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 amendment and response filed on 06/30/2026.
Claims 1, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 18 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Arguments and Assertions by the Applicant
Applicant’s arguments received 06/30/2026 with respect to the prior art rejections have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. However, in an effort to elucidate the applicability of the selected prior art, the Examiner has provided a riposte to the Applicant’s arguments.
Applicant’s amendments, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been updated to conform to current guidelines and maintained accordingly.
The relevant question is whether the claims do more than collect, store, display, and compare data to optimize financial information security objectives on a generic computer. This does not appear to be the case.
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a computer to obtain data, use data to identify other data, and filtering data are some of the most basic functions of a computer. Moreover, 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. Therefore the claims are not significantly more than recitations of a judicial exception. In summary, each step does no more than require a common computer to perform universal computer functions. Therefore, the claims are directed to using a computer as a tool to follow instructions.
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of petitioner's method, system, and/or computer readable medium add nothing that is not already present when the steps reconsidered separately. Viewed as a whole, the method, system, and/or computer readable medium claims simply recite the concept of analyzing storing data in the form of digital data, comparing/categorizing data, and displaying the data.
The method, system, and/or computer readable medium claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea of organizing and analyzing data using some unspecified, generic computer. Consequently, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
As in TLI, Applicant’s claims are “not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality. Rather, they are directed to the use of conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment, without any claim that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any problem presented by combing the two.” See TLI Communications LLC v. A.V. Automotive, LLC, (Fed. Cir. 2016). “The specification does not describe a new telephone, a new server, or a new physical combination of the two. The specification fails to provide any technical details for the tangible components, but instead predominantly describes the system and methods in purely functional terms.” Id. "Instead, the claims, as noted, are simply directed to the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner." Id.
The claims in this case fall into a familiar class of claims “directed to” a patent-ineligible concept. The focus of the asserted claims, as illustrated by the claims, is on collecting information, analyzing it, displaying certain results of the collection and analysis and sending instruction to implement result. The outer limits of “abstract idea” need not be defined, nor at this stage exclude the possibility that any particular inventive means are to be found somewhere in the claims, to conclude that these claims focus on an abstract idea - and hence require stage-two analysis under §101. Information as such is an intangible. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT & T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 451 n.12 (2007); Bayer AG v. Housey Pharm., Inc., 340 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Accordingly, the courts have treated, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as information), as within the realm of abstract ideas. See, e.g., Internet Patents, 790 F.3d at 1349; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
In a similar vein, the courts have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category. See, e.g., TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 613; Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1351; Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011); SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see also Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301; Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589–90 (1978); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972). In addition, merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis. See, e.g., Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347; Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
In this case, the claims are clearly focused on the combination of those abstract-idea processes. This invention claims a process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, processing that data, then displaying the results, without any particular or asserted inventive technology for performing those functions. They are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
For stage 2 of the analysis, merely selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from §101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract ideas.
Referring to Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstrom S.A., the claims in this case do not even require a new source or type of information, or new techniques for analyzing it. See, e.g., US Patent 8,401,710 B2 (Budhraja et. al.), col. 8, lines 51–62 (referring to existing phasor data sources); J.A. 6969–71 (describing workings and history of phasor data use); Electric Power Group Br. at 21–22; Reply Br. at 5 (new algorithms not claimed). As a result, the claims do not require an inventive set of components or methods, such as measurement devices or techniques that would generate new data. They do not invoke any novel inventive programming. Merely requiring the selection and manipulation of information—to provide a “humanly comprehensible” amount of information useful for users, Reply Br. at 6; Electric Power Group Br. at 14–15—by itself does not transform the otherwise-abstract processes of information collection and analysis.
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)
implementing, using the processing device, a configurable execution delay between the authentication response and processing of the accessing, wherein the execution delay is a configurable time period applied when the accessing is initiated, whether the delay is defined at the wallet level, account level, policy level, or transaction level, and cannot be modified until the current delay period has fully expired; (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)
and wherein the processing occurs only after the configurable execution delay has fully expired. (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, in view of Baentsch et al. (USPGP 2009/0254485 A1), hereinafter BAENTSCH.
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.
MCCAULEY does not specifically disclose:
implementing, using the processing device, a configurable execution delay between the authentication response and processing of the accessing, wherein the execution delay is a configurable time period applied when the accessing is initiated, whether the delay is defined at the wallet level, account level, policy level, or transaction level, and cannot be modified until the current delay period has fully expired;
and wherein the processing occurs only after the configurable execution delay has fully expired.
BAENTSCH, however, in at least paragraph 0028 does. 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 technique of BAENTSCH 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:
The combination of MCCAULEY/BAENTSCH 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:
The combination of MCCAULEY/BAENTSCH 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:
The combination of MCCAULEY/BAENTSCH 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:
The combination of MCCAULEY/BAENTSCH 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:
The combination of MCCAULEY/BAENTSCH 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/BAENTSCH, and further in view of James et al. (USPGP 2022/0253842 A1), hereinafter JAMES.
Claims 3, 13:
The combination of MCCAULEY/BAENTSCH 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/BAENTSCH 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:
The combination of MCCAULEY/BAENTSCH 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/BAENTSCH 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:
The combination of MCCAULEY/BAENTSCH/JAMES 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:
The combination of MCCAULEY/BAENTSCH 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/BAENTSCH 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
Relevancy: “Studies have shown that the existing methodology of digital forensics preservation, which is to acquire and hash the evidence, is insufficient for cryptocurrencies as it does not secure the value. To address this issue, investigators secure the cryptocurrency by transferring it to a crypto wallet controlled by the Law Enforcement Agencies(LEAs). This process will unavoidably modify some data. Despite the criticality of this issue, inadequate studies have been made in this area. In addition, current guidelines on securing the cryptocurrency lack a comprehensive description from the perspective of digital evidence preservation principles. Crucial data to be documented throughout the preservation process were also not properly listed. Therefore, this study aims to address the gap in preserving cryptocurrencies from crypto wallets. Three objectives were then laid out; (1) to develop a methodology that is mapped comprehensively with digital evidence preservation principle, (2) to describe and provide justification on the inevitably modified data, and (3) to list crucial data to be documented during preservation process. The methods to achieve the objectives were critical examinations on various types of crypto wallets and by using simulation. The result shows that the study is able to provide a comprehensive crypto wallets preservation methodology to forensic investigators. It is hoped that the outcome from this study will promote better understanding, ensure consistency of implementation, and to aid investigators in explaining and justifying their actions during search and seizure in court.” (Abstract/Introduction)
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
Relevancy: “MIT researchers have developed a new cryptocurrency that drastically reduces the data users need to join the network and verify transactions — by up to 99 percent compared to today’s popular cryptocurrencies. This means a much more scalable network.” (Abstract/Introduction)
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)
Relevancy: “The method involves determining an active context profile for a user based on signals indicative of user's context. Determination is made to check whether the active context profile matches a first context profile. Sharing of personal information of the user with a third party is facilitated in accordance with determination that the active context profile matches the first context profile. The sharing of the personal information of the user with the third party is non-facilitated in accordance with the determination that the active context profile does not match the first context profile.” (Abstract/Introduction)
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)
Relevancy: “The system (600) has a transceiver which receives data transaction request from computing devices. A processing system has a processor (608) which receives digital resource issuance request for issuance of a new resource for first participant, creates and adds a new digital resource identifier and private key to a resource repository, generates a blockchain transaction to a participant identifier of first participant, sign the generated blockchain transaction with private key and publishes generated blockchain transaction to distributed blockchain computing system for validation.” (Abstract/Introduction)
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)
Relevancy: “The method involves obtaining request for creating a digital asset corresponding to a tangible asset, where the request comprises characteristics of the digital asset. A blockchain contract is generated corresponding to the tangible asset based on the characteristics of the digital asset. The generated blockchain contract is deployed on a blockchain, where the deployed blockchain contract is executable to issue the digital asset corresponding to the tangible asset. Permissions associated with a creator of the digital asset are determined based on obtained request after obtaining the request and before generating the blockchain contract.” (Abstract/Introduction)
Applicant’s amendment filed on 06/30/2026 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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)
Prosecution Insights