DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1- 15 are pending in this examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
3. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4.1. 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.
4.2. Claims 1-4, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Blockchain Networks: Token Design and Management Overview” by Lesavre et al (“Lesavre”) (IDS), in view of US Patent No. 11265169 issued to Rowe et al (“Rowe”).
As per claim 1, Lesavre discloses a user device, comprising at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code, wherein the at least one memory and computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the user device to perform the following:
store at least one private key of a user of the user device and (section 3.4, first paragraph: "Smart contracts are accounts that are internal to the blockchain and can serve as programmable vaults to receive token deposits with built-in rules and automated agreements, allowing on-chain custody or reserve .... and page 16, first paragraph: ... They act as proxies allowing for separation of concerns with respect to regular user-controlled wallets holding private keys ...);
receive a blockchain transaction; decode the blockchain transaction according to a blockchain transaction model to extract attributes of the blockchain transaction (page 17, last paragraph: "Key collateralization schemes, particularly useful for securing individual transactions, include cryptographic time locks to place time conditions and hash locks to require the knowledge of a secret... );
submit the decoded blockchain transaction to an
evaluate the blockchain transaction by the (page 16, first paragraph: ... They can permit multi-signature schemes and security and recoverability rules, such as security periods, thresholds requirements, and emergency modes. In delegated account recovery models, the wallet owner defines a set of recovery addresses, the private keys of which can be held in custody across the owner's devices, by trusted intermediaries, or social connections. Notably, such account recovery models do not require the use of seed phrases or full account custody by a third party... ); and
automatically decide based on the evaluation and the (page 16, first paragraph: ... Wallet applications may abstract away features supported by smart contract vaults by deploying the smart contracts internally on behalf of users when creating new accounts. and section 4. 1.3.2, first paragraph: A notary is a trusted entity (or a set of trusted entities with a multi-signature contract) tasked with reading a blockchain's global state and submitting transactions to another blockchain on behalf of users with respect to tokens they previously deposited in a smart contract vault. Notaries act proactively, automatically responding to events that occur on a blockchain. or reactively. when prompted to do so by users ... ).
Lesavre does not explicitly disclose however in the same field of endeavor, Rowe discloses auto
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Lesavre with the teaching of Rowe by including the feature of autoimprove the efficiency of the confirmation process while also improving data security, accuracy, and fraud protections. Using the techniques of this disclosure, a smart contract can directly notify the target of a confirmation request, the target can sign the confirmation request to indicate approval, and the smart contract can automatically route the signed confirmation request to the third party, without any time-consuming back-and-forth messaging. Further, all requests and replies are encrypted, and any confidential information may be shared in the form of non-reversible hashes. Accordingly, the disclosed systems and methods improve the efficiency of the confirmation process while also improving data security, accuracy, and fraud protections (Rowe, col. 8).
As per claim 2, the combination of Lesavre and Rowe discloses the
user device of claim 1, wherein the user device comprises two or more blockchain transaction models (Lesavre, page 5, also see page 16, Blockchains keep records of token transactions according to two models).
As per claim 3, the combination of Lesavre and Rowe discloses the
user device of claim 2, wherein the at least one memory and computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to sequentially decode the received blockchain transaction using the two or more blockchain transaction models (Lesavre, page 5, also see page 16, Blockchains keep records of token transactions according to two models).
As per claim 4, the combination of Lesavre and Rowe discloses the
user device of claim 2, wherein the auto-signing rules are associated with a respective blockchain transaction model (Lesavre, page 16, first paragraph).
Claim 15, is rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
4.3. Claims 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lesavre and Rowe as applied to claim above, and in view of US Patent Application No. 11398911 to Gunning et al (“Gunning”).
As per claim 5, the combination of Lesavre and Rowe discloses the invention as described above. Lesavre and Rowe do not explicitly disclose however, In the same field of endeavor, Gunning discloses the user device of claim 1, the user device of claim 1, wherein the at least one memory and computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to ignore the received blockchain transaction responsive to a failure to decode the blockchain transaction (Gunning, col. 56, lines 52-65, col, 7 lines 55 to col. 8 -15, col. 9, 40-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Lesavre with the teaching of Gunning/ Rowe by including the feature of failure, in order for Lesavre’s system to enabling applications to build their own digital assets that interact with other jigs from other applications. Jogs enable users to own their data as tokens and use their data independent of any one application's complete control. In modern object-oriented programming, programs are written using typed objects like classes and instances that interact with one another via rules of composition, inheritance, encapsulation, message passing, and polymorphism. Some embodiments described herein can include a method for tokenizing such modern objects that maintains their interactive properties on a blockchain. It improves upon, and diverges from, the smart contract model used mainly on account-based blockchains today to create a generally-programmable token system that is native to UTXO-based blockchains, where individually-owned software objects interact with other software objects owned by other individuals. These tokenized objects are called jigs. Jigs, an abstraction like objects, enable applications to build their own digital assets that interact with other jigs from other applications. Jogs enable users to own their data as tokens and use their data independent of any one application's complete control (Gunning, abstract).
As per claim 6, the combination of Lesavre, Rowe and Gunning discloses the user device of claim 1, wherein the at least one memory and computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to automatically build a proposal for a new auto-signing rule based on attributes of the received blockchain transaction; and requesting user approval for the new auto-signing rule (Gunning, col. 79, lines 10-65, also see col. 83, lines 1-30, col. 24, lines 15-25). The motivation regarding the obviousness of claim 5 is also applied to claim 6.
As per claim 7, the combination of Lesavre, Rowe and Gunning discloses the user device of claim 6, wherein the proposal for a new auto-signing rule is built responsive to detecting that comparing attributes of the blockchain transaction and the conditions of the auto-signing rules results in a failure to find a matching auto- signing rule (Gunning, col. 79, lines 10-65, also see col. 83, lines 1-30). The motivation regarding the obviousness of claim 5 is also applied to claim 7.
As per claim 9, the combination of Lesavre, Rowe and Gunning discloses the user device of claim 1, wherein the at least one memory and computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to export auto-signing rules from the user device for use in other devices (Gunning, col. 79, lines 10-65). The motivation regarding the obviousness of claim 5 is also applied to claim 9.
As per claim 10, the combination of Lesavre, Rowe and Gunning discloses the user device of claim 1, wherein the at least one memory and computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to import auto-signing rules to the user device (Gunning, col. 79, lines 10-65). The motivation regarding the obviousness of claim 5 is also applied to claim 10.
As per claim 11, the combination of Lesavre, Rowe and Gunning discloses the user device of claim 1, wherein the at least one memory and computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to log auto-signing actions performed by the auto-signing rules engine (Gunning, col. 97, lines 30-65). The motivation regarding the obviousness of claim 5 is also applied to claim 11.
4.4. Claims 8, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lesavre and Rowe as applied to claim above, and in view of US Patent Application No. 20230281606 to Jakobsson et al (“Jakobsson”).
As per claim 8, the combination of Lesavre and Rowe discloses the invention as described above. Lesavre and Rowe do not explicitly disclose however, In the same field of endeavor, Jakobsson discloses the user device of claim 1, wherein the at least one memory and computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to allow the user of the user device to review and edit the auto-signing rules [0424]-[0426])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Lesavre with the teaching of Jakobsson/ Rowe by including the feature of modifying, in order for Lesavre’s system to providing improved security for blockchain wallets by partitioning addresses within the wallet according to roles that those addresses may perform. Addresses can be, in several embodiments, associated with the partitions. Addresses can be associated with partitions according to how the addresses are derived. Addresses can be derived from a master ley and/or an index variable. The index variable can vary according to partition. The master key can be common across the partitions. The partitions can have different access and/or use rights with respect to the digital assets stored in their respective addresses (Jakobsson, abstract).
As per claim 12, the combination of Lesavre, Rowe and Jakobsson discloses the user device of claim 1, wherein the conditions comprise a domain where the blockchain transaction comes from (Jakobsson, [0005]). The motivation regarding the obviousness of claim 8 is also applied to claim 12.
As per claim 13, the combination of Lesavre, Rowe and Jakobsson discloses the user device of claim 1, wherein the conditions comprise one or more of the following: type of the blockchain transaction, name of the smart contract, function of the smart contract, version of the smart contract, blockchain transaction category, smart contract title (Jakobsson, [0005]). The motivation regarding the obviousness of claim 8 is also applied to claim 13.
As per claim 14, the combination of Lesavre, Rowe and Jakobsson discloses the user device of claim 1, wherein the user device is one of the following: a smart phone, a pad, a laptop, a personal computing device (Jakobsson, [0426]). The motivation regarding the obviousness of claim 8 is also applied to claim 14.
5.1. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as the prior art discloses many of the claim features (See PTO-form 892).
5.2. a). US Patent No. 11210663 issued to Voorhees et al., discloses the embodiments described herein comprise hardware and software improvements in blockchain-asset exchange technology, whereby one or more servers automatically, based on a set of predetermined rules, executes a mechanism allowing blockchain-asset exchange customers to place standing-limit or market orders for blockchain-based digital assets (e.g., cryptocurrencies) with a counter-party, but without counter-party risk. The counter-party will not receive the payment until the customer's exchange order has executed, and the customer has taken possession and ownership of the desired asset. The customer cannot reverse payment or otherwise rescind the payment from the counter-party once the customer receives the desired asset. The systems and methods use blockchain databases, multisignature key signing procedures, and a transparent, objective, automated, rules-based software agent t manage and autonomously govern transfer of digital blockchain-based assets in a multi-party exchange scenario, without risk of asset loss and without the discretion of any human actor.
b). US Patent Application No. 11232415 to Melika et al., discloses a method for encrypting paper title assets to crypto currency and transferring title is disclosed. The method involves the use of application software and a physical vault. Application software including an encryption engine, a decryption engine, a user interface module, records, and a security key management system. Paper title assets are provided to a physical vault and transferred physically at the behest of users of the application software and verified by public ledger records.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARUNUR RASHID whose telephone number is (571)270-7195. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM to 5PM.
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, Eleni A. Shiferaw can be reached at (571) 272-3867. 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.
HARUNUR . RASHID
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2497
/HARUNUR RASHID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2497
Prosecution Insights