DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The following is a non-final office action in response to the election of restriction of 1 April 2026.
Applicant has elected Group III 12-16. Examiner withdraws the non-elected claims.
Applicant has claimed priority to FOR - KR10-2023-0066635 filed 5/24/2023 (not perfected) and as PCT/KR2024/006941 filed 5/22/2024.
Claims 1-16 are currently pending and Claims 12-16 have been examined.
Specification
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in FOR - KR10-2023-0066635 filed 5/24/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified English translation as required by 37 CFR 1.55. As such, the claim for foreign priority has not been perfected.
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.
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.
Claims 12 -16 are 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.
Claims 12-16 recite the term “risky” which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “risky” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Using broadest reasonable interpretation, Examiner will interpret the term as a user defined “label.”
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 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
(1) In the instant case, the claims are directed towards a method for providing a wallet address query service for risk analysis. In the instant case, Claims 12-16 are directed to a process.
(2a) Prong 1: Risk determination based on (wallet) address query is categorized in/akin to the abstract idea subject matter grouping of: methods of organizing human activity [organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)]. As such, the claims include an abstract idea.
The specific limitations of the invention are (a) identified to encompass the abstract idea include:
Claim 12.
A method for providing a wallet address query service using a wallet address management … which manages a plurality of wallet addresses for virtual asset transactions, the method comprising:
extracting primary risky wallet addresses using search keyword for respective risky wallet address categories, including blacklist, cybercrime, financial crime, and other crime categories, and
…the extracted primary risky wallet addresses in a database;
loading the primary risky wallet addresses registered in the database, analyzing transaction history information of the primary risky wallet addresses, and
extracting secondary risky wallet addresses using a risk prediction model;
receiving requests to register a risky wallet address from a plurality of virtual asset exchange servers and registering risky wallet addresses;
… a query request for a specific wallet address from a specific virtual asset exchange server;
determining whether the specific risky wallet address is a primary or secondary risky wallet address, by querying the … for the registered risky wallet addresses from the plurality of virtual asset exchange …; and
responding to the specific virtual asset exchange … with whether the specific wallet address is risky.
As stated above, this abstract idea falls into the (b) subject matter grouping of: methods of organizing human activity.
Prong 2: When considered individually and in combination, the instant claims are do not integrate the exception into a practical application because the steps of extracting…loading…extracting… determining… responding… 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. the abstract idea).
The instant recited claims including additional elements (i.e. storing … receiving…) 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 recite: “apply it” (or an equivalent) or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05 (f) and (g))
(2b) n the instant case, Claims 12-16 are directed to a process.
Additionally, the claims (independent and dependent) do not include additional elements that individually or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception of abstract idea (i.e. provide an inventive concept). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: (apparatus…database… server… server…. ) merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions. (See MPEP 2106.05 (d), (f) and (g)) (Specification, Fig. 1, wallet management apparatus [39-40] when an element, component, apparatus or system is referred to as comprising a component consisting of a program or software, the element, component, apparatus or system can comprise hardware (for example, a memory, a central processing unit (CPU), etc.) for executing or operating the program or software or another program or software (for example, an operating system (OS), a driver for driving a hardware, etc.), unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. …Also, it will be understood that an element (or component) can be realized by software, hardware, or software and hardware, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. [51] Fig. 1….a virtual asset wallet address management system 1 includes a client terminal 10, a plurality of virtual asset exchange servers 11, a wallet address management apparatus 12, a plurality of public institution servers 13, a plurality of financial institution servers 14, and a plurality of web servers 15)
The dependent claims have also been examined and do not correct the deficiencies of the independent claims.
It is noted that claims (13-16) introduces the additional element of : …receiving… wherein determining whether the specific wallet address is risky…, ….(Claim 13); ….collecting… wherein determining whether the specific wallet address is risky …(Claim 14)…extracting… storing… wherein determining whether the specific wallet address is risky …(Claim 15)…extract..by analyzing…storing… wherein determining whether the specific wallet address is risky …(Claim 16). These elements are not a practical application of the judicial exception because these limitations merely recite: “apply it” (or an equivalent) or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05 (f) and (g)) Further these limitations taken alone or in combination with the abstract idea do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea alone because these elements amount to mere use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions. (See MPEP 2106.05 (d), (f) and (g)) (Specification, Fig. 1, wallet management apparatus [39-40] when an element, component, apparatus or system is referred to as comprising a component consisting of a program or software, the element, component, apparatus or system can comprise hardware (for example, a memory, a central processing unit (CPU), etc.) for executing or operating the program or software or another program or software (for example, an operating system (OS), a driver for driving a hardware, etc.), unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. …Also, it will be understood that an element (or component) can be realized by software, hardware, or software and hardware, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. [51] Fig. 1….a virtual asset wallet address management system 1 includes a client terminal 10, a plurality of virtual asset exchange servers 11, a wallet address management apparatus 12, a plurality of public institution servers 13, a plurality of financial institution servers 14, and a plurality of web servers 15)
Therefore, claims 12-16 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 of this title, 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 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230162174 A1,Brasse et al hereinafter referred to as Brasse in view of US 11403640 B2, Baskette et al. hereinafter referred to as Baskette.
Claim 12
Brasse discloses method for providing a wallet address query service using a wallet address management apparatus which manages a plurality of wallet addresses for virtual asset transactions, the method comprising:
extracting primary risky wallet addresses ….and (See at least Brasse, [14-15] databases… digital wallets… wallet transaction history.. and risk categories …address checked against …databases… including government … and… private entities… determine whether the wallet address is deemed high risk…OFAC blacklisted…. … Claim 9..host a plurality of digital wallets… databases.. software configured to perform check of the wallet addresses against the one or more databases… )
storing the extracted primary risky wallet addresses in a database (See at least Brasse, [14-15] databases… digital wallets… wallet transaction history.. and risk categories … determine whether the wallet address is deemed high risk… Claim 9..host a plurality of digital wallets… databases.. software configured to perform check of the wallet addresses against the one or more databases…)
loading the primary risky wallet addresses registered in the database, (See at least Brasse, [14-15] databases… digital wallets… wallet transaction history.. and risk categories … determine whether the wallet address is deemed high risk… Claim 9..host a plurality of digital wallets… databases.. software configured to perform check of the wallet addresses against the one or more databases…)
analyzing transaction history information of the primary risky wallet addresses, and (See at least Brasse, Abstract, checking the wallet address against one or more databases … databases comprise wallet transaction history and risk category; [14-15] databases… digital wallets… wallet transaction history.. and risk categories… Claim 9..host a plurality of digital wallets… databases.. software configured to perform check of the wallet addresses against the one or more databases… )
…
receiving a query request for a specific wallet address from a specific virtual asset exchange server; (See at least Brasse, Claim 9..host a plurality of digital wallets… databases.. software configured to perform check of the wallet addresses against the one or more databases… )
determining whether the specific risky wallet address is a primary or secondary risky wallet address, by querying the database for the registered risky wallet addresses from the plurality of virtual asset exchange servers; and (See at least Brasse, Claim 9..host a plurality of digital wallets… databases.. software configured to perform check of the wallet addresses against the one or more databases… means whitelisting or blacklisting…a wallet address… pre-defined standards… )
Brasse does not directly disclose the following;
…using search keyword for respective risky wallet address categories, including blacklist, cybercrime, financial crime, and other crime categories,
However, Brasse does teach the use of government and other private databases to check the wallet addresses including the OFAC blacklist .(See at least Brasse, [3] sanctioned transactions, scams and darknet markets… [14-15] OFAC blacklisted….)
As such, Brasse does suggest the use of a searchable database based on user-defined categories. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to search a database/databases based on user -defined categories/search terms including blacklist, sanctions, scams, etc. and similar terms such as crime/cybercrimes/financial crime/ and other crime categories.
Brasse also teaches determining if a wallet is suspicious based on pre-defined standards. (See at least Brasse, Claim 7 & 8 determine if suspicious… if not… whitelist for future transactions… Claim 9..host a plurality of digital wallets… databases.. software configured to perform check of the wallet addresses against the one or more databases… means whitelisting or blacklisting…a wallet address… pre-defined standards… )
Brasse does not directly disclose the following; however, Baskette teaches:
extracting secondary risky wallet addresses using a risk prediction model….; (See at least Baskette, Fig 1.. malicious wallet identification system… C4L1-23 unique identifier of user device… malicious device identification engine…. Risk data associated with device…risk data database… C4L24-36… malicious device identification engine… access a malicious device database… information relating to devices confirmed as being associated with one or more malicious or fraudulent transactions…C4L37-63…malicious device identification engine may identify a user device as a malicious device according to a device score…C1… identifying … the user device as a malicious digital wallet device…)
receiving requests to register a risky wallet address from a plurality of virtual asset exchange servers and registering risky wallet addresses;… (See at least Baskette, Fig 1, Fig. 2, ….C4L64-65 once identified as malicious, user device may be added to the malicious device database… )
responding to the specific virtual asset exchange server with whether the specific wallet address is risky. (See at least Baskette, Claim 1…in response to identifying that the user device as the malicious digital wallet device,… generating a notification,… cause the digital wallet application to display the notification relating to the identified malicious digital wallet device)
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550US___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), that merely applying a known technique to a known method, yield predictable results, render the claimed invention obvious over such combination. In the instant case, Brasse discloses a method of checking for legitimacy including checking wallet addresses against databases. Baskette another method and system for checking for legitimacy (i.e. malicious digital wallet devices) based various risk evaluations including a risk score feature. One of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize that this combination would lead to a predictable result (i.e. method and system for checking for legitimacy based various risk evaluations such as a risk score feature.). As such the claimed invention is obvious over Brasse / Baskette.
Claim 13
Brasse and Baskette disclose the invention as claimed above in Claim 12.
Brasse further discloses:
receiving requests to register a risky wallet address from a plurality of public institution servers and a plurality of financial institution servers and registering risky wallet addresses, wherein, in determining whether the specific wallet address is risky, the registered risky wallet addresses from the plurality of public institution servers and the plurality of financial institution servers are queried to determine whether the specific wallet address is risky. (See at least Brasse, [3] KYT process… OFAC sanctioned transactions, scams, and darknet markets…requirements …rules… wherein requirements and rules suggests receiving compliance requests… [14-15], [20-22] checked against one or more government-related databases….OFAC blacklisted wallet addresses… check performed in real time.)
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brasse in view of Baskette further in view of US 20200311790 A1, Keren hereinafter referred to as Keren.
Claim 14
Brasse and Baskette disclose the invention as claimed above in Claim 12.
Brasse does not directly disclose the following; however, Keren teaches:
collecting risky wallet addresses through web crawling, wherein, in determining whether the specific wallet address is risky, the risky wallet addresses collected through the web crawling are queried to determine whether the specific wallet address is risky. (See at least Keren, [39] crawler [159-160] .. example … crawl the Internet…fraudulent crypto-wallet identifier… fraud flag…Claim 23 )
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550US___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), that merely applying a known technique to a known method, yield predictable results, render the claimed invention obvious over such combination. In the instant case, Brasse discloses a method of checking for legitimacy including checking wallet addresses against databases. Baskette another method and system for checking for legitimacy (i.e. malicious digital wallet devices) based various risk evaluations including a risk score feature. Keren discloses a system, method and apparatus of protected electronic commerce and electronic financial transactions including a web crawler and a designation/labelling of wallets. One of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize that this combination would lead to a predictable result (i.e. method and system for checking for legitimacy based on various risk evaluations, using a web crawler and designating/labelling a wallet). As such the claimed invention is obvious over Brasse / Baskette/Keren.
Claim 15
Brasse and Baskette disclose the invention as claimed above in Claim 12.
Brasse does not directly disclose the following; however, Keren teaches:
extracting primary risky wallet addresses using search keywords for the respective risky wallet address categories through web crawling; and (See at least Keren, [39] crawler..collect information… store …in databases… generate risk score…)
storing and registering the extracted primary risky wallet addresses in the database, wherein, in determining whether the specific wallet address is risky, the primary risky wallet addresses stored in the database are queried to determine whether the specific wallet address is risky. (See at least Keren, [39] crawler..collect information… store …in databases… generate risk score…[103] Trusted Wallet Stamp)
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550US___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), that merely applying a known technique to a known method, yield predictable results, render the claimed invention obvious over such combination. In the instant case, Brasse discloses a method of checking for legitimacy including checking wallet addresses against databases. Baskette another method and system for checking for legitimacy (i.e. malicious digital wallet devices) based various risk evaluations including a risk score feature. Keren discloses a system, method and apparatus of protected electronic commerce and electronic financial transactions including a web crawler and a designation/labelling of wallets. One of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize that this combination would lead to a predictable result (i.e. method and system for checking for legitimacy based on various risk evaluations, using a web crawler and designating/labelling a wallet). As such the claimed invention is obvious over Brasse / Baskette/Keren.
Claim 16
Brasse , Baskette and Keren disclose the invention as claimed above in Claim 15.
Brasse does not directly disclose the following; however, Baskette teaches:
extract secondary risky wallet addresses by analyzing transaction history of the registered primary risky wallet addresses, and (See at least Baskette, Fig 1.. malicious wallet identification system… C4L1-23 unique identifier of user device… malicious device identification engine…. Risk data associated with device…risk data database… C4L24-36… malicious device identification engine… access a malicious device database… information relating to devices confirmed as being associated with one or more malicious or fraudulent transactions…C4L37-63…malicious device identification engine may identify a user device as a malicious device according to a device score…C1… identifying … the user device as a malicious digital wallet device…)
storing the extracted secondary risky wallet addresses in the database, wherein, in determining whether the specific wallet address is risky, the secondary risky wallet addresses stored in the database are queried to determine whether the specific wallet address is risky. (See at least Baskette, Fig 1.. malicious wallet identification system… C4L1-23 unique identifier of user device… malicious device identification engine…. Risk data associated with device…risk data database… C4L24-36… malicious device identification engine… access a malicious device database… information relating to devices confirmed as being associated with one or more malicious or fraudulent transactions…C4L37-63…malicious device identification engine may identify a user device as a malicious device according to a device score…C1… identifying … the user device as a malicious digital wallet device…)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHA PUTTAIA H whose telephone number is (571)270-1352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am to 5:30 pm.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on 571-270-1836. 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.
/ASHA PUTTAIA H/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights