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 action is in reply to the communications filed on 06/01/2026.
Claims 22-23 have been withdrawn .
Claims 1-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made Non-FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/02/2026 was filed before the mailing date of a first Office Action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-21), in the reply filed on June 01, 2026, is acknowledged.
Claims 22-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 01, 2026.
Examiner Request
The Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for future claim amendments to avoid U.S.C 112(a) issues that can arise. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
Drawings
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
Furthermore, new corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because FIG. 3A-B, 4A, 4D, 4F, 5A, 5C-E, 6, 8C-D, 9B, 10B-G, 11C-G, 12A-F, 13B-F, 14B-F, and 15A-D of the drawings are illegible and do not comply with line uniformity, density definition requirement and the use of shading standards put forth in 37 CFR 1.84 (l) and (m):
(l) All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning.
(m) Shading. The use of shading in views is encouraged if it aids in understanding the invention and if it does not reduce legibility. Shading is used to indicate the surface or shape of spherical, cylindrical, and conical elements of an object. Flat parts may also be lightly shaded. Such shading is preferred in the case of parts shown in perspective, but not for cross sections. See paragraph (h)(3) of this section. Spaced lines for shading are preferred. These lines must be thin, as few in number as practicable, and they must contrast with the rest of the drawings. As a substitute for shading, heavy lines on the shade side of objects can be used except where they superimpose on each other or obscure reference characters. Light should come from the upper left corner at an angle of 45°. Surface delineations should preferably be shown by proper shading. Solid black shading areas are not permitted, except when used to represent bar graphs or color.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as "amended." If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet" or "New Sheet" pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings.
The Examiner further notes that due the grayscale conversion process inherent in the Office's electronic application filing system, elements of FIG. 3A-B, 4A, 4D, 4F, 5A, 5C-E, 6, 8C-D, 9B, 10B-G, 11C-G, 12A-F, 13B-F, 14B-F, and 15A-D are rendered partially illegible which interferes with providing a clear disclosure of the invention to the public. Specifically, the text in FIG. 3A-B, 4A, 4D, 4F, 5A, 5C-E, 6, 8C-D, 9B, 10B-G, 11C-G, 12A-F, 13B-F, 14B-F, and 15A-D is blurry and illegible.
Applicant may further refer to MPEP § 608.02 et seq. for further information regarding acceptability of drawings presented in a utility patent application.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 4, 5, 16, and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3: lines 1-2 recites the limitation “generating a second new state in the ledge within a predefined period of time.” “Ledge” is written instead of “ledger”. It appears there is a typographical mistake. For compact examination purposes, Examiner interpreted the instance recited in Claim 3: lines 1-2 as “generating a second new state in the ledger within a predefined period of time.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4: line 2 recites the limitation “deleting or updating a state in to keep an immutable record.” “In to” is written instead of “to”. It appears there is a typographical mistake. For compact examination purposes, Examiner interpreted the instance recited in Claim 4: line 2 as “deleting or updating a state to keep an immutable record.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5: line 3 recites the limitation “timestep.” “Timestep” is written instead of “timestamp”. It appears there is a typographical mistake. For compact examination purposes, Examiner interpreted the instance recited in Claim 5: line 3 as “timestamp.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16: line 2 recites the limitation “a direct mint operation or and a transfer operation.” “Or and ” is written instead of “and/or”. It appears there is a typographical mistake. For compact examination purposes, Examiner interpreted the instance recited in Claim 16: line 2 as “a direct mint operation and/or a transfer operation.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21: line 4 recites the limitation “d releasing the reserved coins back to the sender through unfreeze operation.” It appears there is a typographical mistake since an indefinite article, “an” is missing before “unfreeze operation.” The indefinite article “an” should be used before “unfreeze operation” because an “unfreeze operation” was not previously recited and the limitation is awkwardly recited without the indefinite article, ”an”. For compact examination purposes, Examiner interpreted the limitation recited in Claim 21: line 4 as “releasing the reserved coins back to the sender through an unfreeze operation.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of processing a transaction associated with coins; without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to a method, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claim 1 is directed to a method comprising: determining a plurality of addresses for a first user, each of the plurality of addresses associated with an amount of coins of a coin type and a coin subtype; performing a transaction associated with the coins of a given coin type and one or more coin subtypes using one or more addresses of the plurality of addresses; recording the transaction in a ledger by creating a new state for the transaction and obsoleting data originated the new state; and creating a chain of transactions based on recording the transaction. These series of steps describe the abstract idea of processing a transaction associated with coins (with the exception of the italicized and bolded terms above), which is mitigating risk of data inconsistencies, causing conflict records and security breaches by determining and validating a plurality of addresses for a user and creating a chain of transactions based on the transaction records; therefore, corresponding to a fundamental economic principle or practice (including mitigating risk). Hence, a fundamental economic principle or practice (mitigating risk) is a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The abstract idea is also performing a transaction associated with coins using addresses associated with the coins, which is a commercial interaction. Therefore, a commercial interaction is also a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The system limitations, e.g., a plurality of addresses, coins, one or more addresses of the plurality of addresses, and ledger, do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of a plurality of addresses, coins, one or more addresses of the plurality of addresses, and ledger, are no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements listed above are all recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computing arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, claim 1 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of a plurality of addresses, coins, one or more addresses of the plurality of addresses, and ledger, are recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment (Step 2B: NO). Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-21 are directed to a method, which recites the steps that describe the abstract idea of processing a transaction associated with coins. Furthermore, dependent claim 5 is directed to a method, which recite the steps: “generating a salt signature for the transaction, the salt signature including at least a timestep and a secret key; and creating a fingerprint chain by appending to the salt signature a fingerprint of a parent node from which the transaction is originated, wherein the transaction is validated based on at least one of the salt signature and the fingerprint chain.” These series of steps describe the abstract idea of processing a transaction associated with coins (with the exception of the italicized and bolded terms above), which is mitigating risk associated with unauthorized access and impersonation while facilitating lending agreements between entities and individual lenders; therefore, corresponding to a fundamental economic principle or practice (including mitigating risk). Hence, a fundamental economic principle or practice (mitigating risk) is a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The abstract idea is also the processing of lending transactions between entities and individual lenders, which is a commercial interaction. Thus, claims 2-21 are directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements of a plurality of addresses, coins, one or more addresses of the plurality of addresses, ledger, and parent node are no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, the additional elements: a plurality of addresses, coins, one or more addresses of the plurality of addresses, ledger, and parent node, do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment.
Dependent claims 2-21 have further defined the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim: Claim 1; and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and are abstract in nature for the reason presented above. The dependent claims 2-21 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, claims 2-21 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Thus, claims 1-21 are not patent-eligible.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 6, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamasni (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2023/0029193 A1 hereinafter “Hamasni”), in view of Lee (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2023/0214792 A1; hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding Claim 1:
Hamasni teaches:
A method comprising: determining a plurality of addresses for a first user, each of the plurality of addresses associated with an amount of coins of a coin type and a coin subtype; (Hamasni, the system may assess (determine) addresses for the user consist of many (amount) crypto assets such as bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin (coin type) and currencies, bonds (coin subtype); (See, Para. [0069], [0071], [0078]));
performing a transaction associated with the coins of a given coin type and one or more coin subtypes using one or more addresses of the plurality of addresses; (Hamasni, the transaction with bitcoin (coin type) and currencies (subtype) may associated with the address of the user; (See, Para. [0059], [0069], [0071], [0078]));
recording the transaction in a ledger by creating a new state for the transaction and [obsoleting ]data originated the new state; and (Hamasni, The state changes (new state changes) of the smart contract triggering the state transition which maybe generate/recorded in the ledger; (See, Para. [0052], [0069], [0084]));
creating a chain of transactions based on recording the transaction. (Hamasni, a new record corresponding to a new composite-crypto asset data structure is generated (create) on the internal ledger data based on user request (transaction); (See, Para. [0052])).
Hamasni does not specifically teach obsoleting data.
However, Lee further teaches the following limitation:
obsoleting data (Lee, the token (data) may be removed (obsolete) from circulation; (See, Para. [0352], [0353])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Hamasni with the features of Lee’s system by including wherein the address includes a numeric identifier of the first user, and the first user is anonymized, as taught by Lee, in order to provide allows the tokens to continue to circulate naturally, allowing people to hold the old versions as collectible items or simply as untouched savings without risk to the token value. Furthermore, Lee recites that “with respect to inputs, each input in a transaction is identifiable by the transaction identifier (TxID) and the Vout of the output that it will spend. The inputs in a given transaction are also listed in a zero-indexed Vector, this time known as “Vin”. In this way, each input references an identifiable output in a previous transaction on the ledger, thus creating a chain so that the immutable transfer history of each cryptocurrency unit can be verified by traversing the blockchain back to the unit's originating source. In the Bitcoin protocol, this could be a Coinbase transaction in which the cryptocurrency was created by a miner as a reward for Proof-of-Work effort, or the very first block of the ledger which is usually known as the Genesis block.” (Lee, Para. 4).
Regarding Claim 6:
Hamasni teaches:
wherein performing the transaction comprises performing one or more ledger operations, and a ledger operation comprises at least one of mint, transfer, transform, freeze, unfreeze, burn, and get. (Hamasni, the transaction may be added to the ledger (ledger operation) consists of a mint process; (See, Para. [0079])).
Regarding Claim 9:
Hamasni teaches:
wherein the transform operation is performed by determining if there is a match with a blacklist based on mapping attributes, or determining if there is enough coin balance amount to make a transfer. (Hamasni, the computing system performing operation with the cryptographic token associated (match) the blacklist data contain address owner know to failed regulatory identity requirement (map attributes) (See, Para. [0022])).
Regarding Claim 16:
Hamasni teaches:
wherein the coins are created by at least one of a direct mint operation or and a transfer operation from a coin pool. (Hamasni, generate to mint the crypto asset such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin (See, Para. [0154]- [0158])).
Claims 2, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamasni (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2023/0029193 A1 hereinafter “Hamasni”), in view of Lee (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2023/0214792 A1; hereinafter “Lee”), and further in view of Agrawal U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2019/0164153 A1; hereinafter “Agrawal”).
Regarding Claim 2:
Hamasni and Lee does not specifically teach wherein the address includes a numeric identifier of the first user, and the first user is anonymized.
However, Agrawal further teaches the following limitation:
wherein the address includes a numeric identifier of the first user, and the first user is anonymized. (Agrawal, the address can include user identifier (first) such as numeric digital signature which can hide (anonymized) the identity of the sender user; (See, Para. [0024], [0038], [0053], [0117])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Hamasni and Lee with the features of Agarwal by including wherein the address includes a numeric identifier of the first user, and the first user is anonymized, as taught by Agrawal, in order to provide achieve confidentiality by hiding the transfer amount. Furthermore, Agrawal recites that “techniques for implementing confidential and anonymous token transfer in a blockchain system may include storing a set of entries representing a state of a platform smart contract in a blockchain network. The set of entries may including at least a first entry comprising a first public key associated with a first account, and a first ciphertext representing a first balance of the first account; a second entry comprising a second public key associated with a second account, and a second ciphertext representing a second balance of the second account; and a third entry comprising a third public key associated with a third account, and a third ciphertext representing a third balance of the third account. A transaction can be conducted to cause the first balance to be decremented by a first amount and the second balance to be incremented by a second amount. To achieve confidentiality by hiding the transfer amount, the first ciphertext can be updated by adding a first operand ciphertext to the first ciphertext, the first operand ciphertext being generated by encrypting a negative of the first amount using the first public key. The second ciphertext can be updated by adding a second operand ciphertext to the second ciphertext, the second operand ciphertext being generated by encrypting the second amount using the second public key. To achieve anonymity by hiding the transacting parties, in addition to updating the first and second ciphertexts, the third ciphertext can be updated by adding a third operand ciphertext to the third ciphertext, the third operand ciphertext being generated by encrypting zero using the third public key.” (Agrawal, Para. 4).
Regarding Claim 14:
Hamasni and Lee does not specifically teach further comprising storing a reference to an entry that resulted in one or more new entries in the chain of transactions.
However, Agrawal further teaches the following limitation:
further comprising storing a reference to an entry that resulted in one or more new entries in the chain of transactions. (Agrawal, storing a set of entities representing a state (reference) in a blockchain transaction may cause the balance to be decremented (result in new entities); (See, Para. [0004], [0082], [0093])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Hamasni and Lee with the features of Agarwal by including storing a reference to an entry that resulted in one or more new entries in the chain of transactions, as taught by AgrawaL, in order to provide achieve confidentiality by hiding the transfer amount and allow more entries in the transaction if multiple people want to pay with the reward coins. Furthermore, Agrawal recites that “techniques for implementing confidential and anonymous token transfer in a blockchain system may include storing a set of entries representing a state of a platform smart contract in a blockchain network. The set of entries may including at least a first entry comprising a first public key associated with a first account, and a first ciphertext representing a first balance of the first account; a second entry comprising a second public key associated with a second account, and a second ciphertext representing a second balance of the second account; and a third entry comprising a third public key associated with a third account, and a third ciphertext representing a third balance of the third account. A transaction can be conducted to cause the first balance to be decremented by a first amount and the second balance to be incremented by a second amount. To achieve confidentiality by hiding the transfer amount, the first ciphertext can be updated by adding a first operand ciphertext to the first ciphertext, the first operand ciphertext being generated by encrypting a negative of the first amount using the first public key. The second ciphertext can be updated by adding a second operand ciphertext to the second ciphertext, the second operand ciphertext being generated by encrypting the second amount using the second public key. To achieve anonymity by hiding the transacting parties, in addition to updating the first and second ciphertexts, the third ciphertext can be updated by adding a third operand ciphertext to the third ciphertext, the third operand ciphertext being generated by encrypting zero using the third public key.” (Agrawal, Para. 4).
Regarding Claim 15:
Hamasni and Lee does not specifically teach further comprising: identifying a specific operation that resulted in a new entry of the one or more new entries in the chain of transactions based on the stored reference.
However, Agrawal further teaches the following limitation:
further comprising: identifying a specific operation that resulted in a new entry of the one or more new entries in the chain of transactions based on the stored reference. (Agrawal, the entities referencing the account (store reference) may be in a locked status (operation) during the blockchain transaction (See, Para. [0082], [0091])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Hamasni and Lee with the features of Agarwal by including identifying a specific operation that resulted in a new entry of the one or more new entries in the chain of transactions based on the stored reference, as taught by Agrawal, in order to provide achieve confidentiality by hiding the transfer amount and allow more entries in the transaction if multiple people want to pay with the reward coins. Furthermore, Agrawal recites that “techniques for implementing confidential and anonymous token transfer in a blockchain system may include storing a set of entries representing a state of a platform smart contract in a blockchain network. The set of entries may including at least a first entry comprising a first public key associated with a first account, and a first ciphertext representing a first balance of the first account; a second entry comprising a second public key associated with a second account, and a second ciphertext representing a second balance of the second account; and a third entry comprising a third public key associated with a third account, and a third ciphertext representing a third balance of the third account. A transaction can be conducted to cause the first balance to be decremented by a first amount and the second balance to be incremented by a second amount. To achieve confidentiality by hiding the transfer amount, the first ciphertext can be updated by adding a first operand ciphertext to the first ciphertext, the first operand ciphertext being generated by encrypting a negative of the first amount using the first public key. The second ciphertext can be updated by adding a second operand ciphertext to the second ciphertext, the second operand ciphertext being generated by encrypting the second amount using the second public key. To achieve anonymity by hiding the transacting parties, in addition to updating the first and second ciphertexts, the third ciphertext can be updated by adding a third operand ciphertext to the third ciphertext, the third operand ciphertext being generated by encrypting zero using the third public key.” (Agrawal, Para. 4).
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamasni (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2023/0029193 A1 hereinafter “Hamasni”), in view of Lee (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2023/0214792 A1; hereinafter “Lee”), and further in view of Chen (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2021/0119807A1; hereinafter “Chen”).
Regarding Claim 3:
Hamasni teaches:
[further comprising stopping generating a second new state in the ledge within a predefined period of time] to avoid double spend attacks. (Hamasni, prevent double spend attack through use of a point of sale device (See, Para. [0068])).
Hamasni and Lee does not specifically teach [further comprising stopping generating a second new state in the ledge within a predefined period of time].
However, Chen further teaches the following limitation:
further comprising stopping generating a second new state in the ledge within a predefined period of time. (Chen, the blockchain ledger should not generate a second token over time (a predefined period of time) (See, Para. [0110], [0119])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Hamasni and Lee with the features of Chen by including stopping generating a second new state in the ledge within a predefined period of time, as taught by Chen, in order to provide security challenges involved in certain types of blockchain transaction. Furthermore, Chen recites that “a blockchain user may be associated with an account that has a unique address which is a type of identifier that can be used to identify the user, such as to allow other users of the blockchain network to send digital assets to the blockchain user or verify information regarding the user. Each account may have a private and public key associated with it where the private key is used to generate digital signatures and the public key, made available to the blockchain network, is used to verify those digital signatures.” (Chen, Para. 33).
Regarding Claim 12:
Hamasni and Lee does not specifically teach further comprising: identifying a specific operation that resulted in a new entry of the one or more new entries in the chain of transactions based on the stored reference.
However, Chen further teaches the following limitation:
wherein the coin type is at least one of reward or billing, and the subtype comprises at least one of bonus, welcome, social, purchased, referral, deal, award, invite, and subscription. (Chen, See, [0119], [0151], [0152])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Hamasni and Lee with the features of Chen by including wherein the coin type is at least one of reward or billing, and the subtype comprises at least one of bonus, welcome, social, purchased, referral, deal, award, invite, and subscription, as taught by Chen, in order to provide security challenges involved in certain types of blockchain transaction. Furthermore, Chen recites that “a blockchain user may be associated with an account that has a unique address which is a type of identifier that can be used to identify the user, such as to allow other users of the blockchain network to send digital assets to the blockchain user or verify information regarding the user. Each account may have a private and public key associated with it where the private key is used to generate digital signatures and the public key, made available to the blockchain network, is used to verify those digital signatures.” (Chen, Para. 33).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamasni (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2023/0029193 A1 hereinafter “Hamasni”), in view of Lee (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2023/0214792 A1; hereinafter “Lee”), and further in view of Kikinis (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 20210073804 A1; hereinafter “Kikinis”).
Regarding Claim 4:
Hamasni and Lee does not specifically teach wherein the chain of transactions is created without deleting or updating a state in to keep an immutable record of the chain of transactions.
However, Kikinis further teaches the following limitation:
wherein the chain of transactions is created without deleting or updating a state in to keep an immutable record of the chain of transactions. (Kikinis, the transaction (chain of transactions) may be updated to an immutable ledger to reflect the transaction by creating an entry/ record; (See, Para. [0180], [0204])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Hamasni and Lee with the features of Kikinis by including the chain of transactions created without deleting or updating a state to keep an immutable record of the chain of transactions, as taught by Kikinis, in order to provide allowing entities with proper legal authorization to query transaction data and personally identifying information on entity. Furthermore, Kikinis recites that “ method of non-cryptographic immutable distributed ledger technology for sending and receiving multiple assets including fiat currencies, is disclosed, comprising the steps of: communicating with another financial institution other than the operating financial institution, using a financial institution endpoint; facilitating customer transactions with a customer account held by the operating financial institution, using a financial institution endpoint; facilitating transactions between the operating financial institution and a separate financial institution by means of an other-control account, such as nostro and vostro accounts, using a financial institution endpoint; wherein the transactions between the financial institutions take place over a secure network, using a financial institution endpoint; storing records of personally identifying information on entities involved in transactions with the financial institution endpoint, using a financial institution endpoint; communicating with a data trustee and allow the data trustee to copy all stored transaction record data for storage purposes, using a financial institution endpoint; receiving transactions from at least one financial institution endpoint, using a secure network.” (Kikinis, Para. 7).
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamasni (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2023/0029193 A1 hereinafter “Hamasni”), in view of Lee (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2023/0214792 A1; hereinafter “Lee”), and further in view of Jakobsson (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2023/0385815 A1; hereinafter “Jakobsson”).
Regarding Claim 8:
Hamasni and Lee does not specifically teach wherein an ownership of the coins is changed based on a full or partial transfer operation.
However, Jakobsson further teaches the following limitation:
wherein an ownership of the coins is changed based on a full or partial transfer operation. (Jakobsson, the NFT token (coin) may associate fractional (partial) ownership where fractional share contributes in the purchase and transfer ownership; (See, Para. [0174], [0276])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Hamasni and Lee with the features of Jakobsson by including an ownership of the coins is changed based on a full or partial transfer operation, as taught by Jakobsson, in order to allow for tokens to directly control ownership rights. Furthermore, Jakobsson recites that “the method receives a request from a requesting party, wherein the request includes: information about a transaction to be performed, a reference to a token corresponding to the transaction, and an address of a receiving party corresponding to the transaction. The method recovers, from a smart contract associated with the token, at least one address list, wherein: the at least one address list comprises a token banlist, and the token banlist comprises at least one address banned from receiving the token. The method determines whether the address of the receiving party is listed on the token banlist. When the address of the receiving party is listed on the token banlist, the method transmits a transaction rejection to the requesting party.” (Jakobsson, Para. 4).
Regarding Claim 17:
Hamasni teaches:
further comprising: generating the coins through a first operation upon the transaction; (Hamasni, based on the withdraw request (first operation), the smart contract initializes (generate to mint the crypto asset such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin coin); (See, Para. [0154]));
adding the coins to an address associated with an entity; (Hamasni, The crypto asset (coin) is added to the initial address provide by the entity (See, Para. [0059]));
and granting the first user access to the coins through a third operation. (Hamasni, the crypto asset (coin) may be transition (granting access) to user may need to submit credential to identity management (See, Para. [0061]));
Hamasni and Lee does not specifically teach withholding the coins for use through a second operation until the transaction is validated.
However, Jakobsson further teaches the following limitation:
withholding the coins for use through a second operation until the transaction is validated; (Jakobsson, the token may be halted (withhold) until verification of ownership (second operation) is provided See, [0280])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Hamasni and Lee with the features of Chen by including the withholding the coins for use through a second operation until the transaction is validated, as taught by Jakobsson, in order to allow for tokens to directly control ownership rights. Furthermore, Jakobsson recites that “the method receives a request from a requesting party, wherein the request includes: information about a transaction to be performed, a reference to a token corresponding to the transaction, and an address of a receiving party corresponding to the transaction. The method recovers, from a smart contract associated with the token, at least one address list, wherein: the at least one address list comprises a token banlist, and the token banlist comprises at least one address banned from receiving the token. The method determines whether the address of the receiving party is listed on the token banlist. When the address of the receiving party is listed on the token banlist, the method transmits a transaction rejection to the requesting party.” (Jakobsson, Para. 4).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamasni (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2023/0029193 A1 hereinafter “Hamasni”), in view of Lee (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2023/0214792 A1; hereinafter “Lee”), and further in view of Maim (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2021/0133735 A1; hereinafter “Maim”).
Regarding Claim 11:
Hamasni and Lee does not specifically teach wherein the burn operation is performed to permanently remove the coins without deleting an existing state from the ledger.
However, Maim further teaches the following limitation:
wherein the burn operation is performed to permanently remove the coins without deleting an existing state from the ledger. (Maim, NFT platforms in accordance with many embodiments of the invention may additionally benefit from alternative energy-efficient consensus mechanisms. Therefore, computer systems in accordance with several embodiments of the invention may instead use consensus-based methods alongside or in place of proof-of-space and proof-of-space based mining. In particular, consensus mechanisms based instead on the existence of a Trusted Execution Environment (TEE), such as ARM TrustZone™ or Intel SGX™ may provide assurances exist of integrity by virtue of incorporating private/isolated processing environments. (See, Para. [0130])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Hamasni and Lee with the features of Maim because “the method receives a request from a requesting party, wherein the request includes: information about a transaction to be performed, a reference to a token corresponding to the transaction, and an address of a receiving party corresponding to the transaction. The method recovers, from a smart contract associated with the token, at least one address list, wherein: the at least one address list comprises a token banlist, and the token banlist comprises at least one address banned from receiving the token. The method determines whether the address of the receiving party is listed on the token banlist. When the address of the receiving party is listed on the token banlist, the method transmits a transaction rejection to the requesting party.” (Maim, Para. 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Dependent claims 5, 7, 10, 13,and 18-21, would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objections and rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Independently the claims are obvious however the claims as a whole are not obvious because the examiner would have to improperly use the claims as a road map to combine the individual obvious claims together. However, the claims still do not overcome the claim objections and 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is the following:
KUCHAR (U.S. Patent Pub. No. US 2021/0192526-A1) “A method includes acquiring blockchain data that includes transactions between a plurality of blockchain addresses. The method includes labeling a set of the blockchain addresses as fraudulent and generating a graph data structure based on the blockchain data. The method includes calculating a set of scoring features for each blockchain address, where each set of scoring features includes a graph-based scoring feature. Calculating the graph-based scoring feature includes calculating a number of transactions associated with the blockchain address in the graph data structure. The method includes generating a scoring model using sets of scoring features for the blockchain addresses that are labeled as fraudulent and generating a trust score for each blockchain address using the scoring features and the scoring model. The trust score indicates a likelihood that the blockchain address is involved in fraudulent activity. Additionally, the method includes sending a requested trust score to a requesting device.”
Guo (U.S. Patent Pub. No. US 2019/0297109-A1) “A method for processing an account in a blockchain is provided. A freezing instruction with respect to a target account is received by a computer device. A freezing lock is generated by the computer device based on the received freezing instruction, the freezing lock including a freezing lock public key. A first freezing request is generated by the computer device based on the freezing instruction and the freezing lock public key. The first freezing request is transmitted by the computer device to a device in the blockchain. The first freezing request is a request based on which the target account is frozen by using the freezing lock and resource transfer of the target account is denied.”
Chan (U.S. Patent Pub. No. US 2024/0205019-A1) “Different communication and software protocols may be used by different blockchain networks. Cross-chain communication is provided via a software bridge configured to enable specific operations. An event request may be sent from a first blockchain network to a second blockchain network. The event request may be processed using a first protocol of the first network to provide a first output. An offer of equivalent processing provided by the second network may be verified by: processing the event request using a second protocol of the second network to provide a second output, and confirming that the second output matches the offer of equivalent processing. A processing equivalence of the event request may be established between the first network and the second network based on the first output of the event request processed using the first protocol and the second output of the event request processed using the second protocol.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED H MUSTAFA whose telephone number is (571)270-7978. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 - 5:00.
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, Michael W Anderson can be reached on 571-270-0508. 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.
/MOHAMMED H MUSTAFA/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
/ELIZABETH H ROSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights