DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The following is a Final Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendments filed on 09/21/2026.
a. Claims 1, 10, 13, and 17 are amended
b. Claims 2, 14 are cancelled
c. Claims 19-24 were previously cancelled
Overall, Claims 1, 3-13, 15-18 are pending and have been considered below.
Priority
The application claims foreign priority to application EP22194456.4, filed on 09/07/2022. The priority is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 4-5, and 10 recites the claim language “and/or”. Throughout the examination, the Examiner will interpret “and/or” as “or”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 USC 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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-13, 15-18 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to a judicial exception, i.e. an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, and without significantly more.
Per Step 1 of the multi-step eligibility analysis, claims 1, 3-12 are directed to a computer implemented method, and claims 13, 15-18 are directed to a system.
Thus, on its face, each independent claim and the associated dependent claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
Per Step 2A.1. The limitations of independent claim 1 (which is representative of Claim 13) shown in bold recite an abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below.
[A] A computer implemented method for facilitating a secure transfer of cryptocurrency between two Blockchain platforms, the method comprising:
[B] monitoring, by a processor of a computerized channel relay server, a first Blockchain platform for a chain-one-to-channel data transaction, the chain-one-to-channel data transaction comprising: a defined target address of a first smart contract on the first Blockchain platform, a defined number of tokens of a particular cryptocurrency, and a first digital signature, wherein a first address of an owner entity is either derivable from the first digital signature, or derivable from transaction instructions included in the chain-one-to- channel data transaction;
[C] verifying, by the processor, whether the chain-one-to-channel data transaction has been confirmed on the first Blockchain platform;
[D] transmitting, by the processor, transaction confirmation information to a second smart contract on a second Blockchain platform, in case of affirmative confirmation of the chain-one-to-channel data transaction;
[E] monitoring, by a plurality of channel relay computers of the channel relay server, the first Blockchain platform for the chain-one-to-channel data transaction;
[F] establishing, by the plurality of channel relay computers, a consensus as to whether the chain-one-to-channel data transaction has been confirmed; and
[G] transmitting, by at least one of the channel relay computers, the transaction confirmation information to the second smart contract, in case of affirmative confirmation in the form of an affirmative consensus.
Claim 1 (which is representative of claim 13) recites: facilitating secure cryptocurrency transaction ([A]); monitoring for a transaction ([B], [E]); verifying the data transaction has been confirmed ([C]); and transmitting transaction confirmation information ([D], [G]), which, based on the claim language and in view of the application disclosure, represents a process aimed at enabling a system for processing cryptocurrency transaction.
These overall claim elements in combination covers agreements in the form of sales activities because the claim language recites verifying the data transaction (i.e., address, signature, address). Applicant’s specification page 4, lines 15-16 recites “a method and apparatus for transferring digital assets between two Blockchain platforms”. One of ordinary skilled in the art can conclude, the system is used for performing transactions (i.e., transfer of assets) between 2 platforms in a blockchain environment. Such limitations cover Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that claim 1 (which is representative of claim 13) recites an abstract idea that corresponds to a judicial exception.
Per Step 2A.2. The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the independent claims only amount to instructions to apply the judicial exception to a computer, or are a general link to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional elements in the independent claims, shown not bolded above, recite: computer-implemented ([A]), Blockchain ([A]-[E]), processor ([B]-[D]), computerized channel relay server ([B], [E]), channel relay computers ([E]-[G]), chain-one-to-channel ([B]-[F]), smart ([B], [D], [G]), digital ([B]). When considered individually, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality. They perform only generic computer functions such as receiving transaction data, evaluating it, communicating and transmitting the data. Applicant’s specification on pg.26 on lines 21-23 recites, “The channel relay server 1 comprises one or more channel relay computers 1A, 1B, 1C. The channel relay computers 1A, 1B, 1C are computers, for example comprising personal computers and/or computers in a datacenter.” The claims do not recite any particular way in which these computers carry out the monitoring, verifying, consensus, or transmitting steps. These elements therefore amount to no more than instructions to implement the abstract idea “on a computer,” or to merely using a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, the remainder of the additional elements “Blockchain,” “smart,” “digital,” and “chain-one-to-channel,” identify the environment in which transfer occurs. The claim use these elements to only as they ordinary function. They do not change how blockchain record or confirms transaction. These elements generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MEPE 2106.05(h)).
Therefore, the additional elements of claim 1 (which is representative of claim 13) do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and the claims remain a judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Claim 1 (which is representative of claim 13) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same as under Step 2A.2.
Therefore, when considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, the additional elements in the claim amount to instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. Moreover, as noted above, there is nothing the computing and additional elements (limitations [A]-[G]), that is significant or meaningful to the underlying abstract idea because the identified abstract idea of processing cryptocurrency transaction could have been reasonably performed when provided with the relevant data and/or information. Therefore, it is concluded that independent claims 1 and 13 are deemed ineligible.
Dependent Claims: Claims 3-12, 15-18 are analyzed for subject matter eligibility. However, these claims fails to recite patent eligible subject matter for following reasons:
Claim 3, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] updating, using the processor, in a memory of the channel relay server, a current total balance indicative of a number of tokens associated with the owner entity, using a previously stored total balance and the defined number of tokens.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of processing cryptocurrency transaction. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 4, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] monitoring, using the processor, the first Blockchain platform for a channel-to- chain-one data transaction comprising: the defined target address of the first smart contract, and a third digital signature, wherein the first address of the owner entity is either derivable from the third digital signature, or derivable from the transaction instructions of the channel-to-chain-one data transaction, wherein a second address on the second Blockchain platform is derivable from the execution of the channel-to-chain-one data transaction;
[B] identifying, using the processor, one or more of:
[C] data transactions on the first Blockchain platform, including at least all data transactions since a last confirmed recall of a previous channel-to-chain-one data transaction, related to both of: the first address and the first smart contract, the data transactions comprising confirmed data transactions [or] unconfirmed data transactions, each of the data transactions relating to a cryptocurrency token transfer and having a timestamp; or
[D] a pre-calculated transaction summary of the data transactions;
[E] identifying, using the processor, one or more of:
[F] data transactions on the second Blockchain platform, including at least all data transactions since the last confirmed recall of the previous channel-to-chain- one data transaction, related to both of: the second address and the second smart contract, the data transactions comprising confirmed data transactions [or] unconfirmed data transactions, each data transaction relating to a cryptocurrency token transfer and a timestamp; or
[G] a pre-calculated transaction summary of the aforementioned data transactions;
[H] determining a current total balance of the owner entity using the identified data transactions, or the pre-calculated transaction summaries on the first Blockchain platform, and the identified data transactions on the second Blockchain platform, or the pre-calculated transaction summaries on the second Blockchain platform;
[F] transmitting, using the processor, recall rejection information to the first smart contract if the current total balance is negative.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of processing cryptocurrency transaction. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 5, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the channel-to-chain-one data transaction further comprises a defined amount of cryptocurrency tokens to be returned to the first address of the owner entity [or] an amount of cryptocurrency tokens defining a remaining total balance of the defined type of cryptocurrency token should the recall be confirmed.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of processing cryptocurrency transaction. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 6, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the computerized channel relay server implements, using the processor, a node of the first Blockchain platform, and wherein monitoring the first Blockchain platform comprises identifying, using the processor, the chain- one-to-channel data transaction in one or more of the following: in a transaction pool related to the first Blockchain platform or in a block of the first Blockchain platform.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of processing cryptocurrency transaction. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 7, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the computerized channel relay server comprises a plurality of channel relay computers, and a subset of the channel relay computers are designated as witnesses, wherein the method further comprises:
[B] submitting, using the processor of a particular one of the channel relay computers designated as a witness, a witness data transaction to the second Blockchain, causing the transmitting of the transaction confirmation information, the witness data transaction including a digital signature of the witness and at least part of the chain-one-to-channel data transaction, or an identifier thereof, and authorization information.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of processing cryptocurrency transaction. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 8, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] monitoring, by the processors of the channel relay computers, the second Blockchain platform for a chain-two-confirmation data transaction matching the chain- one-to-channel data transaction, and
[B] establishing, in the channel relay computers, a consensus amongst the channel relay computers as to whether the transaction confirmation information is to be transmitted for the chain-one-to-channel data transaction, dependent on the correct execution of the chain- two-confirmation data transaction on the second Blockchain platform.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of processing cryptocurrency transaction. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 9, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the computerized channel relay server implements a node of the second Blockchain platform, and wherein monitoring, using the processor, the second Blockchain platform comprises identifying, using the processor, the chain-two-confirmation data transaction in one or more of the following: in a transaction pool related to the second Blockchain platform or in a block of the second Blockchain platform.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of processing cryptocurrency transaction. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 10, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] wherein transmitting the transaction confirmation information to the second smart contract on the second Blockchain platform comprises:
[B] determining, using the processor, whether the chain-one-to-channel data transaction has been included in checkpoint information of the first Blockchain platform [or] of the first smart contract, the checkpoint information related to one checkpoint provided by the first Blockchain platform [or] provided by the first smart contract, respectively; and
[C] generating, using the processor, a chain-two-confirmation data transaction on the second Blockchain platform, causing the transmitting of the transaction confirmation information, the chain-two-confirmation data transaction comprising at least part of the chain-one-to-channel data transaction, or an identifier thereof, and authorization information.
Claim 11, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] identifying, on one or more of: the first Blockchain platform or the second Blockchain platform, checkpoint information related to one or more checkpoints of the first Blockchain platform or of the second Blockchain platform, the checkpoint information comprising commitment data of the first smart contract, the commitment data comprising a state of the first smart contract corresponding to a timestamp included in the checkpoint information;
[B] confirming, using the processor, the chain-one-to-channel data transaction using the checkpoint information; and
[C] generating, using the processor the transaction confirmation information, in case of affirmative confirmation of the chain-one-to-channel data transaction.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of processing cryptocurrency transaction. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 12, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] wherein determining whether the chain-one-to-channel data transaction and the
chain-two-confirmation data transaction match comprises comparing, using the processor:
[B] a first identifier included in the chain-one-to-channel data transaction and a second identifier included in the chain-two-confirmation data transaction; or,
[C] in case the chain-two-confirmation data transaction includes part of the chain- one-to-channel data transaction, a first digest computed from a particular part of the chain- one-to-channel data transaction included in the chain-two-confirmation data transaction, and a second digest computed from the particular part of the chain-one-to-channel data transaction.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of processing cryptocurrency transaction. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 15, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] generate a chain-one-to-channel data transaction on a first Blockchain platform, the chain-one-to-channel data transaction comprising: a defined target address of a first smart contract, a defined number of tokens of a particular cryptocurrency, and a first digital signature, wherein a first address of the owner entity is derivable either from the first digital signature or from transaction instructions of the chain-one-to-channel data transaction.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of processing cryptocurrency transaction. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 16, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the processor of the client computer is configured to generate a chain-two-to-channel data transaction on the second Blockchain platform, the chain-two-to-channel data transaction comprising: the defined target address of the second smart contract, a defined number of tokens of the particular cryptocurrency, and a second digital signature providing an authorization of the owner entity.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of processing cryptocurrency transaction. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 17, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] receive the chain-one-to-channel data transaction from the first address associated with the owner entity comprising the defined number of tokens of a particular cryptocurrency, and
[B] generate and store, using data contained in the chain-one-to-channel data transaction, the pair of the first address and the second address of the owner entity on the first Blockchain.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of processing cryptocurrency transaction. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 18, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] receive the chain-two-confirmation data transaction comprising at least part of the chain-one-to-channel data transaction, or an identifier thereof, and authorization information; and
[B] generate and store, using the defined number of tokens of the chain-one-to-channel data transaction, a current balance of cryptocurrency tokens associated with the owner entity on the second Blockchain.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of processing cryptocurrency transaction. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
When the dependent claims are considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the claim elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense, i.e., a computer receives information from another computer, processes that information and then sends a response based on processing results. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified in the independent claims as an abstract idea. The fact that the computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer subject matter eligibility. Overall, the further elements do not confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance are not changing the nature of the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application do not amount to significantly
more. (See MPEP 2106.05).
In sum, claims 1, 3-12, 13, 15-18 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 13, 15-18 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 13 recites the limitation on pg. 8 line 18, “exchanging one or more data messages with other channel relay computers to establish in the computer system a consensus whether the chain-one-to-channel data transaction has been confirmed.” The claim language “other” would suggest to one skilled in the art there are one or more channel relay computer, however, claim 13 recites on pg. 8 lines 2-3, “a processor configured to implement a channel relay server”. The preamble to claim 13 does not recite that the process, the channel relay server, or the computer system comprises a channel relay computer. Thus, one of the skilled in the art would find it unclear which channel relay is claim 13 referring to.
Claims 15-18 are rejected by virtue of dependency.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 should not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 9, 13, 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang (US 20210398116 A1) in view of Valdi (US 20210019737 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 13. Fang discloses:
A computer implemented method for facilitating a secure transfer of cryptocurrency between two Blockchain platforms, the method comprising; [see at least Fig. 4, (0005), users make transactions in multiple different blockchain networks.]
transmitting, by the processor, transaction confirmation information to a second smart contract on a second Blockchain platform, in case of affirmative confirmation of the chain-one-to-channel data transaction; [see at least (0127) A participant system (e.g., associated with Alice) of the ETH blockchain network 310 can invoke an HTLC transaction to call any function defined in the first HTLC smart contract by initiating a transaction with an address of the first HTLC smart contract in the ETH blockchain network 310. Similarly, a participant system (e.g., associated with Bob) of the BTC blockchain network 320 can invoke another HTLC transaction to call any function defined in the second HTLC smart contract by initiating a transaction with an address of the second HTLC smart contract in the BTC blockchain network 320. (0134) At 333, Alice transmits the secret hash H to Bob. At 334, Bob uses the received secret hash H to create a second HTLC in the BTC blockchain network 320 corresponding to the first HTLC created by Alice, for example, by invoking the second HTLC smart contract deployed in the BTC blockchain network 320. Bob can initiate a transaction TX2 according to the second HTLC.)]
transmitting, by at least one of the channel relay computers, the transaction confirmation information to the second smart contract, in case of affirmative confirmation in the form of an affirmative consensus. [see at least (0127) A participant system (e.g., associated with Alice) of the ETH blockchain network 310 can invoke an HTLC transaction to call any function defined in the first HTLC smart contract by initiating a transaction with an address of the first HTLC smart contract in the ETH blockchain network 310. Similarly, a participant system (e.g., associated with Bob) of the BTC blockchain network 320 can invoke another HTLC transaction to call any function defined in the second HTLC smart contract by initiating a transaction with an address of the second HTLC smart contract in the BTC blockchain network 320. (0134) At 333, Alice transmits the secret hash H to Bob. At 334, Bob uses the received secret hash H to create a second HTLC in the BTC blockchain network 320 corresponding to the first HTLC created by Alice, for example, by invoking the second HTLC smart contract deployed in the BTC blockchain network 320. Bob can initiate a transaction TX2 according to the second HTLC.)]
Fang discloses transaction between multiple platforms; however, Fang does not disclose:
monitoring, by a processor of a computerized channel relay server, a first Blockchain platform for a chain-one-to-channel data transaction, the chain-one-to-channel data transaction comprising:
a defined target address of a first smart contract on the first Blockchain platform, a defined number of tokens of a particular cryptocurrency, and a first digital signature, wherein a first address of an owner entity is either derivable from the first digital signature, or derivable from transaction instructions included in the chain-one-to- channel data transaction;
verifying, by the processor, whether the chain-one-to-channel data transaction has been confirmed on the first Blockchain platform; and
monitoring, by a plurality of channel relay computers of the channel relay server,
the first Blockchain platform for the chain-one-to-channel data transaction;
establishing, by the plurality of channel relay computers, a consensus as to whether the chain-one-to-channel data transaction has been confirmed; and
Valdi discloses:
monitoring, by a processor of a computerized channel relay server, a first Blockchain platform for a chain-one-to-channel data transaction, the chain-one-to-channel data transaction comprising: [(0030) a first party “sending” an amount of digital stable tokens to a second party may include the first party generating a blockchain transaction describing the transfer of the amount of digital stable tokens. The transaction may include data such as the amount of digital stable tokens being sent, a source cryptocurrency wallet address, a destination cryptocurrency wallet address, a digital signature authenticating that the first party generated the transaction, or other data.]
a defined target address of a first smart contract on the first Blockchain platform, a defined number of tokens of a particular cryptocurrency, and a first digital signature, wherein a first address of an owner entity is either derivable from the first digital signature, or derivable from transaction instructions included in the chain-one-to- channel data transaction; [(0031) The transaction may include data such as the amount of digital stable tokens being sent, a source cryptocurrency wallet address, a destination cryptocurrency wallet address, a digital signature authenticating that the first party generated the transaction, or other data.]
Note: MPEP 2144.01 sets forth that it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. Here, it is reasonable to that the address is derivable from the transaction data. Additionally, the claim recites “wherein a first address of an owner entity is either derivable from the first digital signature, or derivable from transaction instructions included” in alternative form. While the claim recites possible ways to derive the address; the Valdi reference discloses wallet address is in the transaction data. And therefore, one of skill in the art would have understood the reference to teach the limitation.
verifying, by the processor, whether the chain-one-to-channel data transaction has been confirmed on the first Blockchain platform; and [(0031) The transaction may be received and validated by the blockchain network that tracks the digital stable token]
monitoring, by a plurality of channel relay computers of the channel relay server,
the first Blockchain platform for the chain-one-to-channel data transaction; [see at least (0022) a data storage of transactions replicated across and synchronized by multiple computing devices, called “nodes,” in communication with each other (0023) The node or client device may send the transaction to one or more nodes, and the one or more nodes may validate the transaction. (0030) a first party “sending” an amount of digital stable tokens to a second party may include the first party generating a blockchain transaction describing the transfer of the amount of digital stable tokens. The transaction may include data such as the amount of digital stable tokens being sent, a cryptocurrency wallet address, a destination cryptocurrency wallet address, a digital signature authenticating that the first party generated the transaction, or other data. (0057) The blockchain network 102 may receive the transaction 502 at the blockchain network's 102 one or more nodes, which may validate the transaction 502, add the transaction 502 to a block to be added to the blockchain's transactions 104 according to the blockchain network's 102 consensus mechanism.]
establishing, by the plurality of channel relay computers, a consensus as to whether the chain-one-to-channel data transaction has been confirmed; and [see at least (0023) The node or client device may send the transaction to one or more nodes, and the one or more nodes may validate the transaction. Validating the transaction may include the node verifying the digital signature(s) of the transaction … (0031) The transaction may be received and validated by the blockchain network that tracks the digital stable token]
Note: Examiner notes it is reasonable to infer that the transaction data needs to be validated before the consumer can perform the transaction. And therefore, one of skill in the art would have understood the reference to teach the limitation.
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Fang to include the features of Valdi. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform transactions using the system of Fang with data processing technique of Valdi to perform transaction across different platforms. Fang discloses performing transactions through different networks. Valdi teaches processing transaction data. Because both Fang as well as Valdi are implemented through field of performing cryptocurrencies transaction and both references addresses a system for performing transaction in multiple different blockchain networks using the data processing as taught by Valdi to securely perform transaction. Moreover, since the features disclosed by Fang as well as Valdi would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Fang/Valdi.
Regarding Claim 3. Fang, Valdi discloses the claim limitations of Claims 1. Fang further discloses:
updating, using the processor, in a memory of the channel relay server, a current total balance indicative of a number of tokens associated with the owner entity, using a previously stored total balance and the defined number of tokens. [see at least (0115) allow assets (e.g., currencies, cryptocurrencies, and/or tokens) on two independent blockchain networks to conduct atomic cross-chain transactions without relying on third-party trust endorsements. The term “atomic” means that the transaction will either succeed or fail without a third state.]
Note: MPEP 2144.01 sets forth that it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. Here, it is reasonable to infer that if the users that are transferring assets (i.e., tokens); if they do not have correct number of assets, then one of skill in the art can conclude the transaction will. Furthermore, one of skilled in the art can also conclude, the number of assets (i.e., the token balance) need to be updated to perform transaction accurately. And therefore, one of skill in the art would have understood the reference to teach the limitation.
Regarding Claim 6. Fang, Valdi discloses the claim limitations of Claim 1: Fang further discloses:
wherein the computerized channel relay server implements, using the processor, a node of the first Blockchain platform, and [see at least (0101) participant systems 202, 204, 206 that correspond to Participant A, Participant B, and Participant C, respectively. Each participant (e.g., user, enterprise) participates in a blockchain network 212 provided as a peer-to-peer network including multiple nodes 214, at least some of which immutably record information in a blockchain 216. (0103) Some nodes 214 store a complete copy of the blockchain 216, while other nodes 214 only store copies of portions of the blockchain 216.]
wherein monitoring the first Blockchain platform comprises identifying, using the processor, the chain- one-to-channel data transaction in one or more of the following: in a transaction pool related to the first Blockchain platform or in a block of the first Blockchain platform. [(0094) A blockchain is a data structure that stores transactions in a way that the transactions are immutable. Thus, transactions recorded on a blockchain are reliable and trustworthy. A blockchain includes one or more blocks. Each block in the chain is linked to a previous block immediately before it in the chain by including a hash of the previous block. Each block also includes a local timestamp (e.g., provided by a computing device that generates the block or a computing system that manages the blockchain), its own hash, and one or more transactions. For example, the block can include a block header and a block body. The block header can include the local timestamp, its own hash, and a hash of the previous block. The block body can include payload information such as the one or more transactions (or transaction data). The transactions, which have already been verified by the nodes of the blockchain network, are hashed and encoded into a Merkle tree. A Merkle tree is a data structure in which data at the leaf nodes of the tree is hashed, and all hashes in each branch of the tree are concatenated at the root of the branch. This process continues up the tree to the root of the entire tree, which stores a hash that is representative of all data in the tree. A hash purporting to be of a transaction stored in the tree can be quickly verified by determining whether it is consistent with the structure of the tree.
Regarding Claim 9. Fang, Valdi discloses the claim limitations of Claim 1: Fang further discloses:
wherein the computerized channel relay server implements a node of the second Blockchain platform, and [(0101) participant systems 202, 204, 206 that correspond to Participant A, Participant B, and Participant C, respectively. Each participant (e.g., user, enterprise) participates in a blockchain network 212 provided as a peer-to-peer network including multiple nodes 214, at least some of which immutably record information in a blockchain 216]
wherein monitoring, using the processor, the second Blockchain platform comprises identifying, using the processor, the chain-two-confirmation data transaction in one or more of the following: in a transaction pool related to the second Blockchain platform or in a block of the second Blockchain platform. [see at least (0137) After Bob executes the HTLC lock transaction TX2 in the BTC blockchain network 320, the transaction TX2 is published in the BTC blockchain network 320 and the second HTLC is waiting for a proof. Information of the transaction TX2 can be published (or open) and can be accessed in the BTC blockchain network 320. (0185) the process 700 includes reading, retrieving, receiving, or otherwise accessing transaction data stored in the multiple blockchain networks. The transaction data includes transactions published in the multiple blockchain networks.]
Regarding Claim 10. Fang, Valdi discloses the claim limitations of Claim 1: Fang further discloses:
wherein transmitting the transaction confirmation information to the second smart contract on the second Blockchain platform comprises: determining, using the processor, whether the chain-one-to-channel data transaction has been included in checkpoint information of the first Blockchain platform [or] of the first smart contract, the checkpoint information related to one checkpoint provided by the first Blockchain platform [or] provided by the first smart contract, respectively; and [see at least (00940) Each block in the chain is linked to a previous block immediately before it in the chain by including a hash of the previous block (i.e., checkpoint). Each block also includes a local timestamp (e.g., provided by a computing device that generates the block or a computing system that manages the blockchain), its own hash, and one or more transactions. For example, the block can include a block header and a block body. The block header can include the local timestamp, its own hash, and a hash of the previous block. The block body can include payload information such as the one or more transactions (or transaction data).]
generating, using the processor, a chain-two-confirmation data transaction on the second Blockchain platform, causing the transmitting of the transaction confirmation information, the chain-two-confirmation data transaction comprising at least part of the chain-one-to-channel data transaction, or an identifier thereof, and authorization information. [see at least (0134) At 333, Alice transmits the secret hash H to Bob. At 334, Bob uses the received secret hash H to create a second HTLC in the BTC blockchain network 320 corresponding to the first HTLC created by Alice, for example, by invoking the second HTLC smart contract deployed in the BTC blockchain network 320. Bob can initiate a transaction TX2 according to the second HTLC.)]
Regarding Claim 11. Fang, Valdi discloses the claim limitations of Claim 1: Fang further discloses:
identifying, on one or more of: the first Blockchain platform or the second Blockchain platform, checkpoint information related to one or more checkpoints of the first Blockchain platform or of the second Blockchain platform, the checkpoint information comprising commitment data of the first smart contract, the commitment data comprising a state of the first smart contract corresponding to a timestamp included in the checkpoint information; [see at least (0094) Each block also includes a local timestamp (e.g., provided by a computing device that generates the block or a computing system that manages the blockchain), its own hash, and one or more transactions. For example, the block can include a block header and a block body. The block header can include the local timestamp, its own hash, and a hash of the previous block. The block body can include payload information such as the one or more transactions (or transaction data)]
confirming, using the processor, the chain-one-to-channel data transaction using the checkpoint information; and [see at least (0094) This process continues up the tree to the root of the entire tree, which stores a hash that is representative of all data in the tree. A hash purporting to be of a transaction stored in the tree can be quickly verified by determining whether it is consistent with the structure of the tree.]
generating, using the processor the transaction confirmation information, in case of affirmative confirmation of the chain-one-to-channel data transaction. [see at least (0134) At 333, Alice transmits the secret hash H to Bob. At 334, Bob uses the received secret hash H to create a second HTLC in the BTC blockchain network 320 corresponding to the first HTLC created by Alice, for example, by invoking the second HTLC smart contract deployed in the BTC blockchain network 320. Bob can initiate a transaction TX2 according to the second HTLC.)]
Regarding Claim 12. Fang, Valdi discloses the claim limitations of Claim 1: Fang further discloses:
wherein determining whether the chain-one-to-channel data transaction and the chain-two-confirmation data transaction match comprises comparing, using the processor: a first identifier included in the chain-one-to-channel data transaction and a second identifier included in the chain-two-confirmation data transaction; or, in case the chain-two-confirmation data transaction includes part of the chain- one-to-channel data transaction, a first digest computed from a particular part of the chain- one-to-channel data transaction included in the chain-two-confirmation data transaction, and a second digest computed from the particular part of the chain-one-to-channel data transaction. [see at least (0140) Once the condition of the first HTLC is satisfied (e.g., the hash lock is unlocked by the secret), the first HTLC is executed and Bob receives the transferred value in TX1, e.g., 30 ETHs, stored in the first HTLC at step 338.]
Note: MPEP 2144.01 sets forth that it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. Here, it is reasonable to infer that satisfying the condition reads on matching transaction data. The Fang reference discloses Bob would require having the same secret phrase to as specified by Alice in at step 333 in order for Bob to have access to the ETH (see Fang [0134]-[0140]). And therefore, one of skill in the art would have understood the reference to teach the limitation. Furthermore, the claim recites “wherein determining whether the chain-one-to-channel data transaction and the chain-two-confirmation data transaction match comprises comparing, using the processor: a first identifier included in the chain-one-to-channel data transaction and a second identifier included in the chain-two-confirmation data transaction; or, in case the chain-two-confirmation data transaction includes part of the chain- one-to-channel data transaction, a first digest computed from a particular part of the chain- one-to-channel data transaction included in the chain-two-confirmation data transaction, and a second digest computed from the particular part of the chain-one-to-channel data transaction” in alternative form. While the claim recites possible ways to match the data transaction; the Fang reference discloses matching the secret phrase to complete the transaction. And therefore, one of skill in the art would have understood the reference to teach the limitation.
Regarding Claim 15. Fang, Valdi discloses the claim limitations of Claim 13: Fang further discloses:
generate a chain-one-to-channel data transaction on a first Blockchain platform, the chain-one-to-channel data transaction comprising: a defined target address of a first smart contract, a defined number of tokens of a particular cryptocurrency, and a first digital signature, wherein a first address of the owner entity is derivable either from the first digital signature or from transaction instructions of the chain-one-to-channel data transaction. [see at least (0031) a first party “sending” an amount of digital stable tokens to a second party may include the first party generating a blockchain transaction describing the transfer of the amount of digital stable tokens. The transaction may include data such as the amount of digital stable tokens being sent, a cryptocurrency wallet address, a destination cryptocurrency wallet address, a digital signature authenticating that the first party generated the transaction, or other data.]
Note: MPEP 2144.01 sets forth that it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. Here, it is reasonable to that the address is derivable from the transaction data. Additionally, the claim recites “wherein a first address of the owner entity is derivable either from the first digital signature or from transaction instructions of the chain-one-to-channel data transaction” in alternative form. While the claim recites possible ways to derive the address; the Valdi reference discloses wallet address is in the transaction data. And therefore, one of skill in the art would have understood the reference to teach the limitation.
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Fang, Valdi to include the additional features of Valdi. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform transaction using the system of Fang, Valdi with data processing technique of Valdi to perform transaction across different platforms. Fang, Valdi discloses performing transaction through different networks. Valdi teaches processing transaction data. Because both Fang as well as Valdi are implemented through field of performing cryptocurrencies transaction and both references addresses a system for performing transaction in multiple different blockchain networks using the data processing as taught by Valdi to securely perform transaction. Moreover, since the subject matter is merely a combination of old features, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 16. Fang, Valdi discloses the claim limitations of Claim 15: Fang further discloses:
… second Blockchain platform … [see at least Fig. 4, (0005) users make transactions in multiple different blockchain networks.]
Valdi further discloses:
wherein the processor of the client computer is configured to generate a chain-two-to-channel data transaction on the … Blockchain platform, the chain-two-to-channel data transaction comprising: the defined target address of the … smart contract, a defined number of tokens of the particular cryptocurrency, and a second digital signature providing an authorization of the owner entity. [see at least (0031) a first party “sending” an amount of digital stable tokens to a second party may include the first party generating a blockchain transaction describing the transfer of the amount of digital stable tokens. The transaction may include data such as the amount of digital stable tokens being sent, a cryptocurrency wallet address, a destination cryptocurrency wallet address, a digital signature authenticating that the first party generated the transaction, or other data.]
Note: MPEP 2144.01 sets forth that it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. Here, it is reasonable to that the address is derivable from the transaction data. Additionally, the claim recites “wherein a first address of the owner entity is derivable either from the first digital signature or from transaction instructions of the chain-one-to-channel data transaction” in alternative form. While the claim recites possible ways to derive the address; the Valdi reference discloses wallet address is in the transaction data. And therefore, one of skill in the art would have understood the reference to teach the limitation.
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Fang, Valdi to include the additional features of Valdi. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform transaction using the system of Fang, Valdi with data processing technique of Valdi to perform transaction across different platforms. Fang, Valdi discloses performing transaction through different networks. Valdi teaches processing transaction data. Because both Fang as well as Valdi are implemented through field of performing cryptocurrencies transaction and both references addresses a system for performing transaction in multiple different blockchain networks using the data processing as taught by Valdi to securely perform transaction. Moreover, since the subject matter is merely a combination of old features, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 17. Fang, Valdi discloses the claim limitations of Claim 15: Valdi further discloses:
receive the chain-one-to-channel data transaction from the first address associated with the owner entity comprising the defined number of tokens of a particular cryptocurrency, and [see at least (0045) The method 300 may include receiving 302, from a trust entity computing system, deposit data … The method 300 may include transferring 304, via a first smart contract of a blockchain network, a first amount of a digital stable token to a first cryptocurrency wallet.]
generate and store, using data contained in the chain-one-to-channel data transaction, the pair of the first address and the second address of the owner entity on the first Blockchain.
[(0045) the first cryptocurrency wallet may include a cryptocurrency wallet of the first user. The method 300 may include receiving 306, at the blockchain network, a first blockchain transaction. The first blockchain transaction may include a first cryptocurrency wallet address, a second cryptocurrency wallet address (which may be the address of a second user's cryptocurrency wallet), and a second amount of the digital stable token.
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Fang, Valdi to include the additional features of Valdi. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform transaction using the system of Fang, Valdi with data processing technique of Valdi to perform transaction across different platforms. Fang, Valdi discloses performing transaction through different networks. Valdi teaches processing transaction data. Because both Fang as well as Valdi are implemented through field of performing cryptocurrencies transaction and both references addresses a system for performing transaction in multiple different blockchain networks using the data processing as taught by Valdi to securely perform transaction. Moreover, since the subject matter is merely a combination of old features, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 18. Fang, Valdi discloses the claim limitations of Claim 15: Fang further discloses:
receive the chain-two-confirmation data transaction comprising at least part of the chain-one-to-channel data transaction, or an identifier thereof, and authorization information; and [see at least (0022) the hidden information of the cross-chain transaction includes: the first party having the first sender address and the third sender address, the second party having the second sender address and the fourth sender address, the exchange being the exchange between the first transferred value and the second transferred value, and the exchange ratio being the ratio between the first transferred value and the second transferred value.]
generate and store, using the defined number of tokens of the chain-one-to-channel data transaction, a current balance of cryptocurrency tokens associated with the owner entity on the second Blockchain [see at least (0134) Bob can set the received secret hash H as the hash lock of the second HTLC, set another expiration time t2 as the time lock, and store a corresponding number of BTCs, e.g., 3 BTCs, in the corresponding account address of the second HTLC smart contract in the BTC blockchain network 320]
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang, in view of Valdi, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Khalil (US 2019139037 A1), in further view of Kikinis (US 20200394626 A1).
Regarding Claim 4. Fang, Valdi discloses the claim limitations of Claim 1: Valdi further discloses:
monitoring, using the processor, the first Blockchain platform for a channel-to- chain-one data transaction comprising: the defined target address of the first smart contract, and a … digital signature, wherein the first address of the owner entity is either derivable from the …digital signature, or derivable from the transaction instructions of the channel-to-chain-one data transaction, wherein a second address on the second Blockchain platform is derivable from the execution of the channel-to-chain-one data transaction; [see at least (0030) a first party “sending” an amount of digital stable tokens to a second party may include the first party generating a blockchain transaction describing the transfer of the amount of digital stable tokens. The transaction may include data such as the amount of digital stable tokens being sent, a cryptocurrency wallet address, a destination cryptocurrency wallet address, a digital signature authenticating that the first party generated the transaction, or other data.]
transmitting, using the processor, recall rejection information to the first smart contract if the current total balance is negative. [see at least (0031) The transaction may include data such as the amount of digital stable tokens being sent, a source cryptocurrency wallet address, a destination cryptocurrency wallet address, a digital signature authenticating that the first party generated the transaction, or other data. The transaction may be received and validated by the blockchain network that tracks the digital stable token]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Fang, Valdi to include the additional features of Valdi. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform transaction using the system of Fang, Valdi with data processing technique of Valdi to perform transaction across different platforms. Fang, Valdi discloses performing transaction through different networks. Valdi teaches processing transaction data. Because both Fang as well as Valdi are implemented through field of performing cryptocurrencies transaction and both references addresses a system for performing transaction in multiple different blockchain networks using the data processing as taught by Valdi to securely perform transaction. Moreover, since the subject matter is merely a combination of old features, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The combination of Fang in view of Valdi discloses transaction between multiple platforms, however, the above combination does not disclose:
…third digital signature…
Identifying, using the processor, one or more of: data transactions on the first Blockchain platform, including at least all data transactions since a last confirmed recall of a previous channel-to-chain-one data transaction, related to both of: the first address and the first smart contract, the data transactions comprising confirmed data transactions and/or unconfirmed data transactions, each of the data transactions relating to a cryptocurrency token transfer and having a timestamp; or a pre-calculated transaction summary of the data transactions;
identifying, using the processor, one or more of: data transactions on the second Blockchain platform, including at least all data transactions since the last confirmed recall of the previous channel-to-chain- one data transaction, related to both of: the second address and the second smart contract, the data transactions comprising confirmed data transactions and/or unconfirmed data transactions, each data transaction relating to a cryptocurrency token transfer and a timestamp; or a pre-calculated transaction summary of the aforementioned data transactions;
Nonetheless, Khalil discloses:
…third digital signature… [see at least (0057) Entity-B 301 then sends the IOU 312 to the online server S H 303. The online server S H 303 then cryptographically signs (i.e., third digital signature) the IOU 312 and forwards the IOU 312 to Entity-A 302]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Fang, Valdi to include the features of Khalil. A person who has the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform transaction using the system of Fang, Valdi with the intermediatory system of Khalil to perform transaction across different platforms. Fang, Valdi discloses performing transaction through different networks. Khalil teaches an intermediatory entity that signs the transaction. Because both Fang, Valdi as well as Khalil are implemented through field of performing cryptocurrencies transaction and both references addresses a system for performing transaction in multiple different blockchain networks using the third signature as taught by Khalil to securely perform transaction. Moreover, since the features disclosed by Fang, Valdi as well as Khalil would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Fang, Valdi/Khalil.
The combination of Fang in view of Valdi, in further view of Khalil discloses transaction between multiple platforms, however, the above combination does not disclose:
identifying, using the processor, one or more of: data transactions on the first Blockchain platform, including at least all data transactions since a last confirmed recall of a previous channel-to-chain-one data transaction, related to both of: the first address and the first smart contract, the data transactions comprising confirmed data transactions and/or unconfirmed data transactions, each of the data transactions relating to a cryptocurrency token transfer and having a timestamp; or a pre-calculated transaction summary of the data transactions;
identifying, using the processor, one or more of: data transactions on the second Blockchain platform, including at least all data transactions since the last confirmed recall of the previous channel-to-chain- one data transaction, related to both of: the second address and the second smart contract, the data transactions comprising confirmed data transactions and/or unconfirmed data transactions, each data transaction relating to a cryptocurrency token transfer and a timestamp; or a pre-calculated transaction summary of the aforementioned data transactions;
determining a current total balance of the owner entity using the identified data transactions, or the pre-calculated transaction summaries on the first Blockchain platform, and the identified data transactions on the second Blockchain platform, or the pre- calculated transaction summaries on the second Blockchain platform;
However, Kikinis discloses:
identifying, using the processor, one or more of: data transactions on the first Blockchain platform, including at least all data transactions since a last confirmed recall of a previous channel-to-chain-one data transaction, related to both of: the first address and the first smart contract, the data transactions comprising confirmed data transactions and/or unconfirmed data transactions, each of the data transactions relating to a cryptocurrency token transfer and having a timestamp; or a pre-calculated transaction summary of the data transactions; [see Fig. 27 (0154) it is possible to keep account of a client's account ID internal to the organization that works with the client, their wallet identification and contents, their “canonical” or “current” balance, and their pending balance which may include transactions that have been initiated but not finalized yet. (reads on: summary of the user’s transaction data)]
identifying, using the processor, one or more of: data transactions on the second Blockchain platform, including at least all data transactions since the last confirmed recall of the previous channel-to-chain- one data transaction, related to both of: the second address and the second smart contract, the data transactions comprising confirmed data transactions and/or unconfirmed data transactions, each data transaction relating to a cryptocurrency token transfer and a timestamp; or a pre-calculated transaction summary of the aforementioned data transactions; [see at least Fig, 29 (0162) A blockchain datastore 3040 maintains cryptographic storage of all transactions and user data as required by a peer finding service 3020, and may receive requests to read or write from peer devices 3010, 3030, or from the peer finding server 3020, for the purpose of keeping a record of each user's personal transactions and data on the service, and for the peer-finder to locate possible matching users to facilitate the service (reads on: the second user’s transaction information)]
determining a current total balance of the owner entity using the identified data transactions, or the pre-calculated transaction summaries on the first Blockchain platform, and the identified data transactions on the second Blockchain platform, or the pre- calculated transaction summaries on the second Blockchain platform; [see Fig. 27 (0154) it is possible to keep account of a client's account ID internal to the organization that works with the client, their wallet identification and contents, their “canonical” or “current” balance, and their pending balance which may include transactions that have been initiated but not finalized yet. (reads on: summary of the user’s transaction data)]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Fang, Valdi, Khalil to include the features of Kikinis. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform transaction using the system of Fang, Valdi, Khalil with summary of user’s transaction data as taught by Kikinis to perform transaction across different platforms. Fang, Valdi, Khalil discloses performing transaction through different networks. Kikinis teaches summary of user’s transaction data. Because both Fang, Valdi, Khalil as well as Kikinis are implemented through field of performing cryptocurrencies transaction and both references addresses a system for performing transaction in multiple different blockchain networks using the user’s transaction data as taught by Kikinis to accurately perform transactions. Moreover, since the features disclosed by Fang, Valdi, Khalil as well as Kikinis would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Fang, Valdi, Khalil/Kikinis.
Regarding Claim 5. Fang, Valdi, Khalil, Kikinis discloses the claim limitations of Claim 4: Fang further discloses:
wherein the channel-to-chain-one data transaction further comprises a defined amount of cryptocurrency tokens to be returned to the first address of the owner entity [or] an amount of cryptocurrency tokens defining a remaining total balance of the defined type of cryptocurrency token should the recall be confirmed. [see at least (0142) If Alice cannot execute the second HTLC within the expiration time tx2, Bob can get the transferred value in TX2 refunded. If Bob cannot execute the first HTLC within the expiration time tx1, Alice can get the transferred value in TX1 refunded. (i.e., the amount that if refund the transaction is not successful)]
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang, in view of Valdi, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Khalil (US 2019139037 A1).
Regarding Claim 7. Fang, Valdi discloses the claim limitations of Claim 1: The combination of Fang in view of Valdi discloses transaction between multiple platforms, however, the above combination does not disclose:
wherein the computerized channel relay server comprises a plurality of channel relay computers, and a subset of the channel relay computers are designated as witnesses, wherein the method further comprises: submitting, using the processor of a particular one of the channel relay computers designated as a witness, a witness data transaction to the second Blockchain, causing the transmitting of the transaction confirmation information, the witness data. transaction including a digital signature of the witness and at least part of the chain-one-to-channel data transaction, or an identifier thereof, and authorization information.
Nonetheless, Khalil discloses:
wherein the computerized channel relay server comprises a plurality of channel relay computers, and a subset of the channel relay computers are designated as witnesses, wherein the method further comprises: submitting, using the processor of a particular one of the channel relay computers designated as a witness, a witness data transaction to the second Blockchain, causing the transmitting of the transaction confirmation information, the witness data. transaction including a digital signature of the witness and at least part of the chain-one-to-channel data transaction, or an identifier thereof, and authorization information. [see at least (0057) Entity-B 301 then sends the IOU 312 to the online server S H 303. The online server S H 303 then cryptographically signs (i.e., witness and witness’s digital signature) the IOU 312 and forwards the IOU 312 to Entity-A 302]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Fang, Valdi to include the features of Khalil. A person a having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform transaction using the system of Fang, Valdi with the intermediatory system of Khalil to perform transaction across different platforms. Fang, Valdi discloses performing transaction through different networks. Khalil teaches an intermediatory entity that signs the transaction. Because both Fang, Valdi as well as Khalil are implemented through field of performing cryptocurrencies transaction and both references addresses a system for performing transaction in multiple different blockchain networks using the third signature as taught by Khalil to securely perform transaction. Moreover, since the subject matter is merely a combination of old features, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 8. Fang, Valdi, Khalil discloses the claim limitations of Claim 7: Fang further discloses:
monitoring, by the processors of the channel relay computers, the second Blockchain platform for a chain-two-confirmation data transaction matching the chain- one-to-channel data transaction, and [see at least (0140) Once the condition of the first HTLC is satisfied (e.g., the hash lock is unlocked by the secret), the first HTLC is executed and Bob receives the transferred value in TX1, e.g., 30 ETHs, stored in the first HTLC at step 338.]
Note: MPEP 2144.01 sets forth that it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. Here, it is reasonable to infer that satisfying the condition reads on matching transaction data. The Fang reference discloses Bob would require having the same secret phrase to as specified by Alice in at step 333 in order for Bob to have access to the ETH (see Fang [0134]-[0140]). And therefore, one of skill in the art would have understood the reference to teach the limitation.
establishing, in the channel relay computers, a consensus amongst the channel relay computers as to whether the transaction confirmation information is to be transmitted for the chain-one-to-channel data transaction, dependent on the correct execution of the chain- two-confirmation data transaction on the second Blockchain platform. [see at least (0140) Once the condition of the first HTLC is satisfied (e.g., the hash lock is unlocked by the secret), the first HTLC is executed and Bob receives the transferred value in TX1, e.g., 30 ETHs, stored in the first HTLC at step 338.]
Response to Amendments/Arguments
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Applicant submits: The Office action failed to establish a prima facie case of ineligibility. It did not show that claims are “directed to” an abstract idea at Step 2Aor that the additional elements fail to amount to significantly more at step 2B (Remarks, pgs. 10-11)
Examiner Responds: The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection identifies the specific limitation which recites the abstract idea (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 pg. 3-4). Then the rejection identifies the grouping to which those claim limitations fall under (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 pg. 4-5). And the rejection explains why those elements individually and in combination, neither integrate the abstract idea into practical application nor amount to significantly more. (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 pg. 5-6).
Applicant submits: The Office action improperly generalized the claims under “method of organizing human activity” without accounting for the claim language. The claim instead provide a technical solution to a technical problem arising, “improving interoperability, security, and reliability of cross-chain asset-transfer operations.” (Remarks, pg. 11-12)
Examiner Responds: The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 as a whole recites monitoring for transaction, then verifying that the transfer has been confirmed, performing a consensus, and transmitting confirmation (see pgs. 3-6). The claims as a whole do not change how either blockchain confirms transaction, how a smart contract is executed, or how the computers communicates. The specification stated benefits are speed, reliability, and reduced counterparty risk (Specification pg. 4, lines 1-12). However, these improvements are directed to the business process, and not computer or blockchain functionality. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 112(b).
Applicant submits: Claim 10 has been amended to address the indefiniteness rejection (Remarks, pg. 14)
Examiner Responds: Examiner has fully considered applicant’s arguments, and in light of Applicant’s amendment to claim 10, the 35 USC § 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 103.
Applicant submits: The combination of Fang and Valdi does not teach the limitations added to claim 1. Fang teaches a method for transferring assets from a first blockchain network to a second blockchain network, specifically in the form of an atomic swap. Valdi does not remedy the deficiencies of Fang. Although Valdi describes a "cross-chain bridge 708," the Office Action has not identified, and Applicant respectfully submits Valdi does not disclose, a channel relay server comprising a plurality of channel relay computers that monitor the first Blockchain platform for the particular chain-one-to-channel data transaction and establish consensus as to whether that transaction has been confirmed.
Examiner Responds: Examiner has fully considered, but does not find Applicant’s argument persuasive. The rejection relies on Valdi’s disclosure of plurality of nodes that receive and validates transaction and add it to the blockchain. The combination of Fang, in view of Valdi discloses the claim limitation of claims 1, 13. Additionally, the Valdi reference also discloses nodes are multiple computing devices, including servers that monitor the blockchain by receiving transactions for inclusion in a block and that establish consensus as to whether the transaction is added to the blockchain (Valdi [0020]-[0024]). Based on the cited portion, one of skilled in the art can conclude, the Valdi reference teaches monitoring the first Blockchain platform for the transaction and establishing a consensus as to whether it has been confirmed. Thus, the rejection has been maintained.
Applicant submits: “Accordingly, the inherency assertion improperly substitutes a broad functional result for the claimed structural and operational implementation. The claims are directed to a particular computer-implemented way of solving the cross-chain confirmation problem: a plurality of channel relay computers monitors the first Blockchain platform, establishes consensus regarding confirmation of the relevant transaction, and only then causes transmission of transaction confirmation information to the second smart contract. The Office Action has not shown that Fang, Valdi, or any cited combination necessarily performs that ordered set of operations, nor has it shown that the allegedly inherent "validation" would inevitably operate through the claimed plurality of channel relay computers and affirmative-consensus transmission condition. Because the alleged inherent feature is not the claimed solution, inherency cannot supply the missing limitations of independent Claim 1.”
Examiner Responds: Examiner has fully considered, but does not find Applicant’s argument persuasive. The rejection of the amended limitation does not rest on inherency. Examiner points out MPEP 2144.01 permits consideration of inferences one of skilled would reasonably draw from a reference. That is not inherency under MPEP 2112. Furthermore, the rejection cites specific teachings of the combination. See the updated rejection above. The rejection has been maintained.
Applicant submits: “Fang and Valdi, alone or in combination with the other cited art of record, do not teach or suggest at least the above recited limitations of amended Claim 13. For at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejections of independent Claims 13 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and allowance of the claims. Claims 2-12, 14, and 16-18 depend directly or indirectly from Claims 1, 13, and 15 and are thus patentably distinct from the cited art of record for at least the reasons set forth above in regard to Claims 1, 13, and 15. In addition, Applicant notes that these claims, when taken in the context of Claims 1, 13, and 15, set forth a number of recitations not taught, disclosed, or suggested by the cited references, alone or in combination. Thus, for at least these additional reasons, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection of Claims 2-12, 14, and 16-18 be withdrawn and the claims allowed.”
Examiner Responds: Examiner has fully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s argument persuasive. First, the Applicant assert claim 15 as an independent claim, the Examiner points out based on the claim language, the claim 15 is a dependent claim of claim 13. Additionally, the combination of Fang, in view of Valdi discloses the claim limitation of claims 13, and 15. Furthermore, the dependent claims 2, and 14 have been cancelled by the Applicant, and the remainder of the dependent claims (3-12, 15-18) remain rejected by virtue of dependency and by art rejection.
Relevant Prior Art Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon which, however, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20200076571 A1 Natarajan; Senthilnathan et al. CHECKPOINTING FOR INCREASING EFFICIENCY OF A BLOCKCHAIN - An example operation may include one or more of in one or more peer nodes of a plurality of peer nodes of a blockchain network that stores a blockchain and a state database, periodically generating a state database checkpoint, obtaining a consensus on the state database checkpoint from one or more of the one or more peer nodes, and storing the consensus state database checkpoint.
US 20190019144 A1 Gillen; Robert J. COUNTERPARTY PHYSICAL PROXIMITY VERIFICATION FOR DIGITAL ASSET TRANSFERS - Embodiments are provided for verifying physical proximity of counterparties in digital asset transfers. A sender device receives a recipient hash and a recipient address are received, where recipient hash is generated by the recipient device based on each of the associated recipient address and a first set of location parameters. The sender device obtains a second set of location parameters that corresponds to a detected physical location thereof. The sender device employs the second set of location parameters to decipher the recipient hash, and generates a request to transfer a digital token from a sender address associated with the sender device to the recipient address based on a determination that the deciphered recipient hash corresponds to the received recipient address.
US 20210256070 A1 Tran; Bao et al. NON-FUNGIBLE TOKEN (NFT) - A device to securely access a digital asset with an asset blockchain address on a blockchain, including a processor in the mobile body and associated with a processor blockchain address, and a sensor coupled to the body to authenticate a user, wherein selected user events are placed on the blockchain, wherein the processor sends an access request to the digital asset upon authentication based on the blockchain address and events on the blockchain, wherein the digital asset contractual details, access right, and ownership rights are stored on a decentralized ledger, and wherein the processor uses the ledger to record or manage property right for the digital asset.
US 20230334930 A1 QIU; Weiwei et al. CONSENSUS METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR BLOCKCHAIN, SERVER AND STORAGE MEDIUM - Provided are a consensus method and apparatus for a blockchain, a server and a storage medium. A checkpoint round is designed without waiting for transaction execution results of all nodes in each consensus round so as to reduce the impact of transaction execution on consensus and improve consensus stability. A newly created block comprises an execution result and status of a preorder block of the blockchain. Only the consistency of the newly created block is verified to avoid wasting memory resources and computing resources. The checkpoint round can be customized to improve the scalability of consensus algorithms.
US 20220058610 A1 Bedford; Charles Christian SYSTEM, METHOD AND DEVICE FOR PROCESSING A TRANSACTION - A method for use in a computing device, comprising: receiving, from a remote device, a request to record an asset transfer in a first blockchain system; authenticating the request by using an authentication mechanism that is independent of the first blockchain system and obtaining an authentication record indicating that the request has been authenticated successfully; and recording the asset transfer in the first blockchain system, the asset transfer being recorded by storing the authentication record and a record of the asset transfer in a first ledger of the first blockchain system, wherein recording the asset transfer includes associating an instance of the record of the asset transfer that is stored in the first ledger of the first blockchain system with an instance of the authentication record that is stored in the first ledger of the first blockchain system.
US 20150142637 A1 MCGEACHY; Mark et al. SWITCHING LAYER FOR TRADING ON GLOBAL MARKETS - Techniques for managing and routing market orders across a global trading system. Each trading node can be associated with one or more markets and each node can be configured to provide market access to each market associated with a node in the system. Each trading node can be connected, via a network, to a global switching layer. The global switching layer can route requests, such as orders and the like, from an end user associated with one of the plurality of nodes to a corresponding exchange or market. The global switching layer can be configured to dynamically provide, to each end user, a user interface element corresponding to each trading node.
US 20190311351 A1 Zhang; Wenbin et al. CROSS-ASSET TRADING WITHIN BLOCKCHAIN NETWORKS - Implementations are directed to cross-asset trading in blockchain networks, and include a first node providing transaction information based on a first value, a second value, and an exchange rate of a second node, receiving, from the second node, a first evidence set, a first range proof, and a digital signature of the second node, and submitting the transaction for verification based on the first range proof, a second range proof, the first evidence set, a second evidence set, a digital signature of the first node, and the digital signature of the second node, the transaction being executed to decrease a balance of the first node by the first value, increase a first balance of the second node by the first value, decrease a second balance of the second node by the second value, and increase a balance of the third node by the second value.
US 20230334470 A1 Beller; Andrew E. et al. BLOCKCHAIN INTEROPERABILITY SYSTEM FOR NATIVE ASSET CREATION - A delegate interoperability network for may include a plurality of delegates instantiated on a plurality of different blockchains. The delegate network may enable blockchain interoperability by receiving, at a first delegate instantiated on a first blockchain, a request to initiate, on a second blockchain, a blockchain action on behalf of a user. The method further includes generating, by the first delegate, a unique delegate network address associated with the user and the first blockchain. The method further includes determining, by the first delegate, whether the second blockchain has sufficient gas token liquidity to complete the blockchain action. The method further includes at least in part on determining that the second blockchain has sufficient gas token liquidity, sending, to a second delegate instantiated on the second blockchain, a first message to initiate the blockchain action. The method further includes receiving, from the second delegate, a second message, wherein the second message comprises at least an association between the unique delegate network address and the second blockchain.
US 20220051235 A1 Ohashi; Shigenori et al. SETTLEMENT SYSTEM, SETTLEMENT METHOD, USER DEVICE, AND SETTLEMENT PROGRAM - [0003] In the blockchain, pieces of transaction information on cryptocurrency among participants (transactions) are collected together into a unit called a “block”, and individual blocks are linked in the form of a chain and are managed in a chronological order. A new block is approved through a consensus algorithm in a distributed network such as Proof of Work. The approval of a new block means that the currency transaction recorded in the block is consented in the entire system. A ledger of a series of pieces of transaction information managed by using the blockchain are called a “distributed ledger”, and each node (each terminal) participating in the network has the same distributed ledger. [0011] To achieve the above object, an aspect of the present invention provides a settlement system in which a first blockchain and a second blockchain are cooperated, including a service provider device that transmits a template information transaction that includes a template of a transaction to a network of the first blockchain, a user device that transmits, to the network of the first blockchain, a payment information transaction that includes an electronic signature generated by using the template of the transaction registered in the first blockchain and a payment amount, and a smart contract included in the first blockchain, wherein the smart contract verifies the electronic signature included in the payment information transaction by using the payment amount and the template of the transaction, the service provider device generates a settlement transaction by using the template of the transaction registered in the first blockchain, the electronic signature, and the payment amount, and transmits the settlement transaction to a network of the second blockchain, and a plurality of output conditions are set to the template of the transaction, and the settlement transaction becomes usable when any one of the plurality of output conditions is satisfied.
US 20240013213 A1 TROCK; Stanislav BLOCKCHAIN - There is described a computer-implemented method of outputting a transmission to a second node of an unspent transaction output (UTXO) based blockchain, the method being performed by a first node of the blockchain, the method comprising: identifying an input of a transaction; identifying a locking script associated with an output of a previous transaction that is referenced by the input, wherein the locking script comprises a persisting smart contract that is arranged to persist through multiple transactions on the blockchain; and outputting a transmission to the second node in dependence on: the persisting smart contract being present in a locking script of an output of the transaction; and/or a redemption condition of the persisting smart contract being satisfied; wherein the persisting smart contract comprises a token identifier; and wherein the token identifier is associated with a contract transaction, which contract transaction is associated with the persisting smart contract, wherein the contract transaction defines the redemption condition.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD S HYDER whose telephone number is (571)270-1820. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 6:00pm.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571) 272-7575. 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.
/M.S.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights