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
The following is Office Action on the merits in response to the communication received on 1/17/25.
Claim status:
Amended claims: 4 and 14
Canceled claims: none
Added New claims: None
Pending claims: 1-15
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 4, 6-12 and 14-15 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Each of Claims 4 and 14 recites an improper Markush group because the list of alternatives in each of the claims is not a closed grouping of alternative members using the transition “consisting of.” Appropriate correction is required. Claims 6-12 depend from Claim 4, and Claim 15 depends from Claim 14, and are rejected for this same reason.
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 1-5, 10-13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to statutory subject matter. Specifically, the invention of claims 1-15 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 1 and 13 are directed to a method (claim 1) and an apparatus (claim 13). Therefore on its face, each of claims 1 and 13 is directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1 of the 2019 PEG. However each of claims 1 and 13 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, under Step 2A (Prong One and Prong Two) and Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, which is a judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. 101, as detailed below. Using the language of independent claim 1 to illustrate the claim recites the limitations of, (i) determining an asset type corresponding to interoperation between the blockchains; and (ii) processing one or more transactions corresponding to the interoperation depending on the asset type under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) covers methods of organizing human activity – commercial or legal interactions, and/or fundamental economic principles or practices - mitigating risk but for the recitation of generic computers and generic computer components. (Independent claim 13 recites similar limitations and the analysis is the same).
That is, other than reciting a blockchain connection relay server and providing interoperability between blockchains nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being directed to organizing human activity – commercial or legal interactions and/or fundamental economic principles or practices - mitigating risk. If a claim limitation under its BRI, covers methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computers, then the limitations fall within the “methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Therefore, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One of the Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance 84 Fed.Reg 50 (“2019 PEG”).
These “methods of organizing human activity” are not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A prong Two of the 2019 PEG. In particular claim 1 recites the following additional elements of, a blockchain connection relay server and providing interoperability between blockchains. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements – a blockchain connection relay server and providing interoperability between blockchains.
The blockchain connection relay server and providing interoperability between blockchains are recited at a high-level or generality (i.e. as a generic computer performing generic computer functions) such that, they amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea with a general computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h). Accordingly these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the 2019 PEG independent claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim(s) 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 of using a blockchain connection relay server, providing interoperability between blockchains, determining an asset type corresponding to interoperation between the blockchains; and processing one or more transactions corresponding to the interoperation depending on the asset type, amount to instructions to apply the abstract idea with a general computer. The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations individually. Dependent claims 2-5, 10-12 and 14 when analyzed individually are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail to establish that the claim(s) are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 2-5, 10-12 and 14 merely further explain the abstract idea.
When viewed individually the additional limitations of claims 2-5, 10-12 and 14 do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. However, dependent claims 6-9 and 15 refer to technical processes specific to blockchain bridging and therefore do not narrow the abstract idea. Accordingly claims 1-5, 10-13 and 14 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhu1 (U.S. Pub. No. 2025/0356423).
With respect to claims 1 and 13:
Zhu1 teaches:
A method for providing interoperability between blockchains by a blockchain connection relay server (“According to one aspect of embodiments of the present disclosure, a data processing method based on a blockchain is provided, including: receiving, by a first node device associated with a first blockchain, a cross-chain transaction request sent by a service terminal, the cross-chain transaction request including service description information of a target cross-chain service associated with the first blockchain and a second blockchain, and both the first node device and a second node device that maintains the second blockchain satisfying a cross-chain transaction protocol; invoking an on-chain service verification contract in the cross-chain transaction protocol, to verify whether the target cross-chain service is legal according to the service description information, to obtain a service verification result; invoking, in response to the service verification result indicating that the target cross-chain service is legal, an on-chain service execution contract in the cross-chain transaction protocol to execute the target cross-chain service, to obtain cross-chain transaction data; and transmitting the cross-chain transaction data to N cross-chain relay devices associated with the cross-chain transaction protocol, a cross-chain relay device i of the N cross-chain relay devices being configured to transmit the cross-chain transaction data to the second node device in response to determining that the cross-chain transaction data is valid based on an off-chain data verification contract in the cross-chain transaction protocol, the second node device being configured to process the received cross-chain transaction data in response to determining that the cross-chain transaction data is valid, N being a positive integer greater than 1, and i being a positive integer less than or equal to N” Zhu1 Pgh. [0006]);
determining an asset type corresponding to interoperation between the blockchains (“As shown in FIG. 5 , the service object 501 may be a possessing object or an operation object of the service terminal 500. The service object 501 may generate a cross-chain transaction request by using the service terminal 500. The cross-chain transaction request includes service description information of a target cross-chain service associated with a first blockchain and a second blockchain. The target cross-chain service may be a cross-chain asset transfer service (for example, transferring a digital asset from the first blockchain to the second blockchain), or may be a cross-chain information sharing service (for example, sharing information in the first blockchain with the second blockchain), or may be a cross-chain transaction transfer service (for example, transferring a transaction from the first blockchain to the second blockchain, to reduce the workload of the first blockchain). The service description information is description information of the target cross-chain service. When the target cross-chain service is transferring a digital asset from the first blockchain to the second blockchain, the service description information of the target cross-chain service may include an asset transfer-out account on the first blockchain, a transfer-out asset amount, a transfer-out asset type, an identifier of the second blockchain, an asset transfer-in account on the second blockchain, a service identifier of the target cross-chain service, and the like. Further, the service terminal 500 may send the cross-chain transaction request initiated by the service object 501 to the first node device 511” Zhu1 Pgh. [0054]); and
processing one or more transactions corresponding to the interoperation depending on the asset type (“Further, the first node device may determine, in the asset processor set on the first blockchain, the asset processor matching the target asset type as the first asset processor. The asset processor set on the first blockchain includes one or more asset processors. For example, the asset processor set on the first blockchain may include an asset processor B1 and an asset processor B2. A cross-chain asset contract is deployed on each asset processor in the asset processor set, and the asset processor may perform asset processing based on the cross-chain asset contract. One asset processor in the asset processor set on the first blockchain is configured to process a digital asset of one asset type, thereby facilitating management of digital assets of different asset types. The first node device may execute the target cross-chain service according to the first asset custody contract and the first asset processor, to obtain the cross-chain transaction data” (Zhu1 Pgh. [0090]); and .
Zhu1 further teaches one or more processors; and executable memory for storing at least one program executed by the one or more processors at paragraph [0184].
With respect to claim 3:
Zhu1 teaches:
wherein the asset type is determined based on whether the asset corresponding to the interoperation includes a message (“As shown in FIG. 5 , the service object 501 may be a possessing object or an operation object of the service terminal 500. The service object 501 may generate a cross-chain transaction request by using the service terminal 500. The cross-chain transaction request includes service description information of a target cross-chain service associated with a first blockchain and a second blockchain. The target cross-chain service may be a cross-chain asset transfer service (for example, transferring a digital asset from the first blockchain to the second blockchain), or may be a cross-chain information sharing service (for example, sharing information in the first blockchain with the second blockchain), or may be a cross-chain transaction transfer service (for example, transferring a transaction from the first blockchain to the second blockchain, to reduce the workload of the first blockchain). The service description information is description information of the target cross-chain service. When the target cross-chain service is transferring a digital asset from the first blockchain to the second blockchain, the service description information of the target cross-chain service may include an asset transfer-out account on the first blockchain, a transfer-out asset amount, a transfer-out asset type, an identifier of the second blockchain, an asset transfer-in account on the second blockchain, a service identifier of the target cross-chain service, and the like. Further, the service terminal 500 may send the cross-chain transaction request initiated by the service object 501 to the first node device 511” Zhu1 Pgh. [0054]).
With respect to claim 5:
Zhu1 teaches:
wherein the blockchains include offchain (“The embodiments of the present disclosure provide a cross-chain transaction protocol. The cross-chain transaction protocol includes an on-chain part and an off-chain part. The on-chain part includes the on-chain service verification contract (used to verify whether a cross-chain service is legal), the on-chain service execution contract (used to execute a cross-chain service), and an access condition (that is, a risk management rule) for a node device corresponding to a blockchain to join a cross-chain transaction. The off-chain part includes the off-chain data verification contract used by a cross-chain relay device to verify whether cross-chain transaction data that needs to be forwarded is valid. Cross-chain service processing can be automatically implemented by using these contracts in the cross-chain transaction protocol, thereby improving cross-chain service processing efficiency and security. During actual application, when receiving the cross-chain transaction request sent by the service terminal, the first node device invokes the on-chain service verification contract in the cross-chain transaction protocol, to verify whether the target cross-chain service in the cross-chain transaction request is legal. The first node device invokes, if the target cross-chain service is legal, the on-chain service execution contract in the cross-chain transaction protocol to execute the target cross-chain service, to obtain the cross-chain transaction data. As can be seen, whether the target cross-chain service is legal is verified based on the on-chain service verification contract, and the target cross-chain service is executed only when the target cross-chain service is legal, thereby effectively improving cross-chain service processing security” Zhu1 Pgh. [0106]).
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 4, 6-12 and 14-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would not be rejected based on prior art if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARLA HUDSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1063. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. ET.
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 Sigmond can be reached at. 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.
/M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3694
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694
