authentication routine via chaincode.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the field of blockchain technologies that relate to an information sharing method of Wang to include an access request which triggers a smart contract authentication routine via chaincode and the request that may be denied without prior access privileges being granted based the smart contract authentication result, as taught by Jayachandran, in order to provide a more secure handing of sensitive information. (see Jayachandran, [0027-0030])
Regarding claim 2:
Wang discloses the following:
The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the user identity details comprise personal identity details, contact details, income details, and transaction details. (see Wang, [0032] discloses “The sales agency can request the user to provide basic data for KYC verification. For an individual user, the basic data can include a part or all of information such as name, gender, nationality, certificate type, certificate number, age, occupation, mobile phone number, contact address, etc. of the individual.”)
Regarding claim 5:
Wang discloses the following:
The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the smart contract is encrypted using encryption techniques to avoid an unauthorized access to the at least one KYC data. (see Wang, [0108] discloses “Each blockchain node can create and invoke a smart contract by using a virtual machine. It is a challenge for privacy protection to store transactions that include smart contracts and execution results of transactions in a blockchain ledger, that is, to store all ledgers on each full node in the blockchain. Privacy protection can be implemented by using a plurality of technologies, such as cryptography technologies (such as homomorphic encryption or zero knowledge proof)”)
Regarding claim 6:
Wang discloses the following:
The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein upon a successful completion of a blockchain consensus process, the at least one KYC data is loaded onto the distributed ledger. (see Wang, [0057] discloses “After consensus is reached between the nodes by using the consensus mechanism, the smart contract invoked as declared by the above transaction is independently executed on each node of the Ethereum network under regulation, and all execution records and data are stored in the blockchain. Therefore, after the transaction is completed, transaction records that cannot be tampered with and will not be lost are stored in the blockchain.”)
Regarding claim 7:
Wang discloses the following:
The method as claimed in claim 6, wherein the successful completion of the blockchain consensus process further comprises:
validating, by the at least one processor, the smart contract by executing the blockchain consensus process involving a plurality of trusted parties associated with a blockchain network. (see Wang, [0066] discloses “Actually, a plurality of smart contracts can be deployed in the TEE, and the TEE can generate a separate pair of public and private keys for each smart contract. Therefore, each deployed smart contract can have an ID (for example, a public key corresponding to the smart contract or a character string generated based on the public key), and a result of execution of each smart contract can also be signed by using a private key that is properly stored in the TEE and corresponding to the smart contract. As such, it can be proved that a result is a result of execution of a specific contract in the off-chain privacy computing node. As such, execution results of different contracts can be signed by different private keys. Only a corresponding public key can verify the signature, or if a corresponding public key cannot verify the signature, it cannot be proved that the result is an execution result of a corresponding contract.”)
Regarding claims 9 and 17: it is similar scope to claim 1, and thus it is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 10: it is similar scope to claim 2, and thus it is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claims 13 and 18: it is similar scope to claim 5, and thus it is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claims 14 and 19: it is similar scope to claim 6, and thus it is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claims 15 and 20: it is similar scope to claim 7, and thus it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 3-4 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Agbamu in view of Jayachandran in further view of Moy et al. (hereafter Moy), US Publication Number 2021/0256508 A1.
Regarding claim 3:
Wang, Agbamu, and Jayachandran do not explicitly disclose the following, however Moy further teaches:
The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one KYC data comprises verified documents corresponding to the user identity details. (see Moy, [0124] discloses “the identity consumer may digitally sign the document and attestation(s) and may provide the attestation(s) and document to the receiving party. In one embodiment, the attestation may be embedded within the document.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the field of blockchain technologies that relate to an information sharing method of Wang to include verifying the identify consumer’s authorization to sign a document, as taught by Moy, in order to protect from altered or changed documents. (see Moy, [0122-0125])
Regarding claim 4:
Wang, Agbamu, and Jayachandran do not explicitly disclose the following, however Moy further teaches:
The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the smart contract comprises at least one from among a block identifier, a transaction identifier, a chain identifier, a contract address and business logic parameters. (see Moy, [0116] discloses “a smart contract may maintain or may access a list of individuals that are authorized to sign on behalf of an organization. The list may be provided by the organization. A relying party seeking to verify the authority of an individual may provide an identifier to the smart contract, and the smart contract may determine if the individual is authorized, and what other policies may need to be met.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the field of blockchain technologies that relate to an information sharing method of Wang to include verifying the identify consumer’s authorization to sign a document, as taught by Moy, in order to protect from altered or changed documents. (see Moy, [0122-0125])
Regarding claim 11: it is similar scope to claim 3, and thus it is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 12: it is similar scope to claim 4, and thus it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Agbamu in view of Jayachandran in further view of Black, US Publication Number 2021/0192541 A1.
Regarding claim 8:
Wang, Agbamu, and Jayachandran do not explicitly disclose the following, however Black further teaches:
The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the method further comprises:
updating, by the at least one processor, the at least one KYC data upon receipt of a data updating request from the second institution. (see Black, [0028] discloses “a qualifier (a person or entity that is given ability to qualify individuals based on KYC, AML, accredited investor, etc.) collects identity data from individuals and compares it against databases for KYC, AML, and/or requirements for accredited investor status and then can apply a tag to the account/address in a blockchain associated with the qualified individual. The current state of the tags associated with the account/address in the blockchain are updated when a tag is added or revoked/removed. While most people pass the KYC/ AML database checks, some people may fail and have various tags added or revoked/removed based on the failure.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the field of blockchain technologies that relate to an information sharing method of Wang to include the account/address in the blockchain are updated when a tag is added or revoked/remove, as taught by Black, in order to update identity data from individuals. (see Black, [0028])
Regarding claim 16: it is similar scope to claim 8, and thus it is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record but not relied upon herein but pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure is listed in the enclosed PTO-892.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 YONG S PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-8349. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00-5:00 PM, EST.
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, Bennett M. Sigmond can be reached on (303)297-4411. 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.
/YONGSIK PARK/Examiner, Art Unit 3694
June 8, 2026
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights