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 Application
This is a non-final rejection relating to U.S. Patent Application No. 18/972,064, filed on December 6, 2024. This application is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/102,973, filed on January 30, 2023, now U.S. Patent 12,165,154 which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application 16/429,562, filed on June 3, 2019, now U.S. Patent 11,568,415, which claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/680,017, filed on June 4, 2018. Applicant filed a Preliminary Amendment on March 3, 2025 which cancelled Claims 1-20 and added Claims 21-40. Claims 21 - 40 are pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement submitted by the Applicant on March 4, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has been considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting Rejection
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 20 of U.S. Patent 12,165,154. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each. Claim 21 from the instant application and claim 13 of the ‘154 patent each recite: a node device comprising one or more first processors and first memory storing first instructions (although claim 13 refers to it as a node server), communicating with a plurality of other node devices to implement a distributed trust network associated with a blockchain, receiving a trust request for a blockchain address associated with the blockchain, requesting, from the plurality of other node devices, a plurality of local node trust scores for the blockchain address generated by respective node devices of the plurality of other node devices, generating a consensus trust value for the blockchain address based on the local node trust scores and transmitting the consensus trust value to the computing device, (although claim 13 recites determine a consensus trust score based on the local node trust score and the plurality of additional local trust scores wherein the consensus trust score indicates a consensus value for the local node trust score). These distinctions in the language of the recitation of the inventions is not patently significant. The difference between Claim 21 in instant application and claim 13 in the ‘415 patent is that Claim includes limitations that determine whether a consensus trust value satisfies a trust threshold for a requested blockchain transaction to be executed. However, the additional limitations and the difference in the recited language is not patently significant in that Claim 21 comprises the basic elements of the invention in claim 13 of the ‘415 patent. The additional limitations of including a threshold for the consensus trust value would be obvious in light of the basic elements of the invention. The inventions are not patently distinct.
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 21-40 are rejected pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 - Statutory Class
Claims 21-26 and 34-40 are directed to a system. Claims 27-33 are directed to a method. Therefore, on its face, each of Claims 21-40 is directed to a statutory class of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1 – Abstract Idea
Claim 34 recites receiving a request to execute a transaction associated with a blockchain address, prior to executing the requested transaction, querying for a trust report of a distributed trust network, receiving the trust report, wherein the trust report comprises a consensus trust value derived by the distributed trust network, wherein the consensus trust value is based on a plurality of local node trust scores generated by a plurality of other node devices that implement the distributed trust network, determining whether the consensus trust value satisfies a trust threshold, based on determining that the consensus trust value does not satisfy the trust threshold, canceling the requested transaction without executing the requested transaction. Claim 34 recites the abstract idea of receiving a request for a transaction and data in the form of a trust report and consensus trust value for a blockchain address and determining whether the trust value satisfies a threshold as a basis to either proceed or cancel the requested transaction which constitute fundamental economic practices including mitigating risk falling under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a). Claims 21 and 27 recite the same abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 – Practical Application
Claim 34 recites a computing device comprising one or more processors, memory storing instructions, a blockchain, a node device, a plurality of other node devices and a distributed trust network. The additional elements of Claim 34 are recited at a high level of generality and are being used as tools to implement the abstract idea. They do not provide a technical improvement such as to the functioning of a computer or to technology or to a technical field. The claims do not invoke a particular machine as our guidance is clear that a generic computer is not the particular machine envisioned, they do not transform matter as they only manipulate data which is not matter. The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B – Significantly more
As set forth in the discussion in Step 2A, Prong 2, above, the additional elements additional technical limitations are recited at a high level of generality and are used as tools to implement the abstract idea. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more to the abstract idea.
Dependent claims
Claims 22, 28 and 35 (the requested blockchain transaction is a transaction for sending one or more tokens to the blockchain address, wherein the computing device is associated with a second blockchain address of a sender of the requested blockchain transaction), Claims 23, 29 and 36 (the requested blockchain transaction is a transaction for sending one or more tokens from the blockchain address to a second blockchain address associated with the computing device), Claims 24, 30 and 37 (the second steps further comprise: receiving a second consensus trust value associated with a second blockchain address from the node device; determining whether the second consensus trust value satisfies the trust threshold; and based on determining that the consensus trust value does not satisfy the trust threshold, initiating an insurance process for a second requested blockchain transaction associated with the second blockchain address), Claim 25 (the computing device is one of a user transactor device that executes a transaction application or an intermediate transaction system that performs cryptocurrency transactions on behalf of the user transactor device), Claim 26 (the first steps further comprise generating a first local node trust score based on blockchain data stored by the node device, wherein generating the consensus trust value is further based on the first local node trust score), Claims 31 and 38 (the computing device is a user transactor device that executes a transaction application configured to transact with the blockchain, and wherein the instructions further cause the computing device to perform steps comprising: receiving, via a user interface of the transaction application, user input specifying the blockchain address and an amount for the requested blockchain transaction; and displaying, via the user interface, the consensus trust value prior to canceling the requested blockchain transaction), Claims 32 and 39 (the computing device is an intermediate transaction system that performs cryptocurrency transactions on behalf of a user device, wherein the request to execute a blockchain transaction is received from the user device, and wherein the instructions further cause the computing device to perform steps comprising transmitting a notification to the user device indicating that the requested blockchain transaction has been canceled based on the consensus trust value not satisfying the trust threshold) and Claims 33 and 40 (the computing device is associated with a digital token exchange) contain additional elements (underlined above) that are recited at a high level of generality and used as tools to implement the abstract idea and/or further define and merely add specificity to the abstract idea. Thus, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As such, Claims 21-40 are not patent eligible.
No Prior Art Rejection
Based on prior art search results, the prior art of record neither anticipates or renders obvious the claimed subject matter of Claims 21-40 as a whole or taken in combination. Therefore, there are no prior art rejections provided for Claims 21-40.
The closest prior art of record US 2018/0357683 A1, Pickover et al., discloses A rating transaction corresponding to a rating of a given subject obtained from a rating source is received. A rating logic program for validating the rating transaction based on one or more inputs is executed. A validity of the rating transaction is determined based at least in part on the execution of the rating logic program. In response to determining
that the rating transaction is valid, a data block associated with the validated rating transaction is added to a secure chain of data blocks maintained at one or more computing nodes of a distributed network of computing nodes.
The closest prior art of record US 2015/0363783 A1, Ronca et al., discloses a system that includes a processor operable to receive a request from a customer to perform a cryptocurrency transaction with a third party. The processor may also retrieve block chain information associated with the cryptocurrency transaction. The processor may also determine the amount of cryptocurrency associated with the cryptocurrency transaction. The processor may further calculate a risk score for performing the cryptocurrency transaction based at least in part upon the block chain information and the amount of cryptocurrency.
The closest prior art of record US 2019/0172067 A1, Arora et al., discloses a method for risk scoring a blockchain transaction includes: storing blockchain data associated with a blockchain, the data including a plurality of blocks, each block including a block header and transaction values, each transaction value including a sending address, recipient address, and transaction amount; receiving a new transaction value related to a proposed blockchain transaction and a node identifier associated with a node included in a blockchain network associated with the blockchain, the new transaction value including a user address, transacting address, and blockchain amount; identifying transaction values in the blockchain where the sending address or recipient address is associated with a transacting cryptographic key pair also associated with the transacting address; determining a risk score for the proposed blockchain transaction based on at least the data included in each of the identified transaction values and the new transaction value; and transmitting the determined risk score.
The closest prior art of record WO 2015/085393 A1, Tang et al., discloses a rating system for rating a transaction history of a digital currency, comprising: a storage system for storing transaction information of the digital currency; an interface for receiving an identifier of at least one account associated with the digital currency and a request for rating the transaction history of the at least one account: a processor communicative with the storage system and the interface; the processor identifying transactions of the at least one account from the transaction information stored in the storage system and assessing the destination of the identified transactions to generate a rating for the at least one account. The rating system may further assess the amount and age of the identified transactions. The rating system may be useful, for example, for peer-to-peer digital currencies such as Bitcoin. Methods for rating a transaction history of a digital currency and computer readable media for providing the same are also described.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE PROIOS whose telephone number is (571)272-4573. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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 at 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.
/GEORGE N. PROIOS/Examiner, Art Unit 3694
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights