DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in reply to application no. 19/106,592, filed 25 February 2025 with a preliminary amendment filed concurrently. Claims 1-20 are pending and are considered below.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: on the second line of the claim, “is comprises” is grammatically incorrect. The Examiner presumes “comprises” was intended. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 14 and 17 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. In claim 14, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the alert”. Claim 17 presents a list of items which an object comprises, but there is no quantifier such as “and” or “or” to specify whether one, some or all of the items are required. Given the overall structure of the claims, the Examiner will presume “and/or” was intended.
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=20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims lie within statutory categories of invention, as each is directed to a method (process), computer equipment (machine) or non-transitory computer readable medium (manufacture). The claim(s) recite(s) sending information to a predetermined address which has been assigned to someone or something.
First, sending information to a predetermined, assigned address is both a commercial activity and a fundamental business practice, each of which is among the “certain methods of organizing human activity” deemed abstract. This happens any time a business sends a letter or an invoice to a customer or supplier, e.g. via the post, a practice which goes back hundreds of years and long predates computers.
Second, this is human mental activity. A business manager can write an invoice on paper with a pen, address an envelope similarly, and put it in the hands of a postal employee, e.g. by handing it over a counter. None of this presents any practical difficulty – in fact it is quite routine – and none requires any technology beyond pen and paper.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because aside from the bare inclusion of a generic computer, discussed below, nothing is done beyond what was set forth above, which does not go beyond generally linking the abstract idea to the technological environment of generic, networked computers. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
As the claims only transmit information, they do not improve the “functioning of a computer” or of “any other technology or technical field”. See MPEP § 2106.05(a). They do not apply the abstract idea “with, or by use of a particular machine”, MPEP § 2106.05(b), as the below-cited Guidance is clear that a generic computer is not the particular machine envisioned.
They do not effect a “transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing”, MPEP § 2106.05(c). First, such information, being intangible, is not a particular article at all. Second, the claimed manipulation is neither transformative nor reductive; as the courts have pointed out, in the end, data are still data.
They do not apply the abstract idea “in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking [it] to a particular technological environment”, MPEP § 2106.05(e), as the lack of technical and algorithmic detail in the claims is so as not to go beyond such a general linkage.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional claim limitations, considered individually and as an ordered combination, are insufficient to elevate an otherwise-ineligible claim.
Claim 18, which has the most, includes a processor and memory storing instructions and, at least implicitly, access to some kind of network. These elements are recited at a high degree of generality, and the specification does not meaningfully limit them, such that a generic computer will suffice.
It only performs generic computer functions of making determinations and sending information. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, without an inventive concept, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. The claim elements when considered in ordered combination – a generic computer performing a short sequence of abstract steps chronologically – do nothing more than when they are analyzed individually. The other independent claims are simply different embodiments but are likewise directed to a generic computer performing, essentially, the same process.
The dependent claims further do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea: claims 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 14, 16 and 20 are simply further descriptive of the type of information being manipulated. Claims 4, 6, 7, 9 and 12 simply recite further, abstract manipulation of data. Claims 10 and 15 do not limit the claimed method, and claim 11 simply requires receiving information.
The claims are not patent eligible. For further guidance please see MPEP § 2106.03 – 2106.07(c) (formerly referred to as the “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance”, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 55 (7 January 2019)).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-8 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Information Sciences Institute (hence “ISI”), “Internet Protocol (DARPA Internet Program Protocol Specification”, Request for Comments No. 791, September 1981, available at datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc791
With regard to Claim 1:
A computer-implemented method [pg. 1, § 1.1; the protocol is “designed for use in interconnected systems of packet-switched computer networks”] comprising:
a sending and/or receiving resource generating, storing, processing, accessing and/or maintaining a record of a packet of data; [id.; the protocol provides for “transmitting blocks of data from sources to destinations”; such a block reads on a packet]
determining, from the record, an allocated address; [id.; destination hosts are “identified by fixed length addresses”] and
sending, at least in part, a transmission of the record from the sending resource across an electronic network to the allocated address. [pg. 1, § 1.2, “deliver a package of bits… from a source to a destination over an interconnected system of networks”]
With regard to Claim 3:
The method of claim 1, wherein the record includes at least one of: a portion of a transaction (Tx); an output identifier; a hash of an output script; a transaction identification (TXID); a blockchain block; and a block header. [Pg. 67, App’x A, see Example 1 showing “data” which reads on at least a portion of a transaction, identification 111 which reads on a transaction identifier, a header checksum which reads on a hash, and a destination address which reads on an output identifier]
With regard to Claim 5:
The method of claim 1, wherein the sending resource holds a data structure including a set of allocated addresses associated with a corresponding set of keys.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 1. First, claim 1 does not require a sending resource at all, so its characteristics are outside the scope of the claimed invention in some embodiments. Second, claim 1 is directed to a method, and this claim does not add or modify any step in a method, but simply consists of nonfunctional, descriptive language, describing at most human interpretation of data; and as the data structure only includes the listed items, it can include other information and any further processing can be based entirely on the other information.
With regard to Claim 6:
The method of claim 1, wherein
the sending resource generates, stores, processes, accesses and/or maintains a block comprising a plurality of records, wherein each of the records in the block includes at least a portion of blockchain data; [pg. 19, § 2.3, the data are divided into an “integral multiple of 8 octets” as part of a process of fragmenting a long set of data]
determining for each record in the block an allocated address; and
sending, at least in part, a transmission of each record in the block from the sending resource across an electronic network to the respective allocated address.
The determining and sending “for each record” of multiples, compared to claim 1, consists entirely of a mere duplication of parts which is considered but given no patentable weight as no new and unexpected result is inherent or disclosed. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
Referring to data as “blockchain data” consists of mere labeling which is considered but given no patentable weight. Any data are capable of being stored on a blockchain.
With regard to Claim 7:
The method of claim 6, wherein the block is split into sub-blocks, and the sending resource transmits each sub-block across an electronic network to a corresponding allocated address. [id.]
With regard to Claim 8:
The method of claim 6, wherein the plurality of records are split in to eight sub-blocks, each sub-block being sent to a corresponding allocated address. [id.]
With regard to Claim 16:
The method of claim 1, wherein the record comprises at least one of:
at least part of a blockchain transaction;
at least part of a blockchain block;
at least part of a blockchain transaction script;
a Merkle Tree of the block in which said record is recorded;
the Merkle root the block in which said record is recorded;
a Merkle path, which enables the determination of the value for the Merkle root for the block in which said record is recorded, from a hash of said record;
a Merkle proof;
data for use with, or associated with, a consensus mechanism of a blockchain network the result of, or data relating to, a proof-of-stake or proof-of-work operation;
a block identifier (block_ID) associated with the blockchain block;
a transaction identifier (TxID) associated with a transaction (Tx) in the plurality of blockchain transactions within the blockchain block;
a function of the block identifier (block_ID) and the transaction identifier (TxID);
a concatenation of the block identifier (block_ID) and the transaction identifier (TxID);
a digital signature;
an authentication code;
a signature message for determining a transactional state;
a protocol flag;
a discretionary public key (DPK); and
a discretionary transaction ID (DTxID). [pg. 19, § 2.3; a more-fragments flag is provided as part of the protocol]
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 1 as it consists entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language, disclosing at most human interpretation of data but which imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed method. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 17: (as best understood)
The method of claim 1, wherein the sending and/or receiving resource is comprises:
a node in a blockchain network;
a service provider arranged to provide a blockchain-related service;
a computing resource associated with or controlled by a financial institution;
a cryptocurrency exchange or component thereof;
a merchant resource or component thereof;
a digital wallet or component thereof;
a software component operative to perform or facilitate a Simplified Verification Payment (SPV) operation, or process the result of a SPV operation;
a MLDv1 host or MLDv2 host on a network, a network switch or a router. [See generally ISI; use of the Internet protocols reads on provision of a blockchain-related service]
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 1 as many of the optional choices consist entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language, disclosing at most human interpretation of data but which impart neither structure nor functionality to the claimed method. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 18:
Computer equipment, comprising:
memory comprising one or more memory units; and
processing apparatus comprising one or more processing units, wherein the memory stores code arranged to run on the processing apparatus, the code being configured SO as when run on the processing apparatus, the processing apparatus performs [pg. 50, § 3.2; a “memory” is used by a “boot strap program” which is executed; pg. 10, § 1.3, an IMP is used which abbreviates “internet message processor”] a method of:
a sending and/or receiving resource generating, storing, processing, accessing and/or maintaining a record of a packet of data; [pg. 1, § 1.1; the protocol provides for “transmitting blocks of data from sources to destinations”; such a block reads on a packet]
determining, from the record, an allocated address; [id.; destination hosts are “identified by fixed length addresses”] and
sending, at least in part, a transmission of the record from the sending resource across an electronic network to the allocated address. [pg. 1, § 1.2, “deliver a package of bits… from a source to a destination over an interconnected system of networks”]
With regard to Claim 19:
A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a computer program configured so as, when run on one or more processors, the one or more processors perform a method [pg. 50, § 3.2; a “memory” is used by a “boot strap program” which is executed; pg. 10, § 1.3, an IMP is used which abbreviates “internet message processor”] of:
a sending and/or receiving resource generating, storing, processing, accessing and/or maintaining a record of a packet of data; [pg. 1, § 1.1; the protocol provides for “transmitting blocks of data from sources to destinations”; such a block reads on a packet]
determining, from the record, an allocated address; [id.; destination hosts are “identified by fixed length addresses”] and
sending, at least in part, a transmission of the record from the sending resource across an electronic network to the allocated address. [pg. 1, § 1.2, “deliver a package of bits… from a source to a destination over an interconnected system of networks”]
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 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.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ISI in view of applicant-admitted prior art.
With regard to Claim 2:
The method of claim 1, wherein the allocated address is a multicast address associated with a group of receiving resources.
ISI teaches the method of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach the use of a multicast address (which by definition is associated with a group of receiving resources), but the applicant admits this was known in the art prior to the filing of the present invention. See Spec. pg. 2, lines 4-5, explaining that multicasting was at the time “native to IPv6”. This admission qualifies as prior art; see MPEP § 2152.03. IPv6 and IPv4 (what ISI was describing) are analogous art as they are simply different versions of the same protocol.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching admitted by the applicant with that of ISI, as market forces at the time were increasingly driving developers to implement the updated version of the Internet Protocol stack; further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another, simply using IPv6 in place of IPv4; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ISI in view of Weis et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0142064).
With regard to Claim 4:
The method of claim 1, wherein determining the allocated address includes processing the record to determine a key, and selecting at least one address from a set of addresses using the key, said processing preferably including parsing the record.
ISI teaches the method of claim 1 including determining an address as cited above, but does not explicitly teach this use of a key, but it is known in the art. Weis teaches an address allocation system [title] which may “parse” a data from for a “source address” using a “session key” to determine a match. [0052] Weis and ISI are analogous art as each is directed to the use of computers to send data to addresses.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Weis with that of ISI in order to verify correctness of data, as taught by Weis; further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply determining an address in the manner of Weis in place of, or in addition to, that of ISI; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
Claim(s) 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ISI in view of Whaley et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0186668).
With regard to Claim 9:
The method of claim 1, wherein the sending resource additionally or alternatively operates as a receiving resource, the method further comprising:
receiving the record and/or the plurality of records, and at least one of:
propagating the record to the allocated address;
propagating the block comprising a plurality of records to the respective allocated addresses;
consolidating the block and/or the plurality of records for propagation to corresponding allocated address; and
collecting at least one of the record, plurality of records or block and parsing the or each record therein to determine a respective key and propagating the or each record to at least one address from a set of addresses using the key.
ISI teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach retransmission, but it is known in the art. Whaley teaches a data protection system [title] that may “retransmit” a “commit record”, [0091] which reads on receiving and then sending it. A computer may subscribe to various computing environments. [0041] Whaley and ISI are analogous art as each is directed to the use of networks in data transmission.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Whaley with that of ISI in order to protect data, as taught by Whaley; further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply transmitting data which has been received as in Whaley rather than transmitting the less-specific data of ISI; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
With regard to Claim 10:
The method of claim 1, wherein the sending or receiving resource subscribes to at least one receiving resource and/or at least one multicast group. [Whaley, 0041 as cited above in regard to claim 9]
With regard to Claim 11:
The method of claim 10, wherein the sending or receiving resource subscribes to a multicast address configured to receive at least one record allocated to said multicast address, said allocation determined from the at least one record. [id.]
As the multicast is not within the scope of the system performing the claimed method, its characteristics are considered but given no patentable weight. The claimed method is not modified by such characteristics. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 12:
The method of claim 10, further including the sending resource: subscribing to a group of receiving resources by sending a signal to a network, such as the internet and/or a blockchain network; and/or leaving a group of receiving resources, preferably wherein the resource leaves the group by ceasing to send a signal to the network. [id.]
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 10, which does not require a sending resource. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Claim(s) 13-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ISI in view of Mahajan et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0392511).
With regard to Claim 13:
The method of claim 1, wherein the record comprises:
a communication or alert relating to a blockchain related event or activity.
ISI teaches the method of claim 1 but do not explicitly teach this interpretation of data, and though it is of no patentable significance as explained below, it is known in the art. Mahajan teaches a blockchain-based bid matching system [title] which can provide “notifications in response to various triggering events”. [0021] One such event is an attempt to “double-spend” a bitcoin. [0003] A transaction may be validated against a public key to verify ownership. [0004] Mahajan and ISI are analogous art as each is directed to computer-based provision of electronic communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Mahajan with that of ISI in order to improve security, as taught by Mahajan; [e.g. 0002] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply sending Mahajan’s message in place of, or in addition to, any message of ISI; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 1 as it consists entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language, disclosing at most human interpretation of data but which imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed method. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 14:
The method of claim 1, wherein the alert relates to a double spend or double spend attempt within a blockchain network. [Mahajan, 0003 as cited above in regard to claim 13]
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 1 as it consists entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language, disclosing at most human interpretation of data but which imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed method. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 15:
The method of claim 1, wherein
the sending and/or receiving resource is arranged, configured and/or operative to perform one or more of the following:
a functionality specified by a blockchain protocol;
a calculation or other operation related to a mining or consensus function specified in a blockchain protocol;
a Simplified Payment Verification (SPV) operation;
the calculation or verification of a Merkle path, proof or root of a Merkle path;
a validation of a blockchain transaction before or after it has been written to a blockchain;
a search of a blockchain to identify, locate and/or confirm the presence of a given transaction or block within a blockchain;
generate a blockchain transaction, write a transaction to the blockchain, and/or broadcast a transaction to a blockchain network. [Mahajan, 0004 as cited above in regard to claim 13]
With regard to Claim 20:
The method of claim 1, wherein the record includes at least a portion of blockchain data. [Mahajan, as cited above in regard to claim 13]
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 1 as it consists entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language, disclosing at most human interpretation of data but which imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed method. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT C ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7442. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 to 5:30.
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.
/SCOTT C ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights