DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Examiner’s Comments Relating to Prior Art
For dependent claim 8, the examiner notes that there are no prior art rejections because prior art searches have yielded nothing similar to the claimed invention. This is because the claims contain very specific steps and procedures in the business idea of: 1) monitoring a plurality of blockchain wallets; 2) in response to determining that a transfer of funds from the one of the plurality of monitored wallets is not according to the transfer schedule and 3) is not performed by the monitoring system, 4) identifying the transfer of funds as being performed by an external entity”. At a high level, the invention is about of identifying unauthorized digital wallet access.
Specifically, dependent claim 8 further discloses (in addition to the elements disclosed by the referenced claims 1 and 2) the very specific steps and elements of: ““the plurality of blockchain wallets are monitored by a monitoring system, and further comprising in response to determining that a transfer of funds from the one of the plurality of monitored wallets is not according to the transfer schedule and is not performed by the monitoring system, identifying the transfer of funds as being performed by an external entity” (emphasis examiner’s). Thus, there are no prior art rejections because prior art searches have yielded nothing similar to the claimed invention – in combination with the referenced independent claim elements. Incorporation of these specific elements (positively claimed and in their entirety) into all the dependent claims may help advance the patent prosecution process.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are directed to a system, method, or product, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent method claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system claim 14 and product claim 20. Claim 1 recites the limitations of identifying unauthorized digital wallet access.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Generating blockchain wallets (=monitored wallets); transferring funds to monitored wallets; identifying unauthorized blockchain wallet access; generating notification that wallet has been compromised; and sending notification, – specifically, the claim recites, “generating a plurality of blockchain wallets associated with a blockchain service, the plurality of blockchain wallets comprising a user wallet and a plurality of monitored wallets; transferring funds to the plurality of monitored wallets; monitoring the plurality of blockchain wallets to identify unauthorized access of any of the plurality of blockchain wallets; in response to identifying unauthorized access of one of the plurality of monitored wallets, generating a notification that the one of the plurality of monitored wallets has been compromised; and outputting the notification”, recites a fundamental economic practice, directed to mitigating risk.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice or commercial or legal interactions, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The “an apparatus”, “at least one memory”, and “at least one processor”, in claim 14; and the additional technical element of “a non-transitory computer-readable medium” in claim 20, are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. Claims 1 and 20 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of: a computer such as an apparatus and at least one processor; and a storage unit such as at least one memory and a non-transitory computer-readable medium. The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claims 1, 14, and 20 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claims 1, 14, and 20 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 14, and 20 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above.
Dependent claim 2 discloses the limitation of transferring funds between the plurality of monitored wallets according to a transfer schedule, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 3 discloses the limitation of the transfer schedule causes the transferring of funds to appear like active management of at least one of the plurality of monitored wallets, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 4 discloses the limitation of the transfer schedule is in accordance with a typical activity by a human for the blockchain service, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “blockchain service” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 5 discloses the limitation of storing, in a database, information associated with the unauthorized access of the one of the plurality of monitored wallets that is not according to the transfer schedule, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “a database” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 6 discloses the limitation of access to the database is provided based on receiving at least two partial keys, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the database” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 7 discloses the limitation of the database is secured using multi-party computation (MPC), which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “multi-party computation (MPC)” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 8 discloses the limitation of the plurality of blockchain wallets are monitored by a monitoring system, and further comprising in response to determining that a transfer of funds from the one of the plurality of monitored wallets is not according to the transfer schedule and is not performed by the monitoring system, identifying the transfer of funds as being performed by an external entity, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “monitoring system” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 9 discloses the limitation of the funds are transferred between the plurality of monitored wallets by a funding engine, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “a funding engine” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 10 discloses the limitation of receiving an indication of a service to be monitored, wherein the plurality of blockchain wallets are generated based on the indication of the service, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 11 discloses the limitation of funding the plurality of monitored wallets based on the blockchain service, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the blockchain service” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 12 discloses the limitation of interacting with the plurality of monitored wallets, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 13 discloses the limitation of minting new tokens for the plurality of monitored wallets, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 15 discloses the limitation of transfer funds between the plurality of monitored wallets according to a transfer schedule, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 16 discloses the limitation of the transfer schedule causes the transferring of funds to appear like active management of at least one of the plurality of monitored wallets, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 17 discloses the limitation of the transfer schedule is in accordance with a typical activity by a human for the blockchain service, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 18 discloses the limitation of the funds are transferred between the plurality of monitored wallets by a funding engine running at the at least one processor, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “a funding engine” and “the at least one processor” are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 19 discloses the limitation of funding the plurality of monitored wallets based on the blockchain service, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the blockchain service” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Thus, the dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-20 are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(2) AIA
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention
OR
(a) (2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cotta (20200202668).
Regarding claim 1, Cotta teaches
a method for monitoring a blockchain wallet, the method comprising:
generating a plurality of blockchain wallets associated with a blockchain service, the plurality of blockchain wallets comprising a user wallet and a plurality of monitored wallets
(“[0059] FIG. 3 conceptually illustrates a digital wallet and several game-specific blockchains, in accordance with implementations of the disclosure. As shown, a user 300 may have a digital wallet 302 that is defined by various game-specific accounts, such as a game A account 304, a game B account 306, a game C account 308, etc. Each game-specific account reflects the virtual assets for the given video game that are associated to or owned by the user 300”).
(“[0060] Furthermore, in some implementations, game-specific blockchains are utilized to store virtual asset transactions pertaining to given video games. Thus, there may be a game A blockchain 310, a game B blockchain 312, a game C blockchain 314, etc. Accordingly, the transaction data pertaining to virtual assets for game A that are owned by user 300 is encoded to blockchain 310, the transaction data pertaining to virtual assets for game B that are owned by user 300 is encoded to blockchain 312, and the transaction data pertaining to virtual assets for game C that are owned by user 300, is encoded to blockchain 314”).
(“[0061] In the illustrated implementation, there are several different blockchains for storage of virtual asset transactions for different video games. However, in some implementations the virtual asset transactions of different video games can be stored to the same blockchain”).
See also FIG. 2, showing a system for carrying out virtual asset transactions and storing them to a blockchain.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See also FIG. 3, showing a digital wallet and several game-specific blockchains
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
transferring funds to the plurality of monitored wallets
(“[0050] blocks of the blockchain can be configured to store virtual asset transactions. For example, block C (ref. 102) includes transaction data 108 that describes the details of various virtual asset transactions. In the illustrated implementation, the block C includes data relating to transactions T.sub.1, T.sub.2, and T.sub.3, represented by T.sub.1 data 110, T.sub.2 data 112, and T.sub.3 data 114. It will be appreciated that transaction data for a given transaction can include any of various kinds of information, such as the user ID of a buyer, the user ID of a seller, the serial number or identifier of a virtual asset being purchased, an amount of virtual currency paid, a date and time of the transaction, etc.”).
(“[0062] FIG. 4 conceptually illustrates a series of transactions concerning a given virtual asset, logged to a blockchain, in accordance with implementations of the disclosure. As shown in the illustrated implementation, virtual asset transactions are stored to a blockchain 100. In a block 400, a transaction is recorded in which a user A acquires a virtual asset. For example, the virtual asset may be purchased from another user or from a networked gaming service, e.g. using virtual currency”).
monitoring the plurality of blockchain wallets to identify unauthorized access of any of the plurality of blockchain wallets
(“[0068] In some implementations, the networked gaming service includes a blockchain monitor that monitors the blockchain for suspicious transactions, or transactions meeting certain predefined conditions for suspicious activity”).
(“[0065] At some point, the user A may discover that their virtual asset has been stolen, and report it to the networked gaming service. Because transaction data is stored to the blockchain 100, the blockchain can be searched to find transactions involving the virtual asset. The complete transaction history of the virtual asset can be surfaced from searching the blockchain 100, and thus, the transactions including the fraudulent transfer of the virtual asset to the malicious party's account and the subsequent sale to the other user can be discovered. The networked gaming service may thus use the blockchain 100 to investigate the fraudulent activity, and from the transaction data, identify the fraudulent account that was used to transfer the virtual asset, and also determine the rightful owner of the virtual asset”).
in response to identifying unauthorized access of one of the plurality of monitored wallets, generating a notification that the one of the plurality of monitored wallets has been compromised; and outputting the notification
(“[0068] The blockchain monitor may flag such interactions as suspicious and issue notifications based on their detection, such as notifications to either of the parties involved in such a transaction (e.g. private message/notification, e-mail alert, text alert, etc.), or notifications to operators of the networked gaming service, e.g. flagging suspicious interactions for additional review or investigation. It will be appreciated that the data (e.g. geo-location data, timing data, user account data, etc.) used to enable detection of suspicious activity can be stored to the blockchain in association with virtual asset transactions, and thus detection of suspicious/fraudulent activity may entail accessing the blockchain”).
Regarding claim 2, Cotta discloses
transferring funds between the plurality of monitored wallets according to a transfer schedule
(“[0086] In some implementations, a smart contract can be configured to enable installment payments over time. For example, the virtual asset is transferred upon payment of an initial amount, and additional payments are made on a recurring schedule until a predefined total amount has been paid”).
Regarding claim 3, Cotta discloses
the transfer schedule causes the transferring of funds to appear like active management of at least one of the plurality of monitored wallets
(“[0086] In some implementations, a smart contract can be configured to enable installment payments over time. For example, the virtual asset is transferred upon payment of an initial amount, and additional payments are made on a recurring schedule until a predefined total amount has been paid”).
Regarding claim 4, Cotta discloses
the transfer schedule is in accordance with a typical activity by a human for the blockchain service
(“[0044] For example, if a user buys a specific virtual asset, then that asset is associated with the user name/id of the user. Broadly speaking, for digital gaming assets to have value, they are associated with a user name… But if blockchain technology is used to log such transactions, then one can trace back transactions to the rightful owner”).
(“[0029] The blockchain wallet may be part of a group of wallets. The monitoring system may transfer funds between ( or within) the group of wallets. The transfer of funds between ( or within) the group of wallets may be based on a transfer schedule. The transfer schedule may be based on a service associated with the blockchain wallet. For example, the transfer schedule may be in accordance with a typical fund transfer by a human for the blockchain service”).
Regarding claim 5, Cotta discloses
storing, in a database, information associated with the unauthorized access of the one of the plurality of monitored wallets that is not according to the transfer schedule
(“[0068] In some implementations, the networked gaming service includes a blockchain monitor that monitors the blockchain for suspicious transactions, or transactions meeting certain predefined conditions for suspicious activity”).
Regarding claim 6, Cotta discloses
wherein access to the database is provided based on receiving at least two partial keys
(“[0042] Additionally, in some implementations, transactions can be stored on a public blockchain. For example, encrypted data can be stored to a public blockchain (e.g. Ethereum blockchain, BitCoin blockchain, etc.) and a transaction number is obtained. The legitimacy of the data (e.g. for a virtual asset transaction) can be verified using a hash key match, enabling verification of data/transactions by users”).
(“[0045] In some implementations, every digital asset has a serial number. In some implementations, the serial number of an asset and the user id can be hashed, and hashed in with a nonce and/or key to the blockchain, to generate the blockchain signature. So if the asset is stolen, then restoring asset back to its rightful owner is easier because the blockchain can be used to trace back the serial number of the asset back to the rightful owner's user id”).
Regarding claim 7, Cotta discloses
the database is secured using multi-party computation (MPC)
Examiner notes that “multi-party computation” is not defined. A reasonable interpretation could be distributive database. This interpretation makes sense as this is a blockchain based system. If this is not the case, the applicant is invited to make clear what it is. As such, the claimed elements are disclosed by the following prior art teaching:
(“[0029] The blockchain wallet may be part of a group of wallets. The monitoring system may transfer funds between ( or within) the group of wallets. The transfer of funds between ( or within) the group of wallets may be based on a transfer schedule. The transfer schedule may be based on a service associated with the blockchain wallet. For example, the transfer schedule may be in accordance with a typical fund transfer by a human for the blockchain service”).
Regarding claim 9, Cotta discloses
the funds are transferred between the plurality of monitored wallets by a funding engine
(“[0062] FIG. 4 conceptually illustrates a series of transactions concerning a given virtual asset, logged to a blockchain, in accordance with implementations of the disclosure. As shown in the illustrated implementation, virtual asset transactions are stored to a blockchain 100. In a block 400, a transaction is recorded in which a user A acquires a virtual asset. For example, the virtual asset may be purchased from another user or from a networked gaming service, e.g. using virtual currency”).
(“[0056] The networked gaming service 206 can facilitate virtual asset transactions. For example, the networked gaming service 206 may control the pool of available virtual assets that may be in circulation, and may further initially sell the virtual asset into circulation or facilitate buying and selling of virtual assets between users. In some implementations the networked gaming service 206 may also buy back and resell virtual assets”).
Regarding claim 10, Cotta discloses
receiving an indication of a service to be monitored, wherein the plurality of blockchain wallets are generated based on the indication of the service
(“[0068] In some implementations, the networked gaming service includes a blockchain monitor that monitors the blockchain for suspicious transactions, or transactions meeting certain predefined conditions for suspicious activity”).
Regarding claim 11, Cotta discloses
funding the plurality of monitored wallets based on the blockchain service
(“[0059] FIG. 3 conceptually illustrates a digital wallet and several game-specific blockchains, in accordance with implementations of the disclosure. As shown, a user 300 may have a digital wallet 302 that is defined by various game-specific accounts, such as a game A account 304, a game B account 306, a game C account 308, etc. Each game-specific account reflects the virtual assets for the given video game that are associated to or owned by the user 300”).
See also FIG. 2, showing a system for carrying out virtual asset transactions and storing them to a blockchain.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Cotta discloses
interacting with the plurality of monitored wallets
(“[0062] FIG. 4 conceptually illustrates a series of transactions concerning a given virtual asset, logged to a blockchain, in accordance with implementations of the disclosure. As shown in the illustrated implementation, virtual asset transactions are stored to a blockchain 100. In a block 400, a transaction is recorded in which a user A acquires a virtual asset. For example, the virtual asset may be purchased from another user or from a networked gaming service, e.g. using virtual currency”).
(“[0056] The networked gaming service 206 can facilitate virtual asset transactions. For example, the networked gaming service 206 may control the pool of available virtual assets that may be in circulation, and may further initially sell the virtual asset into circulation or facilitate buying and selling of virtual assets between users. In some implementations the networked gaming service 206 may also buy back and resell virtual assets”).
Claim 14 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 15 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 2.
Claim 16 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 3.
Claim 17 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 4.
Claim 18 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 9.
Claim 19 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 11.
Claim 20 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 13 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cotta in view of Andral (20240152912).
Regarding claim 13, Cotta does not disclose, however, Andral teaches
minting new tokens for the plurality of monitored wallets
(“[0080] The non-fungible token provider computer 106 can allow users to obtain (e.g., purchase) non-fungible tokens through a Web interface provided by a website maintained by the non-fungible token provider computer 106. The non-fungible token provider computer 106 can allow the plurality of non-fungible token creator devices 108 to create (e.g., mint) new non-fungible token provider computer 106 and make the newly created non-fungible tokens available for purchase by users. The non-fungible token provider computer 106 can interact with the non-fungible token blockchain 110 to update ownership and other data related to the non-fungible tokens included in the non-fungible token blockchain 110”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Cotta to include minting new tokens for the plurality of monitored wallets as taught by Andral to provide the system the ability to produce new asset to facilitate the service provider’s business – see “[0080] Referring back to FIG. 1, the non-fungible token provider computer 106 can include a computer that facilitates obtaining, transferring, and maintaining non-fungible tokens. The non-fungible token provider computer 106 can be a non-fungible token marketplace computer. The non-fungible token provider computer 106 can allow users to obtain (e.g., purchase) non-fungible tokens through a Web interface provided by a website maintained by the non-fungible token provider computer 106. The non-fungible token provider computer 106 can allow the plurality of non-fungible token creator devices 108 to create (e.g., mint) new non-fungible token provider computer 106 and make the newly created non-fungible tokens available for purchase by users. The non-fungible token provider computer 106 can interact with the non-fungible token blockchain 110 to update ownership and other data related to the non-fungible tokens included in the non-fungible token blockchain 110”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Metral (20150302401) teaches distributed crypto currency unauthorized transfer monitoring system.
Ronca (20150363777) teaches cryptocurrency suspicious user alert system.
Andrade (20180240107) teaches systems and methods for personal identification and verification.
Andral (20240152912) teaches authentication system and method.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK H GAW whose telephone number is (571)270-0268. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9am -5pm.
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, Mike Anderson can be reached on 571 270-0508. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARK H GAW/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights