DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This is the final office action in response to the remarks/arguments filed on February 18, 2026.
Claims 1, 4-5, 10, 12, 14-15, and 17-19 have been amended; claims 2-3, 6, 11, and 16 have been canceled; and new claim 20 has been added.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-10, 12-15, and 17-20 are pending and have been examined.
Priority
The applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Responses to Arguments/Remarks
Claim Objections:
The amended claims have overcome some of the claim objections. Additionally, the amended claims cause more issues. The applicant is advised to refer to the claim objections section for details.
Double Patenting:
The amended claims have overcome the double patenting rejection. New references are introduced. The applicant is advised to refer to the double patenting section for details.
35 U.S.C. § 112:
The amened claims have overcome the 112 rejections and the 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. § 101:
The amended claims have overcome the 101 rejection and the 101 rejection has been withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. § 103:
The applicant’s amendments have overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection. However, there are new grounds of rejection necessitated by the applicant’s amendments as detailed in the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection section. Hence, the applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim rejection have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. New prior art is introduced.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 10, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “a first computing device configured to provide a first verification resource comprising: data relating to a payment transaction (Tx3) that comprises an output that is arranged to transfer the asset to the transferee; complete transaction data relating to at least one blockchain transaction (Tx1) that comprises an unspent output that is spendable by an input of a payment transaction (Tx3).” The second underlined phrasing, “a payment transaction (Tx3),” should be changed to “the payment transaction (Tx3).”
Claim 1 recites “a second computing device configured to provide a second verification resource comprising a digital wallet, wherein the wallet comprises a list of block headers corresponding to a plurality of blocks in the blockchain … iii) verify the Merkle proof by querying the block headers of the wallet to determine whether the at least one blockchain transaction (Tx1) is part of a block in the list of block headers.” The phrasing, “the wallet,” in the two places should be changed to “the digital wallet,” for consistency.
Claim 1 recites “a complete Merkle path of the at least one blockchain transaction (Tx1) … ii) use the Merkle path and the complete transaction data relating to the at least one blockchain transaction (Tx1) to provide a Merkle proof for the at least one transaction.” The phrasing, “the Merkle path,” should be changed to “the complete Merkle path,” for consistency.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the first verification resource comprises at least one of a smart card, digital wallet, a lightweight wallet or an SPV wallet.” The phrasing, “digital wallet,” should be changed to “a digital wallet.”
Claim 10 recites “wherein: the second resource comprises a digital wallet, wherein the wallet comprises a list of block headers corresponding to a plurality of blocks in the blockchain.” The phrasing, “the wallet,” should be changed to “the digital wallet,” for consistency.
Claim 10 recites “a complete Merkle path of the at least one blockchain transaction (Tx1) … using the Merkle path and the complete transaction data relating to the at least one blockchain transaction (Tx1) to provide a Merkle proof for the at least one transaction.” The phrasing, “the Merkle path,” should be changed to “the complete Merkle path,” for consistency.
Claim 14 recites “the first verification resource is or comprises at least one of a smart card, digital wallet,-a lightweight wallet, or an SPV wallet.” The phrasing, “digital wallet,” should be changed to “a digital wallet.” Additionally, the hyphen “-” should be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-10, 12-15, and 17-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,243,056 in view of Lyons et al. (US 20170236121 A1) and Antonopoulos (“Mastering Bitcoin – Programming the Open Blockchain,” 2017).
Claim 1:
Claim 1 of ’056 patent discloses a blockchain implemented Simplified Payment Verification system operative to facilitate a transfer of an asset on a blockchain between a transferor and a transferee, comprising: a first verification resource comprising: data relating to a payment transaction (Tx3) that comprises an output that is arranged to transfer the asset to the transferee; complete transaction data relating to at least one blockchain transaction (Tx1) that comprises an unspent output that is spendable by an input of a payment transaction (Tx3); and a complete Merkle path of the at least one blockchain transaction (Tx1); and wherein the second verification resource is operative to: i) at least one of receive and/or request, from the first verification resource; the complete Merkle path of the at least one blockchain transaction (Tx1), the data relating to the payment transaction (Tx3) and the complete transaction data relating to the at least one blockchain transaction (Tx]); ii) use the Merkle path and the complete transaction data relating to the at least one blockchain transaction (Tx1) to provide a Merkle proof for the at least one transaction; and iv) accept the payment transaction (Tx3) if the unspent output of the at least one blockchain transaction (Tx]) is determined to be part of the list of block headers and send the payment transaction (Tx3) to the blockchain. Claim 1 of ’056 patent but does not explicitly disclose a first computing device configured to provide a first verification resource, a second computing device configured to provide a second verification resource comprising a digital wallet, wherein the wallet comprises a list of block headers corresponding to a plurality of blocks in the blockchain; verifying the Merkle proof by querying the list of block headers of the wallet to determine whether the at least one blockchain transaction (Tx1) is part of a block in the list of block headers; and rejecting the payment transaction (Tx3) if the at least one blockchain transaction (Tx1) is not determined to be part of the list of block headers.
Lyons discloses a first computing device configured to provide a first verification resource, a second computing device configured to provide a second verification resource; verifying whether the at least one blockchain transaction (Tx1) is part of a block of a blockchain, and accepting and sending the payment transaction (Tx3) to the blockchain if the at least on blockchain transaction (Tx1) is in a data set obtained from the blockchain. (See Figs 1-3; Figs. 5A-5B; paragraphs [0080]-[0081]; paragraph [0086]; Fig. 8; and paragraphs [0101]-[0103].)
Antonopoulos discloses a second verification resource comprising a digital wallet (see the section of Getting the Right Inputs, page 22), wherein the wallet comprises a list of block headers corresponding to a plurality of blocks in the blockchain (see page 183; page 207); verifying the Merkle proof by querying the list of block headers of the wallet to determine whether the at least one blockchain transaction (Tx1) is part of a block in the list of block headers (see pages 203-207); and reject the payment transaction (Tx3) if the at least one blockchain transaction (Tx1) is not found in a blockchain (see pages 123-125; pages 218-219).
Lyons discloses that a new transaction is sent to the blockchain based on a related previous transaction being found in the data set obtained from the blockchain. This indicates that the new transaction will not be sent to the blockchain if the previous transaction is not in a data set obtained from the blockchain. Antonopoulos discloses that a previous transaction is checked based on a list of block headers and that a new transaction will not be accepted if the previous transaction with related output is not found. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Lyons and Antonopoulos in the ’056 patent system. Moreover, in order to improve efficiency of the ’056 patent system, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to obtain a list of block headers, to validate a new transaction by locating a related previous transaction from the list of block headers, and to reject the new transaction if the related previous transaction is not found, so that the new transaction can be effectively validated before it is sent to the blockchain.
Claim 10: Although claim 10 of this application and claim 7 of ’056 patent are not identical, the claimed subject matter of this application is not patently distinct from ’056 patent in view of Lyons and Antonopoulos.
Claim 15: Although claim 15 of this application and claim 10 of ’056 patent are not identical, the claimed subject matter of this application is not patently distinct from ’056 patent in view of Lyons and Antonopoulos.
Claim 20:
Antonopoulos further discloses wherein the list of block headers corresponding to the plurality of blocks in the blockchain provides a mempool that is local to the second verification resource. (See page 183; page 207.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Antonopoulos in the ‘056 patent system. Moreover, in order to improve the efficiency of the ‘056 patent system, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize a list of block headers to validate a transaction without traversing the blockchain, so that the transaction can be effectively validated.
The mapping of claims 4-5, 7-9, 12-14, and 17-19 of this application with claims 2-6, 8-9, and 11-12 of ’056 patent is as follows:
This Application
Patent No. 12,243,056
Claim 4:
wherein the first verification resources comprises at least one of a smart card, digital wallet, a lightweight wallet or an SPV wallet.
Claim 2:
wherein at least one of the first or second verification resources are or comprise at least one of a smart card, digital wallet and lightweight wallet or an SPV wallet.
Claim 5:
wherein the second verification resource is operative to at least one of receive or request, from the first verification resource, the complete transaction data and the complete Merkle path using an off-chain communication.
Claim 3:
wherein the second verification resource is operative to at least one of receive or request, from the first verification resource, the complete transaction data and the complete Merkle path for the at least one transaction (Tx) using an off-chain communication.
Claim 7:
wherein the system further comprises a plurality of second verification resources, and a coordination component operative to communicate with the plurality of second verification resources.
Claim 5:
wherein the system further comprises a plurality of second verification resources, and a coordination component operative to communicate with the plurality of second verification resources.
Claim 8:
wherein the first verification resource is the transferor of the asset and the second verification resource is the transferee of the asset.
Claim 1:
to facilitate a transfer of an asset on or over a blockchain that is maintained by a blockchain network between a first verification resource of a transferor and a second verification resource of a transferee
Claim 9:
wherein the second verification resource is also operative to at least one of receive or request from the first verification resource, or the first verification resource is also operative to send to the second verification resource at least one of: a signature for spending an output of the at least one blockchain transaction; a transfer value; or a public key address.
Claim 6:
wherein the second verification resource is also operative to at least one of receive or request from the first verification resource, or the first verification resource is also operative to send to the second verification resource at least one of: a signature for spending an output of the at least one blockchain transaction; a transfer value; or a public key address.
Claim 12:
wherein the following steps are performed off-chain: i) verification of the Merkle proof; and/or ii) receiving or requesting the complete transaction data and Merkle path from the first verification resource.
Claim 8:
wherein the following steps are performed off-chain: i) verification of the Merkle proof; and/or ii) receiving or requesting the complete transaction data and Merkle path of the at least one transaction (Tx1) from the first verification resource.
Claim 13:
wherein the first verification resource is the transferor of the asset and the second verification resource is the transferee of the asset.
Claim 7:
to facilitate a transfer of an asset on or over a blockchain that is maintained by a blockchain network between a first verification resource of a transferor and a second verification resource of a transferee
Claim 14:
the first verification resource is or comprises at least one of a smart card, digital wallet, a lightweight wallet, or an SPV wallet.
Claim 9:
wherein the first and/or second verification resources are or comprise at least one of a smart card, digital wallet, a lightweight wallet, or SPV wallet.
Claim 17:
wherein the following steps are performed off-chain: i) verification of the Merkle proof; and/or ii) receiving or requesting the complete transaction data and Merkle path from the first verification resource.
Claim 11:
wherein the following steps are performed off-chain: i) verification of the Merkle proof; and/or ii) receiving or requesting the complete transaction data and complete Merkle path of the at least one transaction (Tx1) from the first verification resource.
Claim 18:
wherein the first verification resource is a transferor of an asset and the second verification resource is a transferee of the asset.
Claim 10:
receiving, at a second verification resource of an asset transferee: i) data relating to a payment transaction (Tx3) that comprises an output that transfers the asset to the transferee on or over a blockchain … the payment transaction to transfer the asset from the transferor to the transferee over the blockchain network.
Claim 19:
wherein at least one of: i) the second verification resource is operative to send the payment transaction to the blockchain upon successful verification of the Merkle proof;
or ii) the first verification resource is or comprises at least one of a smart card, a lightweight wallet, or an SPV wallet.
Claim 1:
verifying, at the second verification resource and without interaction with the blockchain network, that the at least one blockchain transaction (Tx1) has been processed by the blockchain network … sending a further transaction (Tx3) to the blockchain upon successful verification of the Merkle proof
Claim 12:
wherein the first and/or second verification resources are or comprise at least one of a smart card, digital wallet, a lightweight wallet, or SPV wallet.
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 (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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-10, 12-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyons et al. (US 20170236121 A1) in view of Sierra et al. (US 20200250676 A1) and further in view of Antonopoulos (“Mastering Bitcoin – Programming the Open Blockchain,” 2017).
Claims 1, 10, and 15:
Lyons discloses the following:
a blockchain implemented verification system operative to facilitate a transfer of an asset on a blockchain between a transferor (i.e., a consumer with an integrated circuit card) and a transferee (i.e., a merchant with a point-of-sale device). (See Fig. 1; paragraphs [0028]-[0029]; and paragraph [0034].)
a first computing device configured to provide a first verification resource comprising: data relating to a payment transaction (Tx3) that comprises an output that is arranged to transfer the asset to the transferee; complete transaction data relating to at least one blockchain transaction (Tx1) that comprises an unspent output that is spendable by […] a payment transaction (Tx3) and […]. (See Fig. 2; paragraph [0047]; paragraphs [0074]-[0076], “[i]n step 402, the payment network 106 may retrieve a card blockchain data set…. The card blockchain data set may be a structured data set comprising of a network identifier, unspent output hash, output index, output value, and key pair…. The decryption may result in the yield of the structured data set, which, in step 412, may be stored in the memory 206 of the integrated circuit card 102”; paragraphs [0078]-[0080], “in step 508, the transmitting device 208 of the integrated circuit card 102 may electronically transmit a data signal superimposed with the unspent output hash and output index to the electronic point of sale device 104 using the established communication channel…. In step 512, the electronic point of sale device 104 may retrieve blockchain transaction data related to the unspent output hash. The retrieval of the blockchain transaction data may include transmitting (e.g., the transmitting device 308) a request to the computing device 108 and/or blockchain network 110 and receiving the blockchain and identifying, in the blockchain, a previous blockchain transaction that corresponds to the unspent output hash”; and paragraph [0084], “[i]n instances where the output value included in the structured data set (e.g., corresponding to the amount transferred in the previous blockchain transaction) is greater than the transaction amount, the new blockchain transaction may also include a remainder address and remainder amount.”)
a second computing device configured to provide a second verification resource […], wherein the device comprises a data set obtained from the blockchain. (See Fig. 1; Fig. 3; and paragraph [0103].)
wherein the second verification resource is operative to: i) at least one of receive and/or request, from the first verification resource, […] the data relating to the payment transaction (Tx3) and […]. (See Fig. 5A; paragraph [0080].)
query a data set obtained from the blockchain to determine whether the at least one blockchain transaction (Tx1) is part of a block in the blockchain; accept the payment transaction (Tx3) if the at least one blockchain transaction (Tx1) is determined to be part of a block in a list of block headers and send the payment transaction (Tx3) to the blockchain. (See Figs. 5A-5B; paragraphs [0080]-[0081]; paragraph [0086]; Fig. 8; and paragraphs [0101]-[0103]. By broadest reasonable interpretation, the transaction obtained from a blockchain is part of a block in a list of block headers of the blockchain.)
Lyons does not explicitly disclose the following:
Simplified Payment Verification;
a first verification resource comprising a complete Merkle path of the at least one blockchain transaction (Tx1);
an input of a payment transaction;
a second verification resource comprising a digital wallet, wherein the wallet comprising a list of block headers;
wherein the second verification resource is operative to: i) at least one of receive and/or request, from the first verification resources, the complete Merkle path of the at least one blockchain transaction (Tx1) and the complete transaction data related to the at least one blockchain transaction (Tx1); ii) use the Merkle path and the complete transaction data relating to the at least one blockchain transaction (Tx1) to provide a Merkle proof for the at least one transaction; iii) verify the Merkle proof by querying the list of block headers of the wallet to determine whether the at least one blockchain transaction (Tx1) is part of a block in the list of block headers; and reject the payment transaction if the at least blockchain transaction if not determined to be part of the list of block headers.
However, Sierra, an analogous art of processing transactions via a blockchain, discloses a first verification resource comprising a complete block path of the at least one blockchain transaction (Tx1) and wherein the second verification resource is operative to: i) at least one of receive and/or request, from the first verification resources, the complete block path of the at least one blockchain transaction (Tx1) and the complete transaction data related to the at least one blockchain transaction (Tx1). (See paragraph [0020], “[a] blockchain may include a number of blocks of transaction records for a number of users. Each block in the blockchain can also contain a timestamp and a link to a previous block. Stated differently, transaction records in a blockchain may be stored in electronic records as a series of ‘blocks,’ or permanent files that include a record of a number of transactions occurring over a given period of time”; paragraph [0032], “[a] transaction record may include a number of details related to the transaction conducted. For example, the transaction record may include an indication as to the parties involved in the transaction, the type of transaction conducted, an amount for which the transaction has been conducted, or any other suitable information”; paragraph [0061], “[t]he blockchain network 308 may maintain a ledger in the form of a user blockchain for each unique user that includes each of the transaction records obtained with respect to that user”; paragraph [0087], “[i]n some embodiments, the user blockchain may only be sent to those client devices 608 associated with the user for which the user blockchain 610 is maintained”; and paragraph [0096], “[i]n some embodiments, the user may provide the user blockchain along with the transaction request.” One of ordinary skill in the art knows that each block has a block header comprising Merkle root and previous block hash.) Sierra further discloses reject the payment transaction based on data related to previous transactions provided by the first verification resource. (See paragraph [0072]; paragraph [0101].)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Sierra in the Lyons system. Moreover, in order to improve the flexibility of the Lyons system, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to store a user blockchain comprising block path and transaction information and to pass the user blockchain along with the new transaction request to another verification resource, so that the new transaction can be effectively validated based on block path and transaction information in the user blockchain.
The combination of Lyons and Sierra discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose Simplified Payment Verification; a complete Merkle path of the at least one blockchain transaction (Tx1); an input of a payment transaction; a second verification resource comprising a digital wallet, wherein the wallet comprising a list of block headers; wherein the second verification resource is operative to ii) use the Merkle path and the complete transaction data relating to the at least one blockchain transaction (Tx1) to provide a Merkle proof for the at least one transaction; iii) verify the Merkle proof by querying the list of block headers of the wallet to determine whether the at least one blockchain transaction (Tx1) is part of a block in the list of block headers; and reject the payment transaction if the at least blockchain transaction if not determined to be part of the list of block headers.
Antonopoulos, an analogous art of processing transactions via a blockchain, discloses Simplified Payment Verification (see page 183); receiving/requesting a complete Merkle path of the at least one blockchain transaction (Tx1) (see pages 203-207); an input of a payment transaction (see pages 119-125); a second verification resource comprising a digital wallet (see the section of Getting the Right Inputs, page 22), wherein the wallet comprising a list of block headers (see page 183; page 207); wherein the second verification resource is operative to ii) use the Merkle path and the complete transaction data relating to the at least one blockchain transaction (Tx1) to provide a Merkle proof for the at least one transaction; iii) verify the Merkle proof by querying the list of block headers of the wallet to determine whether the at least one blockchain transaction (Tx1) is part of a block in the list of block headers (see pages 203-207); and reject the payment transaction if the at least blockchain transaction is not found in the blockchain (see pages 123-125; pages 218-219).
Lyons disclose that a new transaction is sent to the blockchain based on a related previous transaction being found in the data set obtained from the blockchain. This indicates that the new transaction will not be sent to the blockchain if the previous transaction is not in a data set obtained from the blockchain. Antonopoulos discloses that a previous transaction is checked based on a list of block headers and that a new transaction will not be accepted if the previous transaction with related output is not found. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Antonopoulos in the Lyons system as modified. Moreover, in order to improve the efficiency of the Lyons system as modified, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to obtain block headers, to verify a new transaction based on a Merkle path and the block headers, and to reject the new transaction if the related previous transaction is not part of blocks of block headers, so that the new transaction can be effectively validated.
Claim 4:
Lyons in view of Sierra and Antonopoulos discloses the limitations shown above.
Lyons further discloses wherein the first verification resource comprises at least one of a smart card, digital wallet, a lightweight wallet or an SPV wallet. (See Figs. 1-2; paragraphs [0033]-[0035]; and paragraph [0047].)
Claim 5:
Lyons in view of Sierra and Antonopoulos discloses the limitations shown above.
Sierra further discloses wherein the second verification resource is operative to at least one of receive or request, from the first verification resource, the complete transaction data and the complete block path and using an off-chain communication. (See paragraph [0087], “[i]n some embodiments, the user blockchain may only be sent to those client devices 608 associated with the user for which the user blockchain 610 is maintained”; paragraph [0096], “[i]n some embodiments, the user may provide the user blockchain along with the transaction request.”)
Antonopoulos, discloses receiving/requesting a complete Merkle path of the at least one blockchain transaction (Tx1) (see pages 203-207).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Sierra and Antonopoulos in the Lyons system. Moreover, in order to improve the flexibility of the Lyons system, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to obtain the needed information using an off-chain communication, so that the new transaction can be effectively validated based on the obtained information.
Claim 7:
Lyons in view of Sierra and Antonopoulos discloses the limitations shown above.
Sierra further discloses wherein the system further comprises a plurality of second verification resources, and a coordination component operative to communicate with the plurality of second verification resources. (See Fig. 1; paragraph [0035], “[i]n some embodiments, the system may include multiple resource provider computers 104 (each of which may be associated with different resource provider entities) and/or a blockchain network 106. In some embodiments, the blockchain network may be a federated blockchain network in which only authorized entities may participate. The blockchain network may be operated on behalf of a service provider entity.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Sierra in the Lyons system. Moreover, in order to improve the flexibility of the Lyons system, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement a plurality of second verification resources, so that the new transaction can be effectively validated by one of the second verification resources.
Claims 8, 13, and 18:
Lyons in view of Sierra and Antonopoulos discloses the limitations shown above.
Lyons further discloses wherein the first verification resource is the transferor of the asset and the second verification resource is the transferee of the asset. (See Fig. 1; paragraph [0038]; and paragraph [0084].)
Claim 9:
Lyons in view of Sierra and Antonopoulos discloses the limitations shown above.
Lyons further discloses wherein the second verification resource is also operative to at least one of receive or request from the first verification resource, or the first verification resource is also operative to send to the second verification resource at least one of: a signature for spending an output of the at least one blockchain transaction; a transfer value; or a public key address. (See paragraphs [0084]-[0085].)
Claims 12 and 17:
Lyons in view of Sierra and Antonopoulos discloses the limitations shown above.
Sierra further discloses wherein a following step is performed off-chain: receiving or requesting the complete transaction data and the complete block path from the first verification resource. (See paragraph [0087], “[i]n some embodiments, the user blockchain may only be sent to those client devices 608 associated with the user for which the user blockchain 610 is maintained”; paragraph [0096], “[i]n some embodiments, the user may provide the user blockchain along with the transaction request.”)
Antonopoulos discloses receiving/requesting a complete Merkle (see pages 203-207).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Sierra and Antonopoulos in the Lyons system. Moreover, in order to improve the flexibility of the Lyons system, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to obtain the necessary information using an off-chain communication, so that the new transaction can be effectively validated based on the obtained information.
Claims 14 and 19:
Lyons in view of Sierra and Antonopoulos discloses the limitations shown above.
Lyons further discloses the second verification resource is operative to send the payment transaction to the blockchain upon successful verification of the data set obtained from the blockchain. (See Figs. 5A-5B; paragraphs [0080]-[0081]; paragraph [0086]; Fig. 8; and paragraphs [0101]-[0103].)
Lyons further discloses wherein the first verification resource is or comprise at least one of a smart card, a lightweight wallet, or an SPV wallet. (See Figs. 1-2; paragraphs [0033]-[0035]; and paragraph [0047].)
Antonopoulos discloses verifying whether a transaction is valid via the Merkle proof. (See pages 203-207.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Antonopoulos in the Lyons system as modified. Moreover, in order to improve the efficiency of the Lyons system as modified, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize a Merkle proof to validate a transaction without traversing the blockchain, so that the transaction can be effectively validated.
Claim 20:
Lyons in view of Sierra and Antonopoulos discloses the limitations shown above.
Antonopoulos further discloses wherein the list of block headers corresponding to the plurality of blocks in the blockchain provides a mempool that is local to the second verification resource. (See page 183; page 207.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Antonopoulos in the Lyons system as modified. Moreover, in order to improve the efficiency of the Lyons system as modified, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize a list of block headers to validate a transaction without traversing the blockchain, so that the transaction can be effectively validated.
Conclusion
The prior art, made of record and not relied upon, is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Matsuda (US 20210158445 A1) discloses that a terminal device stores a UTXO pool comprising unspent transaction outputs for validating a transaction.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). An applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUNLING DING, whose telephone number is (571)270-3605. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 7:30 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, an 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, Neha Patel, can be reached at 571-270-1492. 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.
/CHUNLING DING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights