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 the Claims
Claims 1-30 are presented for examination. Applicant filed a response to non-final Office action on 04/16/2026 amending claims 2-10, 12-20, and 22-30. In light of Applicant’s amendments, Examiner has withdrawn the previous objections of claims 2-10, 12-20, and 22-30. In light of Applicant’s arguments, Examiner has withdrawn the previous grounds of prior art rejection of claims 1-30. Examiner has, however, established new grounds of § 102 rejection for claims 1-30 and maintained the previous § 101 rejection of claims 1-30 in the instant Office action.
Examiner’s Remarks
Patent Eligibility under § 101
Applicant argues in pages 11, 14-16, and 18-19 of Applicant’s Remarks:
(1) Step 2A, Prong 1 – The Claims Are Not Directed to an Abstract Idea
Applicant submits that the claims are eligible under the first prong of the Step 2A analysis because the features recited in the claims are not directed to an abstract idea and the Examiner has not established that the features recited in the claims fall within any of the groupings identified in the M.P.E.P.
(2) Step 2A, Prong 2 – The Claims Integrate any Alleged Abstract Idea into a Practical Application
For example, the claims reflect a technical improvement in the field of blockchain efficiency and reliability. Blockchains are special in that transactions recorded on a blockchain are generally immutable and irreversible. Specification [0013]. Furthermore, blockchains are used in a distributed computing system (e.g., a decentralized system). Id. [0002]. Thus, in order to bridge a transaction from one blockchain to another blockchain, conventional blockchain systems may rely on a series of asynchronous, independent transactions involving different parties. Id. [0003]. However, as a result, the execution of blockchain transactions may be premised on the completion of predecessor transactions, increasing the latency involved in completing transactions across different blockchains. Id. To counteract these inefficiencies, the claimed invention includes techniques for using a reserve resource pool, which allow for bridging transactions to be executed on a second blockchain without strictly depending on completion of the corresponding transaction on the first blockchain. Id. [0016]. As such, the solutions described in the Specification and reflected in the claims allow for significantly faster processing and reduced latencies. Id.
(3) Step 2B – The Claims Recite an Inventive Concept that Amounts to Significantly More than an Abstract Idea
Similar to BASCOM, the present claims recite non-conventional and non-generic methods and systems, in this case for bridging blockchain transactions using a cross- domain reserve resource pool, which improve the performance of blockchains and the technical field of blockchain processing. For example, the Specification describes how Applicant's claimed solution improves blockchain transactions by using a reserve resource pool, which obviates the need to wait for a predecessor transaction to be completed on a first blockchain before bridging the transaction on a second blockchain and further reduces transactions latencies that may occur from the lack of available resources to perform the transaction across blockchains. Specification [0016. The improvement is accomplished by particular features in the claims, such as (1) "receiving a request to execute a cross-domain transaction on a source processing domain and a target processing domain"; (2) "executing, based on detecting initiation of a first operation on the source processing domain, a corresponding second operation on the target processing domain, wherein the second operation is performed using resources in a cross-processing domain reserve resource pool, and wherein a request associated with the second operation includes a signature generated by an issuer of a digital asset associated with the cross-domain transaction and associated with the first operation on the source processing domain"; and (3) "finalizing execution of the request based on executing the second operation on the target processing domain."
(4) Further, Applicant argues in pages 16-18 of Applicant’s Remarks that various decisions by the Board render instant claims 1-30 patent eligible under § 101.
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
(1) Examiner has found (see below point 9):
Claims 1-30, however, recite an abstract idea of cross-domain transaction processing. The creation of cross-domain transaction processing., as recited in the independent claims 1, 11, and 21, belongs to certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., commercial interactions) that are found by the courts to be abstract ideas.
Independent claims 1, 11, and 21, recite:
“receiving a request to execute a cross-domain transaction on a source processing domain and a target processing domain” (claims 1 and 11); and
“receiving a request to transfer a quantity of tokens from a source blockchain to a target blockchain” (claim 21).
Other claims steps in each independent claim then proceed to claim executing the cross-domain transaction request. Therefore, Examiner has identified an abstract idea that falls under certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., commercial interactions) that are found by the courts to be abstract ideas.
(2) Applicant’s claims steps are recited in high level of abstraction lacking details and specifics as to how a technological solution to a problem of technology is achieved. As such, instant claims do not recite an abstract idea that is integrated into practical purpose.
(3) The Federal Circuit Court, in Electric Power Group, distinguished the claims at issue from the claims in Bascom explaining: “Nor do the claims here require an arguably inventive distribution of functionality within a network, thus distinguishing the claims at issue from those in Bascom …The claims in this case specify what information in the power-grid field it is desirable to gather, analyze, and display, including in “real time”: but they do not include any requirement for performing the claimed functions of gathering, analyzing, and displaying in real time by use of anything but entirely conventional, generic technology.” (10-11). Similarly here, the instant claims 1-30 but do not use anything besides entirely conventional, generic technology. While the Federal Circuit Court in Bascom found non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the additional elements, no such non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the additional elements is present with the instant claims. Thus, instant claims 1-30 are not patentable under § 101 in view of Bascom.
(4) Decisions by the Board are limited to the specific cases and have no precedential value in considering the patent eligibility of instant claims 1-20 under § 101.
Prior Art under § 102 and § 103
Applicant argues in page 20 of Applicant’s Remarks:
Applicant submits that Boneh is not prior art to the present application under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2). Boneh is assigned to Circle Internet Financial Limited, and the present application is currently assigned to Circle Internet Financial, LLC-both of which are affiliates under Circle Internet Group, Inc. Thus, Boneh and the present application are commonly owned. Accordingly, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C), Boneh is not prior art.
In light of Applicant’s argument, Examiner withdraws Boneh reference and thus the previous grounds of prior art rejection. Examiner has, however, establish new grounds of § 102 rejection for claims 1-30 in the instant Office action.
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 1-30 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because they are directed to non-statutory subject matter. The rationale for this finding is explained below.
The Supreme Court in Mayo laid out a framework for determining whether an applicant is seeking to patent a judicial exception itself or a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception. See Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355,110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961). This framework, which is referred to as the Mayo test or the Alice/Mayo test (“the test”), is described in detail in Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (”MPEP”) (see MPEP § 2106(III) for further guidance). The step 1 of the test: It need to be determined whether the claims are directed to a patent eligible (i.e., statutory) subject matter under 35 USC § 101. Step 2A of the test: If the claims are found to be directed to a statutory subject matter, the next step is to determine whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea (Prong 1). If the claims are found to be directed to an abstract idea, it needs to be determined whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong 2). Step 2B of the test: If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the next and final step is to determine whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1 of the Test:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 USC § 101, 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. Here, the claimed invention of claims 1-10 and 21-30 is a series of steps, which is method (i.e., a process) and, thus, one of the statutory categories of invention. Further, the claimed invention of claims 11-20 is a system, which is also one of the statutory categories of invention.
Conclusion of Step 1 Analysis: Therefore, claims 1-30 are statutory under 35 USC § 101 in view of step 1 of the test.
Step 2A of the Test:
Prong 1: Claims 1-30, however, recite an abstract idea of cross-domain transaction processing. The creation of cross-domain transaction processing., as recited in the independent claims 1, 11, and 21, belongs to certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., commercial interactions) that are found by the courts to be abstract ideas. The limitations in independent claims 1, 11, and 21, which set forth or describe the recited abstract idea, are found in the following steps:
“executing, based on detecting initiation of a first operation on the source processing domain, a corresponding second operation on the target processing domain, wherein the second operation is performed using resources in a cross-processing domain reserve resource pool, and wherein a request associated with the second operation includes a signature generated by an issuer of a digital asset associated with the cross-domain transaction and associated with the first operation on the source processing domain” (claims 1 and 11);
“finalizing execution of the request based on executing the second operation on the target processing domain” (claims 1 and 11);
“minting, based on detecting initiation of a burn operation for the quantity of tokens on the source blockchain, the quantity of tokens on the target blockchain, wherein the minting is performed using resources in a cross-blockchain reserve resource pool, and wherein a request associated with the minting includes a signature generated by an issuer of the tokens and associated with the burn operation on the source blockchain” (claim 21); and
“finalizing execution of the request based on minting the quantity of tokens on the target blockchain” (claim 21).
Prong 2: In addition to abstract steps recited above in Prong 1, independent claim 11 recites additional elements:
“at least one memory having executable instructions stored thereon” (claim 11); and
“one or more processors configured to execute the executable instructions” (claim 11).
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (e.g., as a generic processor performing a generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Further, the following limitations recite insignificant extra solution activity (for example, data gathering):
“receiving a request to execute a cross-domain transaction on a source processing domain and a target processing domain” (claims 1 and 11); and
“receiving a request to transfer a quantity of tokens from a source blockchain to a target blockchain” (claim 21).
These additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The additional elements/limitations of independent claims 1, 11, and 21, here do not render improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), nor do they integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under MPEP § 2106.05(b) (particular machine); MPEP § 2106.05(c) (particular transformations); or MPEP § 2106.05(e) (other meaningful limitations). Further, the combination of these additional elements/limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements/ limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Conclusion of Step 2A Analysis: Therefore, independent claims 1, 11, and 21, are non-statutory under 35 USC § 101 in view of step 2A of the test.
Step 2B of the Test: The additional elements of independent claims 11 (see above under Step 2A - Prong 2) are described by Applicant’s Specification in following terms:
[0082] The various illustrative logical blocks, modules and circuits described in connection with the present disclosure may be implemented or performed with a general purpose processor, a digital signal processor (DSP), an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a field programmable gate array (FPGA) or other programmable logic device (PLD), discrete gate or transistor logic, discrete hardware components, or any combination thereof designed to perform the functions described herein. A general-purpose processor may be a microprocessor, but in the alternative, the processor may be any commercially available processor, controller, microcontroller, or state machine. A processor may also be implemented as a combination of computing devices, e.g., a combination of a DSP and a microprocessor, a plurality of microprocessors, one or more microprocessors in conjunction with a DSP core, or any other such configuration.
[0083] A processing system may be implemented with a bus architecture. The bus may include any number of interconnecting buses and bridges depending on the specific application of the processing system and the overall design constraints. The bus may link together various circuits including a processor, machine-readable media, and input/output devices, among others. A user interface (e.g., keypad, display, mouse, joystick, etc.) may also be connected to the bus. The bus may also link various other circuits such as timing sources, peripherals, voltage regulators, power management circuits, and the like, which are well known in the art, and therefore, will not be described any further. The processor may be implemented with one or more general-purpose and/or special-purpose processors. Examples include microprocessors, microcontrollers, DSP processors, and other circuitry that can execute software. Those skilled in the art will recognize how best to implement the described functionality for the processing system depending on the particular application and the overall design constraints imposed on the overall system.
[0084] If implemented in software, the functions may be stored or transmitted over as one or more instructions or code on a computer-readable medium. Software shall be construed broadly to mean instructions, data, or any combination thereof, whether referred to as software, firmware, middleware, microcode, hardware description language, or otherwise. Computer-readable media include both computer storage media and communication media, such as any medium that facilitates transfer of a computer program from one place to another. The processor may be responsible for managing the bus and general processing, including the execution of software modules stored on the computer-readable storage media. A computer-readable storage medium may be coupled to a processor such that the processor can read information from, and write information to, the storage medium. In the alternative, the storage medium may be integral to the processor. By way of example, the computer-readable media may include a transmission line, a carrier wave modulated by data, and/or a computer readable storage medium with instructions stored thereon separate from the wireless node, all of which may be accessed by the processor through the bus interface. Alternatively, or in addition, the computer-readable media, or any portion thereof, may be integrated into the processor, such as the case may be with cache and/or general register files. Examples of machine-readable storage media may include, by way of example, RAM (Random Access Memory), flash memory, ROM (Read Only Memory), PROM (Programmable Read-Only Memory), EPROM (Erasable Programmable Read-Only Memory), EEPROM (Electrically Erasable Programmable Read-Only Memory), registers, magnetic disks, optical disks, hard drives, or any other suitable storage medium, or any combination thereof. The machine-readable media may be embodied in a computer-program product.
[0085] A software module may comprise a single instruction, or many instructions, and may be distributed over several different code segments, among different programs, and across multiple storage media. The computer-readable media may comprise a number of software modules. The software modules include instructions that, when executed by an apparatus such as a processor, cause the processing system to perform various functions. The software modules may include a transmission module and a receiving module. Each software module may reside in a single storage device or be distributed across multiple storage devices. By way of example, a software module may be loaded into RAM from a hard drive when a triggering event occurs. During execution of the software module, the processor may load some of the instructions into cache to increase access speed. One or more cache lines may then be loaded into a general register file for execution by the processor. When referring to the functionality of a software module, it will be understood that such functionality is implemented by the processor when executing instructions from that software module.
This is a description of general-purpose computer. Thus, individually, the additional elements of independent claims 1, 11, and 21, are well-understood, routine, and conventional elements that amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Further, the additional limitations of “receiving” information amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. For the same reason these additional limitations are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. The additional limitations of “receiving” information were considered as insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A - Prong 2. Re-evaluating here in Step 2B, they are also determined to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. Similarly to OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network), and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network), the additional limitations of independent claims 1, 11, and 21, “receive” information over a network in a merely generic manner. The courts have recognized “receiving” information functions as well-understood, routine and conventional when claimed in a merely generic manner. Therefore, the additional limitations of independent claims 1, 11, and 21, are well-understood, routine, and conventional. Further, taken as combination, the additional elements/limitations add nothing more than what is present when the additional elements/limitations are considered individually. There is no indication that the combination provides any effect regarding the functioning of the computer or any improvement to another technology.
Conclusion of Step 2B Analysis: Therefore, independent claims 1, 11, and 21, are non-statutory under 35 USC § 101 in view of step 2B of the test.
Dependent Claims: Dependent claims 2-10 depend on independent claim 1; dependent claims 12-20 depend on independent claim 11; and dependent claims 22-30 depend on independent claim 21. The elements in dependent claims 2-10, 12-20, and 22-30, which set forth or describe the abstract idea, are:
“the request is finalized without waiting for completion of the first operation on the source processing domain” (claims 2 and 12: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the request comprises a cross-chain transaction request between the source processing domain and the target processing domain including a reserved value for a finality threshold, the reserved value indicating that the request can be finalized without waiting for completion of the first operation on the source processing domain” (claims 3 and 13: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the request includes an identifier of a sender associated with the request; and the method further includes allowing, based on the identifier of the sender being included on an allowlist, execution of the second operation on the target processing domain based on detecting initiation of the first operation” (claims 4 and 14: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the first operation comprises a token burn operation and the second operation comprises a minting operation, and wherein the minting operation is further based on a comparison of a quantity of tokens included in the request and an outstanding allowance for token minting from the cross-processing domain reserve resource pool” (claims 5 and 15: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“execution of the second operation is based on detecting a threshold number of block confirmation messages associated with the first operation on the source processing domain” (claims 6 and 16: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“based on failing to detect the threshold number of block confirmation messages within a threshold time period, initiating execution of the second operation on the target processing domain in response to detecting completion of the first operation on the source processing domain” (claims 7 and 17: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“an amount of resources associated with the cross-processing domain reserve resource pool is replenished after the request is finalized based on confirmation of the first operation on the source processing domain” (claims 8 and 18: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the request further includes information associated with one or more additional actions to execute as part of satisfying the request” (claims 9 and 19: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“at least execution of the second operation on the target processing domain and execution of the one or more additional actions are performed as an atomic operation” (claims 10 and 20: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the request is finalized without waiting for completion of the burn operation on the source blockchain” (claim 22: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the request comprises a cross-chain transaction request between the source blockchain and the target blockchain including a reserved value for a finality threshold, the reserved value indicating that the request can be finalized without waiting for completion of the burn operation on the source blockchain” (claim 23: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the request includes an identifier of a sender associated with the request; and the method further includes allowing, based on the identifier of the sender being including on an allowlist, minting of the quantity of tokens on the target blockchain based on detecting initiation of the burn operation” (claim 24: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the minting is further based on a comparison of the quantity of tokens included in the request and an outstanding allowance for token minting from the cross-blockchain reserve resource pool” (claim 25: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the minting is based on detecting a threshold number of block confirmation messages associated with the burn operation on the source blockchain” (claim 26: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“based on failing to detect the threshold number of block confirmation messages within a threshold time period, initiating minting of the quantity of tokens on the target blockchain in response to detecting completion of the burn operation on the source blockchain” (claim 27: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“an amount of resources associated with the cross-blockchain reserve resource pool is replenished after the request is finalized based on confirmation of the burn operation” (claim 28: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the request further includes information associated with one or more additional actions to execute as part of satisfying the request” (claim 29: further narrowing the recited abstract idea); and
“at least the minting and execution of the one or more additional actions are performed as an atomic operation” (claim 30: further narrowing the recited abstract idea).
Conclusion of Dependent Claims Analysis: Dependent claims 2-10, 12-20, and 22-30, do not correct the deficiencies of independent claims 1, 11, and 21, and they are, thus, rejected on the same basis.
Conclusion of the 35 USC § 101 Analysis: Therefore, claims 1-30 are rejected as directed to an abstract idea without “significantly more” under 35 USC § 101.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under § 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under § 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 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhuang (US 2026/0057379 A1).
As to independent claims 1 and 11
Zhuang shows:
at least one memory having executable instructions stored thereon, and one or more processors configured to execute the executable instructions (Zhuang: page 12, ¶ 127) in order to cause the processing system to:
receive a request to execute a cross-domain transaction on a source processing domain and a target processing domain (Zhuang: page 1, ¶ 4 and ¶ 7; and page 7, ¶ 67);
execute, based on detecting initiation of a first operation on the source processing domain, a corresponding second operation on the target processing domain, wherein the second operation is performed using resources in a cross-processing domain reserve resource pool, and wherein a request associated with the second operation includes a signature generated by an issuer of a digital asset associated with the cross-domain transaction and associated with the first operation on the source processing domain (Zhuang: page 1, ¶ 4; and page 7, ¶ 66 and ¶¶ 69-70); and
finalize execution of the request based on executing the second operation on the target processing domain (Zhuang: page 7, ¶ 71).
As to claims 2 and 12: Zhuang shows all the elements of claims 1 and 11. Zhuang also shows that the request is finalized without waiting for completion of the first operation on the source processing domain (Zhuang: page 7, ¶ 69).
As to claims 3 and 13: Zhuang shows all the elements of claims 1 and 11. Zhuang also shows that the request comprises a cross-chain transaction request between the source processing domain and the target processing domain including a reserved value for a finality threshold, the reserved value indicating that the request can be finalized without waiting for completion of the first operation on the source processing domain (Zhuang: page 7, ¶¶ 67-70).
As to claims 4 and 14: Zhuang shows all the elements of claims 1 and 11. Zhuang also shows that the request includes an identifier of a sender associated with the request (Zhuang: page 4, ¶ 44); and allowing, based on the identifier of the sender being included on an allowlist, execution of the second operation on the target processing domain based on detecting initiation of the first operation (Zhuang: page 4, ¶ 44).
As to claims 5 and 15: Zhuang shows all the elements of claims 1 and 11. Zhuang also shows that the first operation comprises a token burn operation and the second operation comprises a minting operation, and the minting operation is further based on a comparison of a quantity of tokens included in the request and an outstanding allowance for token minting from the cross-processing domain reserve resource pool (Zhuang: page 5, ¶ 47 and ¶ 51; and page 7, ¶ 66).
As to claims 6 and 16: Zhuang shows all the elements of claims 1 and 11. Zhuang also shows that execution of the second operation is based on detecting a threshold number of block confirmation messages associated with the first operation on the source processing domain (Zhuang: page 6, ¶ 57).
As to claims 7 and 17: Zhuang shows all the elements of claims 6 and 16. Zhuang also shows that based on failing to detect the threshold number of block confirmation messages within a threshold time period, initiating execution of the second operation on the target processing domain in response to detecting completion of the first operation on the source processing domain (Zhuang: page 7, ¶ 69).
As to claims 8 and 18: Zhuang shows all the elements of claims 1 and 11. Zhuang also shows that an amount of resources associated with the cross-processing domain reserve resource pool is replenished after the request is finalized based on confirmation of the first operation on the source processing domain (Zhuang: pages 6-7, ¶ 65; and page 8, ¶ 85).
As to claims 9 and 19: Zhuang shows all the elements of claims 1 and 11. Zhuang also shows that the request further includes information associated with one or more additional actions to execute as part of satisfying the request (Zhuang: page 4, ¶ 43).
As to claims 10 and 20: Zhuang shows all the elements of claims 9 and 19. Zhuang also shows that at least execution of the second operation on the target processing domain and execution of the one or more additional actions are performed as an atomic operation (Zhuang: page 4, ¶ 43).
As to independent claim 21
Zhuang shows:
receiving a request to transfer a quantity of tokens from a source blockchain to a target blockchain (Zhuang: page 1, ¶ 4 and ¶ 7; and page 7, ¶ 67);
minting, based on detecting initiation of a burn operation for the quantity of tokens on the source blockchain, the quantity of tokens on the target blockchain, wherein the minting is performed using resources in a cross-blockchain reserve resource pool, and wherein a request associated with the minting includes a signature generated by an issuer of the tokens and associated with the burn operation on the source blockchain (Zhuang: page 1, ¶ 4; page 5, ¶ 47 and ¶ 51; and page 7, ¶ 66 and ¶¶ 69-70); and
finalizing execution of the request based on minting the quantity of tokens on the target blockchain (Zhuang: page 7, ¶ 71).
As to claim 22, Zhuang shows all the elements of claim 21. Zhuang also shows that the request is finalized without waiting for completion of the burn operation on the source blockchain (Zhuang: page 7, ¶ 69).
As to claim 23: Zhuang shows all the elements of claim 21. Zhuang also shows that the request comprises a cross-chain transaction request between the source blockchain and the target blockchain including a reserved value for a finality threshold, the reserved value indicating that the request can be finalized without waiting for completion of the burn operation on the source blockchain (Zhuang: page 7, ¶¶ 67-70).
As to claim 24: Zhuang shows all the elements of claim 21. Zhuang also shows that the request includes an identifier of a sender associated with the request (Zhuang: page 4, ¶ 44); and allowing, based on the identifier of the sender being including on an allowlist, minting of the quantity of tokens on the target blockchain based on detecting initiation of the burn operation (Zhuang: page 4, ¶ 44).
As to claim 25: Zhuang shows all the elements of claim 21. Zhuang also shows that the minting is further based on a comparison of the quantity of tokens included in the request and an outstanding allowance for token minting from the cross-blockchain reserve resource pool (Zhuang: page 5, ¶ 47 and ¶ 51; and page 7, ¶ 66).
As to claim 26: Zhuang shows all the elements of claim 21. Zhuang also shows that the minting is based on detecting a threshold number of block confirmation messages associated with the burn operation on the source blockchain (Zhuang: page 6, ¶ 57).
As to claim 27: Zhuang shows all the elements of claim 26. Zhuang also shows that based on failing to detect the threshold number of block confirmation messages within a threshold time period, initiating minting of the quantity of tokens on the target blockchain in response to detecting completion of the burn operation on the source blockchain (Zhuang: page 7, ¶ 69).
As to claim 28: Zhuang shows all the elements of claim 21. Zhuang also shows that an amount of resources associated with the cross-blockchain reserve resource pool is replenished after the request is finalized based on confirmation of the burn operation (Zhuang: pages 6-7, ¶ 65; and page 8, ¶ 85).
As to claim 29: Zhuang shows all the elements of claim 21. Zhuang also shows that the request further includes information associated with one or more additional actions to execute as part of satisfying the request (Zhuang: page 4, ¶ 43).
As to claim 30: Zhuang shows all the elements of claim 29. Zhuang also shows that at least the minting and execution of the one or more additional actions are performed as an atomic operation (Zhuang: page 4, ¶ 43).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Liu (US 2023/0259930 A1) discloses: “A cross-chain transaction processing method and apparatus, an electronic device, and a storage medium are provided, which belong to the field of blockchain technologies. The method includes: receiving a cross-chain transaction request of a terminal; running a first service contract on a first blockchain based on the cross-chain transaction request; executing, on the first blockchain through the first service contract, a first transaction event of a cross-chain transaction, running a first cross-chain contract on the first blockchain, and determining to execute, on a second blockchain, a second transaction event of the cross-chain transaction; storing first cross-chain transaction data to the first blockchain through the first service contract; obtaining second cross-chain transaction data from the second blockchain; and sending a transaction completion response to the terminal through the first service contract and the first cross-chain contract.”
Bollen (US 2021/0158335 A1) discloses: “A blockchain tokenization involving minting tokens on one blockchain that are backed by cryptoassets on a different blockchain. A node processor stakes an amount of cryptoassets on a value blockchain by transferring the amount of cryptoassets from a staker address on the value blockchain to an address of a smart contract on the value blockchain. The node processor, responsive to the staking, mints an amount of utility tokens on the utility blockchain. The amount of minted utility tokens are stored on the utility blockchain mapped to the staker address. The amount of minted utility tokens are backed by the amount of staked cryptoassets on the value blockchain at a fixed conversion rate between the amount of cryptoassets staked on the value blockchain and the amount of minted utility tokens on the utility blockchain.”
H. Tian et al., "Enabling Cross-Chain Transactions: A Decentralized Cryptocurrency Exchange Protocol," in IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, vol. 16, pp. 3928-3941, 2021.
Borkowski, Michael, et al. "Cross-blockchain technologies: Review, state of the art, and outlook." White paper (2019).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIRPI H. KANERVO whose telephone number is 571-272-9818. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 10 am – 6 pm. 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/VIRPI H KANERVO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights