DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 19/051682 filed on June 29, 2026 is presented for examination by the examiner.
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.
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 .
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, found at http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax, which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Applicant is also encouraged to contact the Examiner for an Interview, should the Applicant determine that clarifying and further illustrating the distinguishing features of the instant application may further the prosecution.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-10) in the reply filed on June 29, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the three Groups have overlapping limitations. This is not found persuasive because as explained in the previous Office Action Groups I, II, and III are drawn towards distinct portions of the invention. The Examiner would acknowledge that the three distinct portions of the invention may be usable together to encompass the entire invention, but they also do not necessarily have to be used together. For example, claim 1 of Group I could send a message and receive a response containing a key from a different invention or different system other than the system as in Group II. Therefore, the claims have been restricted based on subcombinations usable together.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Oath/Declaration
The applicant’s oath/declaration has been reviewed by the examiner and is found to conform to the requirements prescribed in 37 C.F.R. 1.63.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the applicant’s submission of the Information Disclosure Statement is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed and dated by the examiner is attached to the instant office action.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites sending a message and receiving a message.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is an abstract idea drawn to performing a mental process such as concepts performed in the human mind or by hand but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a terminal” to perform the steps, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from merely being the performance of a mental process. For example, but for the “a terminal” language, sending a message and receiving a message in the context of the claims encompasses the performance of the steps by a mental process. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performing the abstract idea of a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a terminal to perform the steps. The terminal in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functionality) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Additionally, the steps of sending a message and receiving a message recite generic computer functionality that is well understood routine and conventional. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 element of using “a terminal” to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-10 are also rejected for the same reason as cited above for not reciting any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu (CN 110300102) (machine translation has been attached).
As per claim 1, Wu discloses A key obtaining method applied to a terminal, comprising:
sending a first message indicating that the terminal is to access a network (Wu, pages 2-3, teaches the internet of things intelligent device sending information to a proxy server. This is to indicate that the device is requesting access to the blockchain network.); and
receiving a second message having key information for determining a first key for authentication between the terminal and a target network (Wu, pages 2-3, teaches the proxy server sending the internet of things intelligent device the key that the device can use to access the blockchain network.)
As per claim 10, Wu discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein the target network is determined based on one of: selection of a user corresponding to the terminal; a preset policy; or determination of a first node (Wu, pages 2-3, teaches the device requesting access to the blockchain network.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Dillenberger (US 2017/0177898) and Davis (US 2016/0342989).
As per claim 2, Wu discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein the second message further comprises … (Wu, pages 2-3, teaches the device also receiving a token and certificate.)
However, Wu does not specifically teach “wherein the second message further comprises an identifier of a first transaction and one or more of: an identifier of the target network or a public key of the target network; and the first transaction is a blockchain transaction corresponding to the first key”
Dillenberger discloses wherein the second message further comprises an identifier of a first transaction and one or more of: an identifier of the target network or a public key of the target network; and the first transaction is a blockchain transaction corresponding to the first key (Dillenberger, paragraph 32, teaches adding transactions to a blockchain and receiving a transaction identifier. Dillenberger, abstract and paragraphs 6, 32, and 44, teaches sending a request containing the transaction identifier and a key in order to request access to the transaction.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the teachings of Dillenberger with the teachings of Wu. Wu teaches requesting access to a blockchain network and receiving a token and certificate to allow access to the blockchain network. Dillenberger teaches allowing access to transactions performed on the blockchain network by using a transaction identifier. Therefore, it would have been obvious for the system of Wu to have used the transaction identifier of Dillenberger to allow for searching and accessing a particular blockchain transaction on the blockchain network for the purpose of transaction review and verification.
However, Wu in view of Dillenberger does not specifically teach “wherein the second message further comprises … one or more of: an identifier of the target network or a public key of the target network …”
Davis discloses wherein the second message further comprises … one or more of: an identifier of the target network or a public key of the target network … (Davis, paragraph 59, teaches receiving a message containing a blockchain network identifier as well as a transaction identifier. Davis, paragraphs 7-8, teaches the transactions are associated with keys.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the teachings of Davis with the teachings of Wu in view of Dillenberger. Wu in view of Dillenberger teaches requesting access to a transaction on a blockchain network using a transaction identifier. Davis teaches receiving a blockchain network identifier to allow access to a specific blockchain network. Therefore, it would have been obvious for the system of Wu in view of Dillenberger to have used the blockchain network identifier of Davis when accessing the blockchain network to allow for searching and accessing a particular blockchain transaction on the particular blockchain network for the purpose of transaction review and verification.
As per claim 3, Wu in view of Dillenberger and Davis discloses The method according to claim 2, further comprising: sending a first request to the target network, wherein the first request is used for requesting to access the target network, and the first request comprises the identifier of the first transaction; and receiving an authentication message from the target network, wherein the authentication message corresponds to the first key (Wu, pages 2-3, teaches the device sending the token and certificate to the blockchain network to request access. Dillenberger, abstract and paragraphs 6, 32, and 44, teaches sending a request containing the transaction identifier and a key in order to request access to the transaction. The Examiner would note that if the request is fulfilled, it can be considered as a successful authentication message.)
As per claim 4, Wu in view of Dillenberger and Davis discloses The method according to claim 3, further comprising: sending an identifier of the terminal to the target network (Wu, pages 2-3, teaches the device sending the certificate and token to the blockchain network. Wu, page 5, also teaches the device sending device fingerprint information and a pseudo-device number.)
As per claim 5, Wu in view of Dillenberger and Davis discloses The method according to claim 2, further comprising: sending a second request for requesting to access a first network, wherein the second request comprises the identifier of the first transaction and the identifier of the target network; receiving first indication information indicating the terminal to generate a second key for authentication between the terminal and the first network; and generating the second key based on the first key and an identifier of the first network (Wu, pages 2-3, teaches the internet of things intelligent device sending information to a proxy server. This is to indicate that the device is requesting access to the blockchain network. Wu, pages 2-3, teaches the proxy server sending the internet of things intelligent device the key that the device can use to access the blockchain network. Wu, pages 2-3, teaches the device sending the token and certificate to the blockchain network to request access. Dillenberger, abstract and paragraphs 6, 32, and 44, teaches sending a request containing the transaction identifier and a key in order to request access to the transaction. Davis, paragraph 59, teaches receiving a message containing a blockchain network identifier as well as a transaction identifier. Davis, paragraphs 7-8, teaches the transactions are associated with keys.)
As per claim 6, Wu in view of Dillenberger and Davis discloses The method according to claim 5, further comprising: receiving an identifier of a second transaction that is a blockchain transaction corresponding to the second key (Dillenberger, paragraph 32, teaches adding transactions to a blockchain and receiving a transaction identifier. Dillenberger, abstract and paragraphs 6, 32, and 44, teaches sending a request containing the transaction identifier and a key in order to request access to the transaction. Davis, paragraph 59, teaches receiving a message containing a blockchain network identifier as well as a transaction identifier. Davis, paragraphs 7-8, teaches the transactions are associated with keys.)
As per claim 7, Wu in view of Dillenberger and Davis discloses The method according to claim 5, further comprising: sending a first random number to the first network (Wu, pages 2-3, teaches the device sending the certificate and token to the blockchain network. Wu, page 5, also teaches the device sending device fingerprint information and a pseudo-device number.)
As per claim 8, Wu in view of Dillenberger and Davis discloses The method according to claim 2, wherein the identifier of the first transaction comprises an address of the first transaction (Davis, paragraph 8, teaches that each transaction is associated with an address identifier. Davis, paragraph 59, teaches that the transaction notification contains a transaction identifier and an address identifier.)
As per claim 9, Wu in view of Dillenberger and Davis discloses The method according to claim 8, wherein the identifier of the first transaction further comprises a sequence number of the terminal in the first transaction (Davis, paragraph 8, teaches that each transaction is associated with an address identifier. Davis, paragraph 59, teaches that the transaction notification contains a transaction identifier and an address identifier.)
Related Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes:
Jenisch (US 2006/0069916) – teaches sending an access request containing a network identifier.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN B KING whose telephone number is (571)270-7310. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10AM-6PM EST.
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, Yin-Chen Shaw can be reached on 5712728878. 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.
/John B King/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2498
Prosecution Insights