DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgments
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the application filed on 05/19/2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 non-patent eligible subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Step 1:
The claims recite a process, system, apparatus, article of manufacture, and/or a nontransitory storage medium with instructions, each of which are proper statutory categories.
Step 2A (prong 1):
Claim 1 (representative of claim 11):
The claim limitations are grouped as shown immediately following:
A method of facilitating protection of a digital vault against an unauthorized access, the method comprising: (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions)
receiving, using a communication device, an indication data from a user device, (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions)
wherein the indication data corresponds to an indication for accessing the digital vault associated with a digital asset; (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions)
generating, using a processing device, an authentication request data based on the indication data, (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions)
wherein the authentication request data corresponds to a request for approval of the accessing; (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions)
transmitting, using the communication device, the authentication request data to a predefined authorized user device associated with a predefined authorized user, (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions)
wherein the predefined authorized user device is associated with the digital vault; (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions)
receiving, using the communication device, an authentication response data from the predefined authorized user device, (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions)
wherein the authentication response data corresponds to a response to the request for approval of the accessing; (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions)
determining, using the processing device, a time instance of the authentication response data based on the receiving of the authentication response data; (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions)
analyzing, using the processing device, the time instance based on a predefined time interval, (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions)
wherein the predefined time interval represents a time interval for receiving the authentication response data; (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions)
processing, using the processing device, the accessing of the digital vault based on the analyzing, (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions)
wherein the time instance lies within the predefined time interval. (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions)
Additional dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 do not appear remedy the deficiency.
Step 2A (prong 2):
Claim 1 (representative of claim 11):
…a communication device
…a user device
…a processing device
…a predefined authorized user device
…a system
These remaining claim limitations are delineated as shown immediately preceding. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. There are no improvements to the functioning of a computer, other technology or technical field, a particular machine is not cited, nothing is transformed to a different state or thing, the abstract idea is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. The claim merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is generally linked to a particular field of use, in this case, marketing and advertising. Thus, these limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor and memory performing a generic computer function of processing and storing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component – MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, receiving data, evaluating data and distributing data are data gathering and data outputting, which has no effect on technology and does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B:
The claim limitations do not provide an Inventive Concept. The claim limitations do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the abstract idea because the additional elements of the system comprising a computer processor, computer readable storage medium with instructions, and a memory configured to store information, each recited at a high level of generality in a computer network which only perform the universal computer functions of accessing, receiving, storing, and processing data, transmitting and presenting information. Taking the elements both individually and as an ordered combination, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely orthodox. Using a computer to obtain and display data are some of the most basic functions of a computer. As shown, the individual limitations claimed are some of the most rudimentary functions of a computer. The technical solution described in this invention does not alter hardware structure or its routine, does not transform the character of the information being processed, does not identify a novel source or type of data, does not advance the functionality of a computer as a tool, and does not incorporate specific rules enabling the computer to accomplish innovative utilities. In summary, the individual step and/or component does no more than require a general computer to perform standard computer functions. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computer devices amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component - requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10-12, 14, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCauley et al. (USPGP 2021/0056539 A1 hereinafter MCCAULEY.
Claims 1, 11:
MCCAULEY as shown below discloses the following limitations:
A method of facilitating protection of a digital vault against an unauthorized access, the method comprising: (see at least paragraph 0025)
receiving, using a communication device, an indication data from a user device, (see at least paragraph 0025)
wherein the indication data corresponds to an indication for accessing the digital vault associated with a digital asset; (see at least paragraph 0025)
generating, using a processing device, an authentication request data based on the indication data, (see at least paragraphs 0025-0026, 0038)
wherein the authentication request data corresponds to a request for approval of the accessing; (see at least paragraphs 0025-0026, 0038)
transmitting, using the communication device, the authentication request data to a predefined authorized user device associated with a predefined authorized user, (see at least paragraphs 0025-0026, 0038)
wherein the predefined authorized user device is associated with the digital vault; (see at least paragraphs 0025-0026, 0038)
receiving, using the communication device, an authentication response data from the predefined authorized user device, (see at least paragraphs 0025-0026, 0038)
wherein the authentication response data corresponds to a response to the request for approval of the accessing; (see at least paragraphs 0025-0026, 0038)
determining, using the processing device, a time instance of the authentication response data based on the receiving of the authentication response data; (see at least paragraph 0039)
analyzing, using the processing device, the time instance based on a predefined time interval, (see at least paragraphs 0025-0026, 0038)
wherein the predefined time interval represents a time interval for receiving the authentication response data; (see at least paragraphs 0025-0026, 0038-0039)
processing, using the processing device, the accessing of the digital vault based on the analyzing, (see at least paragraphs 0025-0026, 0038-0039)
wherein the time instance lies within the predefined time interval. (see at least paragraphs 0025-0026, 0038-0039)
MCCAULEY does not specifically disclose each of the above limitations in a single embodiment. In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of MCCAULEY because, “Such cryptocurrencies have gained in popularity and value in recent years and are expected by many to continue to do so. Every day an increasing variety of transactions are conducted based on cryptocurrencies, and it is conceivable that new types of cryptoassets may be created in the future, i.e., cryptoassets that are not necessarily currencies. With the increasing use of cryptoassets comes the need for a trusted custodial system that can securely store very large quantities of cryptoassets and control access to those cryptoassets. Indeed, U.S. securities regulations require certain entities that hold more than a certain amount of funds (e.g., $150 million) on behalf of another party to use a custodian to hold those funds. Hardware wallets and other forms of “cold storage” devices are sometimes used to store cryptocurrency, however, those devices limit access only to the owner of the device and are therefore not suitable for many business uses, where a number of individuals may require access to cryptocurrencies or other cryptoassets.” (MCCAULEY: paragraph 0004). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
Claims 2, 12:
MCCAULEY discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. MCCAULEY further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the digital vault is associated with a plurality of authorized users,
wherein the plurality of authorized users comprises each of a first authorized user and a second authorized user,
wherein the authentication response data comprises a first authentication response data corresponding to the first authorized user and a second authentication response data corresponding to the second authorized user,
wherein the analyzing comprises analyzing a first time instance and a second time instance based on a first time interval and a second time interval respectively,
wherein the first authentication response data and the second authentication response data is received at the first time instance and the second time instance respectively,
wherein the predefined time interval represents each of the first time interval and the second time interval.
See at least paragraphs 0025, 0026, 0027, 0038, and 0039.
Claims 4, 14:
MCCAULEY discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. MCCAULEY further discloses the following limitations:
determining, using the processing device, a predefined authentication procedure based on the indication data,
wherein the predefined authentication procedure corresponds to each of the predefined authorized user and the predefined time interval,
wherein the generating of the authentication request data is further based on the determining.
See at least paragraphs 0025, 0026, 0027, 0038, and 0039.
Claims 7, 17:
MCCAULEY discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. MCCAULEY further discloses the following limitations:
generating, using the processing device, an operation data, wherein the operation data represents at least one of the accessing of the digital vault and an attempt for the accessing of the digital vault; and
storing, using the processing device, the operation data in a blockchain.
See at least paragraphs 0025, 0026, 0027, 0038, 0039, 0060, and 0106.
Claims 8, 18:
MCCAULEY discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. MCCAULEY further discloses the following limitations:
generating, using the processing device, an alert data based on the indication data,
wherein the alert data comprises an alert representing the indication for the accessing the digital vault; transmitting, using the communication device, the alert data to the predefined authorized user device.
See at least paragraphs 0025, 0026, 0027, 0038, 0039, and 0056.
Claims 10, 20:
MCCAULEY discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. MCCAULEY further discloses the following limitations:
generating, using the processing device, a signature data based on the analyzing of the time instance,
wherein the signature data corresponds to an additional signature for the approval of the accessing,
wherein the processing of the accessing is further based on the signature data,
wherein the accessing of the digital vault is based on each of the predefined authorized user and the additional signature.
See at least paragraphs 0025-0027, 0038, 0039, and 0056.
Claims 3, 5, 6, 9, 13, 15, 16, and 19 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MCCAULEY, in view of James et al. (USPGP 2022/0253842 A1), hereinafter JAMES.
Claims 3, 13:
MCCAULEY discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. JAMES further discloses:
wherein the predefined time interval corresponds to a block interval representing the time interval between generating of a plurality of consecutive blocks in a blockchain.
See at least paragraph 0338. In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of MCCAULEY with the system of JAMES because, “Such cryptocurrencies have gained in popularity and value in recent years and are expected by many to continue to do so. Every day an increasing variety of transactions are conducted based on cryptocurrencies, and it is conceivable that new types of cryptoassets may be created in the future, i.e., cryptoassets that are not necessarily currencies. With the increasing use of cryptoassets comes the need for a trusted custodial system that can securely store very large quantities of cryptoassets and control access to those cryptoassets. Indeed, U.S. securities regulations require certain entities that hold more than a certain amount of funds (e.g., $150 million) on behalf of another party to use a custodian to hold those funds. Hardware wallets and other forms of “cold storage” devices are sometimes used to store cryptocurrency, however, those devices limit access only to the owner of the device and are therefore not suitable for many business uses, where a number of individuals may require access to cryptocurrencies or other cryptoassets.” (MCCAULEY: paragraph 0004). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
Claims 5, 15:
MCCAULEY discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. JAMES further discloses:
receiving, using the communication device, a time delay data from the predefined authorized user device, wherein the time delay data represents a time delay for the accessing of the digital vault; (see at least paragraphs 0255, 0282, 0288, 0296, 0576)
analyzing, using the processing device, the time delay data; (see at least paragraphs 0255, 0282, 0288, 0296, 0576)
generating, using the processing device, the predefined authentication procedure data based on the analyzing of the time delay data, wherein the predefined authentication procedure data corresponds to the predefined authentication procedure. (see at least paragraphs 0255, 0282, 0288, 0296, 0576)
In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of MCCAULEY with the system of JAMES because, “Such cryptocurrencies have gained in popularity and value in recent years and are expected by many to continue to do so. Every day an increasing variety of transactions are conducted based on cryptocurrencies, and it is conceivable that new types of cryptoassets may be created in the future, i.e., cryptoassets that are not necessarily currencies. With the increasing use of cryptoassets comes the need for a trusted custodial system that can securely store very large quantities of cryptoassets and control access to those cryptoassets. Indeed, U.S. securities regulations require certain entities that hold more than a certain amount of funds (e.g., $150 million) on behalf of another party to use a custodian to hold those funds. Hardware wallets and other forms of “cold storage” devices are sometimes used to store cryptocurrency, however, those devices limit access only to the owner of the device and are therefore not suitable for many business uses, where a number of individuals may require access to cryptocurrencies or other cryptoassets.” (MCCAULEY: paragraph 0004). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
Claims 6, 16:
MCCAULEY discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. MCCAULEY further discloses:
receiving, using the communication device, a user data from the predefined authorized user device,
wherein the user data represents a plurality of authorized users for approving the accessing;
analyzing, using the processing device, the user data,
wherein the generating of the predefined authentication procedure data is further based on the analyzing of the user data.
See at least paragraphs 0025-0027 and 0038-0039.
Claims 9, 19:
MCCAULEY discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. JAMES further discloses:
wherein the accessing based on the predefined authentication procedure facilitates implementing a time delay between the receiving of the indication data and the processing of the accessing,
wherein the processing of the accessing of the digital vault happens after the time delay.
See at least paragraphs 0255, 0282, 0288, and 0296. In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of MCCAULEY with the system of JAMES because, “Such cryptocurrencies have gained in popularity and value in recent years and are expected by many to continue to do so. Every day an increasing variety of transactions are conducted based on cryptocurrencies, and it is conceivable that new types of cryptoassets may be created in the future, i.e., cryptoassets that are not necessarily currencies. With the increasing use of cryptoassets comes the need for a trusted custodial system that can securely store very large quantities of cryptoassets and control access to those cryptoassets. Indeed, U.S. securities regulations require certain entities that hold more than a certain amount of funds (e.g., $150 million) on behalf of another party to use a custodian to hold those funds. Hardware wallets and other forms of “cold storage” devices are sometimes used to store cryptocurrency, however, those devices limit access only to the owner of the device and are therefore not suitable for many business uses, where a number of individuals may require access to cryptocurrencies or other cryptoassets.” (MCCAULEY: paragraph 0004). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
CONCLUSION
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Non-Patent Literature:
Sarah Taylor et al. “Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation A comprehensive forensic preservation methodology for crypto wallets.” (December 2022). Retrieved online 12/17/2025. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666281722001585
Rob Matheson. “A faster, more efficient cryptocurrency Design reduces by 99 percent the data users need to join the network and verify transactions.” (January 23, 2019). Retrieved online 12/17/2025. https://news.mit.edu/2019/vault-faster-more-efficient-cryptocurrency-0124
Foreign Art:
BURTON et al. “Method For Providing Access To Personal Information Of User Through E.g. Graphical User Interface Used Electronic Device, Involves Non-facilitating Sharing Of Personal Information Of User With Third Party.” (WO 2016/051279 A1)
ZINDER. “Electronic Resource Tracking And Storage Computer System For Distributed Blockchain Computing System, Has Processing System Has Processor Which Generates Blockchain Transaction To Participant Identifier Of Participant.” (WO 2017/004527 A1)
SHI et al. “Method For Managing Digital Asset Based On Blockchain Technology, Involves Deploying Generated Blockchain Contract On Blockchain, Where Deployed Blockchain Contract Is Executable To Issue Digital Asset Corresponding To Tangible Asset.” (WO 2019/228563 A2)
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to James A. Reagan (james.reagan@uspto.gov) whose telephone number is 571.272.6710. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9 AM to 5 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, John Hayes, can be reached at 571.272.6708.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair . Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
PO Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/JAMES A REAGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
james.reagan@uspto.gov
571.272.6710 (Office)
571.273.6710 (Desktop Fax)