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 1-13 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 05/28/2025 and 02/25/2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) has/have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because it’s missing “the” prior to “public key”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 12-13 are objected to because of the following informalities. The claims contain a reference to a previous claim in the same application while failing to include all the limitations of the previous claim. Appropriate correction is required. Examiner suggests amending the claim to explicitly recite the method steps referred to. For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret the claim as if amended to explicitly recite the method steps referred to.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Step 1 of the eligibility analysis asks is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter (See MPEP § 2106.03, subsections I and II). Claims 1-11 are directed to a computer-implemented method (i.e., process). Claim 12 is directed to a computer-implemented system (i.e., machine, and manufacture). Claims 13 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (i.e., manufacture). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon (MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1)). Claims 1 under a broadest reasonable interpretation recite an abstract idea because the claims describe transaction search identification, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II). The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea are grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas because the limitations describe fundamental economic principles or practices, including mitigating risk, and describe commercial or legal interactions, including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea.
A method of identifying a target transaction on a blockchain comprising the steps:
using a search path to identify the target transaction, the search path comprising:
i) a root transaction index (RT Index) comprising a public key (RTPK) associated with the root transaction and an ID (RTID) associated with the root transaction; and
ii) at least one attribute associated with the root transaction and/or the target transaction.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2)). Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations discussed in more detail in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.04(d)(2), 2106.05(a) through (c) and 2106.05(e) through (h). Here, the non-underlined claim limitations above recite additional elements. The additional elements do not improve the functioning of computers, another technology, or a technical field (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)). The Specification does not assert that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. The claim does not purport to improve computer capabilities, but rather invokes computers merely as a tool by adding general purpose computers post-hoc to an abstract idea. A commonplace business method being applied on a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement to technology. The claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. The Specification and the claim language provide evidence that the focus of the claim is on a scheme. An improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology. Even if the Specification describes technical improvements, they are not claimed. The additional elements do not apply the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)). The additional elements do not implement the abstract idea with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim (MPEP § 2106.05(b)). A general-purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. The additional elements do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP § 2106.05(c)). The claim does not recite any transformation of an article where the article changes to a different state or thing. Nor do the additional elements apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way or impose a meaningful limit on it beyond linking its use to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05(e)). The additional elements generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. A wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of additional feature that provides any practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea itself. The additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements are being used in their ordinary capacity. The additional elements do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. The additional elements generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Thus, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to the abstract idea identified above.
Step 2B
Step 2B determines whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP § 2106.05). In Step 2B examiners carry over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two; carry over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e), (f) and (h); re-evaluate any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; and evaluate whether any additional element or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d). The additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The additional elements generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Individually, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Here, the additional elements simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Here, the specification of the application indicates that additional elements are well-known or conventional (See Spec. 0003, 0206-0209, 0275-0282). There is nothing in the specification to indicate that the operations recited in the claims require any specialized hardware or inventive computer components or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions. The ordered combination recites no more than the individual elements do. Thus, the additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to the abstract idea identified above without significantly more. The claims are not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Dependent Claims
Claim 2 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes transaction search identification, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0003, 0206-0209, 0275-0282). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
the at least one attribute is null.
Claim 3 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes transaction search identification, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0003, 0206-0209, 0275-0282). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
the root transaction index (RT Index) comprises: a hash of a function of the public key (RTPK) and the ID (RTID)
Claim 4 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes transaction search identification, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0003, 0206-0209, 0275-0282). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the function is a concatenation.
Claim 5 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes transaction search identification, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0003, 0206-0209, 0275-0282). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
at least one of the attributes is a mnemonic associated with the root transaction or the target transaction.
Claim 6 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes transaction search identification, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0003, 0206-0209, 0275-0282). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
the root transaction and/or the target transaction comprises a protocol flag.
Claim 7 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes transaction search identification, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0003, 0206-0209, 0275-0282). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
using a block explorer to identify, in the blockchain, at least one transaction which comprises the protocol flag.
Claim 8 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes transaction search identification, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0003, 0206-0209, 0275-0282). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
identifying, in the blockchain, at least one transaction which comprises the protocol flag and storing data related to the at least one transaction in an off-blockchain resource.
Claim 9 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes transaction search identification, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0003, 0206-0209, 0275-0282). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
The data related to the at least one transaction comprises:
at least one index associated with the transaction;
at least one index associated with another transaction which is linked to the transaction; and/or
a keyword associated with the transaction.
Claim 10 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes transaction search identification, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0003, 0206-0209, 0275-0282). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
accessing a portion of data stored in, or referenced from, the target transaction.
Claim 11 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes transaction search identification, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0003, 0206-0209, 0275-0282). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
public key (RTPK) associated with the root transaction comprises a human-readable prefix.
Claim 12 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes transaction search identification, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0003, 0206-0209, 0275-0282). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
A computer-implemented system comprising:
a processor; and
memory including executable instructions that, as a result of execution by the processor, causes the system to perform any embodiment of the computer-implemented method as claimed in any of claims 1 to 11.
Claim 13 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes transaction search identification, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0003, 0206-0209, 0275-0282). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon executable instructions that, as a result of being executed by a processor of a computer system, cause the computer system to at least perform an embodiment of the method as claimed in any of claims 1 to 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Lack of Antecedent Basis
Claims 1, 5-6, and 11-12 recites "the root transaction" without proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is needed.
Therefore, these claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 2-13 are also rejected per dependency upon a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 3-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2017/0236123 A1 (“Ali”).
Claim 1:
Ali discloses:
using a search path to identify the target transaction (0053, 0055-0056, 0059, 0062, 0072, 0088, 0090-0091, 0093-0096, 0100-0116, 0136-0137)
the search path comprising: i) a root transaction index (RT Index) comprising a public key (RTPK) associated with the root transaction and an ID (RTID) associated with the root transaction; and ii) at least one attribute associated with the root transaction and/or the target transaction. (0048, 0057-0058, 0068, 0071-0072, 0077, 0086, 0089, 0094-0095, 0136)
Claim 3:
Ali further discloses:
the root transaction index (RT Index) comprises: a hash of a function of the public key (RTPK) and the ID (RTID) (0048, 0057-0058, 0068, 0072, 0086, 0089)
Claim 4:
Ali further discloses:
wherein the function is a concatenation. (0089, 0096, 0102, 0106, 0111, 0115)
Claim 5:
Ali further discloses:
at least one of the attributes is a mnemonic associated with the root transaction or the target transaction. (0044, 0047, 0049, 0067, 0079-0081)
Claim 6:
Ali further discloses:
the root transaction and/or the target transaction comprises a protocol flag. (0051, 0053, 0059, 0076, 0088)
Claim 7:
Ali further discloses:
using a block explorer to identify, in the blockchain, at least one transaction which comprises the protocol flag. (0053, 0055, 0059, 0088, 0090-0091, 0093-0094)
Claim 8:
Ali further discloses:
identifying, in the blockchain, at least one transaction which comprises the protocol flag (0053, 0059, 0088, 0090-0091)
and storing data related to the at least one transaction in an off-blockchain resource. (0063-0066, 0068-0073, 0086-0087, 0122)
Claim 9:
Ali further discloses:
The data related to the at least one transaction comprises: at least one index associated with the transaction; at least one index associated with another transaction which is linked to the transaction; and/or a keyword associated with the transaction. (0058, 0067-0068, 0072, 0086, 0089, 0122)
Claim 10:
Ali further discloses:
accessing a portion of data stored in, or referenced from, the target transaction. (0058, 0066, 0071-0074, 0086, 0136)
Claim 11:
Ali further discloses:
public key (RTPK) associated with the root transaction comprises a human-readable prefix. (0010-0015, 0047, 0049, 0079-0080)
Claim 12:
Ali further discloses:
a processor; and memory including executable instructions that, as a result of execution by the processor, causes the system to perform any embodiment of the computer-implemented method as claimed in any of claims 1 to 11. (Claim 11)
Claim 13:
Ali further discloses:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon executable instructions that, as a result of being executed by a processor of a computer system, cause the computer system to at least perform an embodiment of the method as claimed in any of claims 1 to 11. (Claim 21)
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ali in view of US 2017/0193464 A1 (“Sher”).
Claim 2:
Ali does not disclose:
the at least one attribute is null.
Sher, an analogous art of blockchain transactions, discloses:
the at least one attribute is null. (0032, 0042, 0048, 0052, 0058, 0062-0063, 0075; Fig.7B lines 66-75, 84-87, 93; Fig.7C lines 132-133, 145; Fig.7D lines 197-198, 204; Fig.7E lines 212-213)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the at least one attribute of Ali to include the at least one attribute is null, as disclosed in Sher. One or ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to improve security, efficiency, and usability (See Sher, 0001-0014).
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2017/0005804 A1 (“Zinder”) discloses: An electronic resource tracking and storage computer system is provided that communicates with a distributed blockchain computing system that includes multiple computing nodes. The system includes a storage system, a transceiver, and a processing system. The storage system includes an resource repository and transaction repository that stores submitted blockchain transactions. A new resource issuance request is received, and a new resource is added to the resource repository in response. A new blockchain transaction is generated and published to the blockchain. In correspondence with publishing to the blockchain, the transaction storage is updated with information that makes up the blockchain transaction and some information that was not included as part of the blockchain transaction. The transaction storage is updated when the blockchain is determined to have validated the previously submitted blockchain transaction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ari Shahabi whose telephone number is (571)272-2565. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00.
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 W 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.
/ARI SHAHABI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights