DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the application filed on 03/10/2025.
Claims 1-22 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure Statement(s) filed 03/10/2025 have been considered. Initialed copies of the Form 1449 are enclosed herewith.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”), such as those in claim 22, are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
In claims 1, 11, 12, and 22, the clause “wherein, upon receipt by the request processing computing system, the augmented first request message is processed…” is interpreted as an intended use/field of use of augmented first request message. The intended use in the claim merely states the result of the limitation in the claim and adds nothing to the patentability or substance of the claim. See Texas Instruments Inc. v. International Trade Commission, 26 USPQ2d 1010 (Fed. Cir 1993); Griffin v. Bertina, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 22); Amazon.com Inc. v. Bamesandnoble.com Inc., 57 USPQ2d 1747 (Fed. Cir. 21). Such field of use/intended use limitations are also present in claim 6-8, 17-19. Hence the intended use limitations are not given patentable weight.
In general, the grammar and intended meaning of terms used in a claim will dictate whether the language limits the claim scope. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. The following are examples of language that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim:
statements of intended use or field of use,
"adapted to" or "adapted for" clauses,
"wherein" clauses, or
"whereby" clauses.
This list of examples is not intended to be exhaustive. See also MPEP § 2111.04.
The rejections given below are interpreted in light of 35 U.S.C. § 112, rejections and the claim interpretation discussed above.
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 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and fails step 2 of the analysis because the focus of the claims is not on the devices themselves or a practical application but rather directed towards an abstract idea, the analysis is provided below.
Step 1 (Statutory Categories) - The claims pass step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106(III)) as the claims are directed towards a method, systems, and non-transitory computer-readable medium.
Step 2A – Prong One (Do the claims recite an abstract idea?) - The idea is recited in the claims, in part, by:
generate a first public token based on a second public token previously received thereby from an originating participant, the generation of first public token based on the second public token not being discernable therefrom, the second public token having been generated by the originating participant based on a third public token, the generation of the second public token based on the third public token not being discernable therefrom, and communicated for generation and transmission of a request to a request processing system to acquire a portion of a total quantity unknown to the receiving participant; transmit a first request message, augmented with the first public token, for the portion of the total quantity to the request processing system; and wherein, upon receipt by the request processing system, the augmented first request message is processed and at least one anonymized result message, comprising a result of satisfaction thereof for the requested quantity and including the first public token from the augmented first request message whose processing resulted in the result, is stored in a database coupled with the result processing system and operative to store anonymized result messages resulting from the processing of request messages, the stored at least one anonymized result message not otherwise being transmitted to the originating participant and having no discernable relationship therewith, the request processing system further configured to provide, upon receipt of a request from a requestor for stored associated anonymized result messages associated with the third public token, any anonymized result messages stored therein which include any public tokens, including the first public token, generated based on the third public token, to the requestor such that only the requestor is able to identify how much of the total quantity has been satisfied.
The steps recited above under Step 2A Prong One of the analysis under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers commercial or legal interactions (including sales activities or behaviors; business relations) but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is other than reciting a first processor, a second processor, an electronic communications network, request processing computing system (comprising an exchange computing system), a first non-transitory computer readable medium, a first memory, and albeit not positively recited as part of the systems/method and therefor carries no patentable weight, a database nothing in the claim elements are directed towards anything other than commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial or legal interactions, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two (Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?) - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements of a first processor, a second processor, an electronic communications network, request processing computing system (comprising an exchange computing system), a first non-transitory computer readable medium, and a first memory. The first processor, second processor, electronic communications network, request processing computing system (comprising an exchange computing system), first non-transitory computer readable medium, and first memory are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and limits the judicial exception to the particular environment of computers. Mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components and limiting the judicial exception to a particular environment are not indicative of a practical application (see MPEP 20106.05(f) and MPEP 20106.05(h)). As MPEP 2106.05(f) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. 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 towards an abstract idea.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?) - The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements of a first processor, a second processor, an electronic communications network, request processing computing system (comprising an exchange computing system), a first non-transitory computer readable medium, and a first memory to perform the steps recited in Step 2A Prong One of the analysis amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and limits the judicial exception to the particular environment. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components and limiting the judicial exception to a particular environment does not provide an inventive concept. The additional elements have been considered separately, and as an ordered combination, and do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the judicial exception. Further, MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii) provides that receiving and transmitting data over a network (see buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network), and Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26, 110 USPQ2d 1984-1985 (2014) (see also creating and maintaining "shadow accounts", "create electronic records, track multiple transactions, and issue simultaneous instructions" (, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l 573 U.S. at 224-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984-85);, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); are well-understood routine and conventional, similar to the instant application claims which recites and sending and receiving data over network, and performing record keeping task with respect to generating and sending the token and sending the request message for the portion of request. The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination as a whole. For instance, claims 2-10 and 13-21 are all steps that fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” groupings of abstract ideas but for generally linking the use of the judicial exemption to a particular technical computing environment, further describing abstract concepts. The Dependent claims when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
No Prior Art Rejections
Based on the prior art search results, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application. Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to modify the teachings of the prior art to provide the systems, non-transitory computer readable medium and method which perform the operations of:
generating, by a first processor associated with a receiving participant, a first public token based on a second public token previously received thereby from a second processor associated with an originating participant via an electronic communications network, the generation of first public token based on the second public token not being discernable therefrom, the second public token having been generated by the originating participant based on a third public token, the generation of the second public token based on the third public token not being discernable therefrom, and communicated to the first processor for generation and transmission of a request to a request processing computing system to acquire a portion of a total quantity unknown to the receiving participant;
transmitting, by the first processor, a first request message, augmented with the first public token, for the portion of the total quantity via the electronic communications network to the request processing computing system; and
wherein, upon receipt by the request processing computing system, the augmented first request message is processed and at least one anonymized result message, comprising a result of satisfaction thereof for the requested quantity and including the first public token from the augmented first request message whose processing resulted in the result, is stored in a database coupled with the result processing computing system and operative to store anonymized result messages resulting from the processing of request messages, the stored at least one anonymized result message not otherwise being transmitted to the originating participant and having no discernable relationship therewith, the request processing computing system further configured to provide, upon receipt of a request from a requestor for stored associated anonymized result messages associated with the third public token, any anonymized result messages stored therein which include any public tokens, including the first public token, generated based on the third public token, to the requestor such that only the requestor is able to identify how much of the total quantity has been satisfied.
The closest art of record, US Patent Application Publication 20200280546 to Bartolucci, et al., discloses “In some implementations, the present application may provide that encrypting each of the at least two messages to provide ciphertext includes: receiving a transaction public key and an ordered list of public keys from a dealer node, the ordered list of public keys includes a public key associated with each participating node in the plurality of nodes, the ordered list of public keys in descending order such that the public key associated with the next node is the last public key in the ordered list of public keys; and encrypting each of the at least two messages with the transaction public key and, subsequently, with the ordered list of public keys such that each encrypted message is a nested encryption of that message.”
The closest art of record, US Patent Application Publication 20180063105 to Poon, et al., discloses “An exemplary system comprises a computing device processor configured for: determining, at a sending computing device, a public key, the public key associated with the sending computing device or a user associated with the sending computing device; accessing a collection of first keys, wherein each first key of the collection of first keys is mapped to each message in a sub-group of messages; determining a first tag, the first tag identifying the sub-group of messages; generating a collection of second keys based on the public key, the collection of first keys, and the first tag; determining a receiving computing device for receiving the sub-group of messages; generating a token based on recipient-specific information and tag-specific information, wherein the recipient-specific information comprises identification information associated with the receiving computing device, or a user associated with the receiving computing device, and the tag-specific information is associated with the first tag.”
The closest art of record, US Patent Application Publication 20200134586 to Wu, et al., discloses “In addition to the pair of transaction public key and transaction private key, each subscriber has a pair of message public key and message private key used for providing an encryption on confidential messages or a signature to prove messages are authentic. A database of one-to-one mappings of subscribers to their message public key is created and maintained so that such mappings are accessible by all digital property management modules. Whenever a subscriber opens a virtual wallet with a digital property manager, a mapping should be added… The message public keys are shared with and accessible by other digital property management modules and the message private keys are kept confidential and only accessible by their owners. A message private key is used by a message sender (who is the key owner) to create a signature on messages for a message receiver (who is not the key owner) using the message public key to prove they are authentic messages which have not been altered. A message public key can be used by a message sender (who is not the key owner) to create encrypted messages so that only the intended message receiver (who is the key owner) can decrypt the messages to learn the contents by using the message private key.”
The closest art of record, US Patent Application Publication 20170039644 to Palmer, et al. discloses “In some implementations, The lifecycles built through the lifecycle generation process 700 are stored in one or more analytical data stores in the query database of the CAT processor 106 to facilitate queries based on one or more criteria. For example, a CAT Lifecycle ID data store allows regulators to submit a CAT Event ID and receive an output of an entire order lifecycle with every market event linked to the submitted CAT Event ID and may include additional information associated with the events of the lifecycle. In addition, for a query of a CAT Lifecycle ID, the CAT processor 106 returns the CAT Event IDs for all of the events associated with the CAT Lifecycle ID. In some implementations, the query database may also include a CAT Order ID data store, which allows a regulator to submit a CAT-Event-ID and receive an output of a sequence of all market events between the queried event and all executions and/or initial orders. FIGS. 8A-8C are exemplary diagrams of recursions of the lifecycle generation process 700 where a MapReduce function is used to identify relationships between the events of the order lifecycle 400. FIG. 8A illustrates a first iteration map 800 of the lifecycle generation process 700. As shown in FIG. 8A, each event of the order lifecycle 400 can include a key-value (KV) pair where the key is the parent event (or itself if there is no parent event) and the value is the order ID. The iteration map 800 can be reduced so that the orders associated with a particular parent order are included in the KV pair. The order lifecycle 400 can be built in N-1 iterations, where N is a number of edges associated with a longest traversal of the order lifecycle 400. FIG. 8B is an exemplary diagram of a second iteration map 802, and FIG. 8C is an exemplary diagram of a third iteration map 804 of the lifecycle generation process 700. For the subsequent iterations, each previous key includes the parent order as well as the previous key and values as a value.”
The closest art of record, US Patent Application Publication 20190066228 to Wright discloses “The invention relates generally to cryptographic techniques for secure processing, transmission and exchange of data. It also relates to peer-to-peer distributed ledgers such as (but not limited to) the Bitcoin blockchain. In particular, it relates to control solutions for identifying, protecting, extracting, transmitting and updating data in a cryptographically controlled and secure manner. It also relates to system inter-operability and the ability to communicate data between different and distinct computing systems. The invention provides a computer implemented method (and corresponding systems) comprising the steps of identifying a set of first structure public keys comprising at least one public root key associated with a first structure of interest of an entity and one or more associated public sub-keys; deriving a deterministic association between the at least one public root key and the one or more associated public sub-keys; and extracting data from a plurality of transactions (TXs) from a blockchain. The data comprises data indicative of a blockchain transaction (Tx) between the first structure and at least one further structure; and a first structure public key associated with the first structure. The first structure public key is part of a cryptographic public/private key. The method includes the step of generating an output for the first structure of interest by matching at least part of the set of first structure public keys to the extracted transaction data using the deterministic association. The one or more public sub-keys is generated or determined using Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) and a deterministic key (DK) that is based on a cryptographic hash of a message (M). The one or more public sub-keys is determined based on a scalar addition of an associated public parent key and the scalar multiplication of a deterministic key (DK) and a generator (G).”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY S CUNNINGHAM II whose telephone number is (313)446-6564. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-4pm.
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 303-297-4411. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
GREGORY S. CUNNINGHAM II
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3694
/GREGORY S CUNNINGHAM II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights