DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
This Office action is responsive to the communications filed March 5, 2026. Claims 1, 6, 11, 12, 15, and 20. Claims 1-4 and 6-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant amended the claims, thereby overcoming the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
2. Applicant asserts that the references do not disclose (i)receiving decrypted verification data (ii) executing within a trusted execution environment, said trusted execution environment prevention access of decrypted verification to an operator of the validator node outside the trusted execution environment, and (iii) performing a verification operation that comprises validating a cryptographic signature from the decrypted verification data.
As per the limitation (i) receiving decrypted verification data, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Wright teaches receiving a password/code, which may be the decryption key. All other arguments have been considered, but are moot in light of the new ground of rejection necessitated by the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication No. 2025/0150441 to Haber et al. (“Haber”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 12,481,982 to Wright et al. (“Wright”) and U.S. Publication No. 2025/0260565 to Abdelsamie (“Abdelsamie”).
As per claim 1, Haber discloses receiving, from a user of the subnet, a transaction encrypted by a public key associated with an auditor of the subnet (paragraph [0031] - the system may encrypt the data before it is stored/streamed on the blockchain. This can be done using …RSA (Rivest-Shamir-Adleman and [0068] -System 300 may then encrypt a message (or other blockchain action) using an intended receiver's public key such that the encrypted message may be decrypted only with the receiver's corresponding private key; [0021] – subnet may comprise a set of nodes or validators); abstract – subnet architecture);
providing a decryption request to a digital wallet, the decryption request comprising encrypted data from the transaction (paragraphs [0043] – subnet may also perform a blockchain action based on the second message …may transmit a message directly to subnet and [0044]- blockchain action may include…performing encryption/decryption; [0066] – the digital wallet may…allows users to…conduct blockchain actions using or ore more applications);
receiving decrypted data in response to the decryption request (paragraph [0068] – encrypted message may be decrypted; paragraph [0088] – once the encrypted data is retrieved, the receipt subnet may decrypt it); and
Haber does not expressly disclose the validator node executing within a trusted execution environment; receiving decrypted verification data from the digital wallet in response to the decryption request; using the public key and the decrypted verification data, performing a verification operation on the transaction, the verification operation comprising validating a cryptographic signature from the decrypted verification data; and wherein the trusted execution environment prevents access of the decrypted verification data to an operator of the validator node outside the trusted execution environment.
Wright discloses receiving decrypted verification data from the digital wallet and using the decrypted data, performing a verification operation (col.20, l. 6-17 – password/code may be the decryption key itself, which the wallet application uses to decrypt the response or seed…wallet application decrypts the response or seed using the released key, and based on this, allows the user to sue the seed to derive at least one child key for signing one or more blockchain transactions).
Abdelsamie discloses the validator node executing within a trusted execution environment; receiving decrypted verification data from the digital wallet in response to the decryption request (paragraph [0354]- trusted execution environment of the validator node’s hardware); using the public key and the decrypted verification data, performing a verification operation on the transaction, the verification operation comprising validating a cryptographic signature from the decrypted verification data (paragraphs [0199] at (vi); [0200] at (iii)); and wherein the trusted execution environment prevents access of the decrypted verification data to an operator of the validator node outside the trusted execution environment (paragraphs [0104], [0150], and [0270]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Haber by including the features of Wright and Abdelsamie to provide secure transactions on the blockchain. Applying the known technique of Wright into the system of Haber would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would have yielded predictable results.
As per claim 2, Haber discloses determining whether the user has permission to conduct transactions on the subnet (paragraph [0035] -system may require participants to use issued digital identities, such as cryptographic keys or certificates, which are used to authenticate and authorize them on the network).
As per claim 3, Haber discloses wherein the transaction is received from the user via an application executing on a user device, and the transaction was encrypted on the user device (paragraphs [0019] – subnet may represents an application where all requesters may have access.. all other data may be encrypted; paragraph [0025] – API; paragraphs [0050]-[0059]).
As per claim 6, Haber in combination with Wright and Abdelsamie disclose making a determination, in response to the verification operation, that the transaction is valid; based on a determination that the transaction is valid, adding the transaction to a block of a blockchain (See claim 1 above; Haber at paragraph [0072] – in response to validation of the block, the block is added to a blockchain).
As per claim 7, Haber discloses wherein the transaction is an event from a smart contract (paragraphs [0021] and [0072]).
As per claim 9, Haber discloses wherein the validator node uses an application programming interface of the digital wallet to provide the decryption request to the digital wallet (see claims 1 and 3 above).
As per claim 10, Haber in view of Wright disclose receiving a query for log data associated with the transaction; encrypting the log data using the public key associated with the auditor of the subnet, resulting in encrypted log data; and providing the encrypted log data in response to the query (see claim 1 rejection above and paragraph [0050] – the nodes may continually record the state of the blockchain and respond to remote procedure requests for information about the blockchain).
As per claim 15, Wright discloses using an application programming interface of the digital wallet to provide the decryption request to the digital wallet (col. 28, ll. 49-59).
Claims 12-14, 16, 17, and 19 are rejected on the same rationale as claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9, and 10.
Claim 20 is rejected on the same rationale as claim 1.
Claims 4, 8, 11, and 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haber in view of Wright and Abdelsamie as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2021/0218720 to Oberhauser et al. (“Oberhauser”).
As per claim 4, Haber in view of Wright and Abdelsamie disclose wherein the transaction comprises encrypted data fields. The references do not expressly disclose unencrypted metadata fields. Oberhauser discloses the transaction comprises unencrypted metadata fields (paragraphs [0066] – the data management service 110A may send the one or more selected attribute values to the data management service 110B via a secure channel that is outside the distributed ledger. The data management service 110A may also include relevant metadata, such as metadata for use in checking a cryptographic proof of an attribute value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the elements of Oberhauser into the system of Haber in view of Wright and Abdelsamie. Hence, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 8, Haber in view of Wright disclose the method of claim 1. Wright discloses deleting the transaction (col. 11, ll. 46-52 – it is deleted from the computer following the generating of the attestation). The references do not expressly disclose wherein the transaction is stored in a protected memory area of the validator node. Oberhauser discloses wherein the transaction is stored in a protected memory area of the validator node prior to decryption (paragraphs [0130] and [0131]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the elements of Oberhauser into the system of Haber in view of Wright and Abdelsamie. Hence, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 11, Haber in view of Wright and Oberhauser disclose receiving a query for data associated with the transaction; re-encrypting the decrypted verification data using the public key associated with the auditor of the subnet, resulting in re-encrypted data; and providing the re-encrypted data in response to the query (see claim 10 above and Oberhauser at paragraphs [0030] the data may be re-encrypted before leaving the secure hardware, for instance, using one or more keys associated with a recipient entity.
Claim 18 is rejected on the same rationale as claim 8.
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 JALATEE WORJLOH whose telephone number is (571)272-6714. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:00am-2:00pm.
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, John Hayes can be reached at (571) 272-6708. 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.
/Jalatee Worjloh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights