DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s response/application filed on 04/13/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 04/13/2026 is acknowledged.
The Examiner notes that citations to United States Patent Application Publication paragraphs are formatted as [####], #### representing the paragraph number.
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
Claims 1-16 are pending.
Claims 11-16 have been withdrawn.
No claims have been amended, added, or canceled.
Claims 1-10 have been examined.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/13/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitations: “the second blockchain node”. Claim 10 also recites this limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes examiner has interpreted “the second blockchain node” to be “a second blockchain node”. Claims 2-9 are also rejected since they inherit this deficiency.
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.
As per claims 1-10, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because:
• Claim 1 recites:
constructing a locking script of a first blockchain transaction, wherein the locking script comprises a plurality of criterion components, a plurality of counter script components, and a predetermined number, each criterion component being linked with one of the counter script components, each criterion component comprising one or more functions, and each counter script component comprising one or more functions;
using the locking script to lock a first output of the first blockchain transaction;
configuring the locking script so that, when executed by a blockchain node together with an unlocking script of a second blockchain transaction, the locking script causes the second blockchain node to increment a counter, stored in memory of the blockchain node, each time the one or more functions of a respective criterion component determine that the input script comprises a respective required data item; and
configuring the locking script so that, when executed by the blockchain node together with the unlocking script of the second blockchain transaction, the locking script causes the second blockchain node to verify that the counter has incremented to at least the predetermined number in order for the first output to be unlocked by the unlocking script.
• Under Step 1 of the Section 101 analysis, the claim(s) is/are directed to a method, a system, and a manufacture, which are statutory categories of invention.
• Under Step 2A Prong One of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligiblity Guidance, the claimed invention as drafted includes language (see underlined language above) that recites an abstract idea of configuring transaction processing requirements (a certain method of organizing human activity such as a commercial or legal interactions) but for the recitation of additional claim elements. Claim 10 recites similar abstract idea. That is, other than reciting “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, “computer equipment”, “blockchain”, nothing in the claim precludes the language from being considered as performed by a person.
• Under Step 2A Prong Two of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligiblity Guidance, the additional claim element(s), considered individually, do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and in a manner that integrates the exception into a practical application of the exception. The additional claim elements(s) merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. For example, the additional elements of “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, “computer equipment”, merely use a generic computer device and/or generic computer components as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Furthermore, the additional claim elements(s) such as “blockchain” generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use of blockchain.
• Under Step 2A Prong Two, the additional claim element(s), considered in combination, do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and in a manner that integrates the exception into a practical application of the exception. The combination of elements is no more than the sum of their parts. Unlike the eligible claims in Diehr and Bascom, in which the elements limiting the exception taken together improve a technical field, the instant claim lacks an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field.
• Under Step 2B, the additional claim element(s), considered individually and in combination, do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself for similar reasons outlined under Step 2A Prong Two.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claims 2-9 which further recite the abstract idea without any extra additional elements.
Therefore, claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(S) 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112 and 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
As per claim 1, the closest prior art of record, Hill (US 20190164221)
discloses an invention for generating a blockchain transaction comprising an
output locking the amount of a digital asset, the output comprising an output
script comprising a plurality of criterion components each requiring a respective
input data item and a plurality of counter script components, each criterion
component being associated with one of the counter script components. In
addition, Okupski ("Bitcoin Developer Reference", Krzysztof Okupski, Technische
University Eindhoven, Dec 15 2014) discloses an invention for incrementing a
counter if its associated criterion component has been satisfied. In addition, Zhu
(“RealID: Building A Secure Anonymous Yet Transparent Immutable ID Service”, Yixuan Zhu, 2017 IEEE 3rd International Conference on Big Data Security on Cloud, May 2017) discloses an invention for verifying a counter by a blockchain node.
The closest prior art of record fail to teach or suggest, in the context of the ordered combination of the claim:
constructing a locking script of a first blockchain transaction, wherein the locking script comprises a plurality of criterion components, a plurality of counter script components, and a predetermined number, each criterion component being linked with one of the counter script components, each criterion component comprising one or more functions, and each counter script component comprising one or more functions;
using the locking script to lock a first output of the first blockchain transaction;
configuring the locking script so that, when executed by a blockchain node together with an unlocking script of a second blockchain transaction, the locking script causes the second blockchain node to increment a counter, stored in memory of the blockchain node, each time the one or more functions of a respective criterion component determine that the input script comprises a respective required data item; and
configuring the locking script so that, when executed by the blockchain node together with the unlocking script of the second blockchain transaction, the locking script causes the second blockchain node to verify that the counter has incremented to at least the predetermined number in order for the first output to be unlocked by the unlocking script.
Claims 2-9 are dependent on claim 1 and would be allowable for the same reasons stated above. In addition, claim 10 is analogous to claim 1, and thus would be allowable for the same reasons stated above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20190095879 to Eyal for disclosing unspent transaction outputs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4642. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10 AM-5 PM.
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, 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.
/DUAN ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights