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 .
This communication is in response to the application filed on 06/23/2025. Claims 1-19 are currently pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/23/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-19 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claim 1recites the limitation "at least some of the plurality of off-chain attributes" in lines 7-8, and 10-11. It is not clear whether applicant is referring to the same “at least some of the plurality of off-chain attributes” in both cases. Independent claim 14 recites similar limitation in lines 11 and 14. Other claims are rejected due to dependency on either claim 1 or 14.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 10, 14-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US. PGPub. No. 20250173721 to Wu et al. (hereinafter Wu.) in view of US. PGPub. No. 20220376889 to KAIZER et al. (hereinafter KAIZER)
Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses a computer-implemented method for performing authentication of blockchain addresses (abstract, “…The custodial token platform may broadcast a second message configured to store a mapping of an identifier for the attestation record and a self-custody blockchain address associated with the user profile.”), (¶0091, “…the custodial token platform 110 may generate the verification message to determine whether the user is the owner of the self-custody blockchain address. That is, at 620, the custodial token platform 110 may verify the verification message which, if the user is the owner of the self-custody blockchain address, may be signed via a private key associated with the self-custody blockchain address.”), comprising:
storing, by an identification service blockchain of an identification service, a relational link between (i) a blockchain address and (ii) a plurality of off-chain attributes that pertain to an owner of the blockchain address (¶0108, “…The attribute verification component 730 may be configured as or otherwise support a means for verifying, after receiving the request, that the user profile is associated with a set of attributes for the requested attestation record. The attestation record component 735 may be configured as or otherwise support a means for broadcasting, after verifying that the user profile is associated with the set of attributes, a first message that is configured to generate the attestation record via a blockchain network, wherein the first message is signed using a key associated with the custodial token platform. The identifier component 740 may be configured as or otherwise support a means for broadcasting a second message that is configured to store a mapping of an identifier for the attestation record and a self-custody blockchain address associated with the user profile.”), (¶0094, “the custodial token platform 110 may verify a set of attributes. For example, the custodial token platform 110 may check that the user profile is associated with the set of attributes for the attestation record requested at 625. In some examples, at 635, the custodial token platform 110 may access an off-chain database in order to determine whether the user is associated with the set of attributes. The off-chain database may include data associated with the user profile used to register the user on the custodial token platform 110, such as information verifying an identity of the user.”);
receiving, by the identification service and from a transaction blockchain that includes the blockchain address, an attribute query for attribute data corresponding to at least some of the plurality of off-chain attributes that pertain to the owner of the blockchain address (¶0044, “…in some examples, the Dapp 245 may leverage the indexing contract 240 to identify whether the user profile is associated with a human user (e.g., as opposed to a bot).”), (¶0046-¶0047, “…As an example, the external service 260 may query the custodial token platform 110 about an attribute of a user, such as a geographic location. The custodial token platform 110 may access the self-executing program 225 and respond to the query with an indication of whether the user is at the geographic location (e.g., “true” or “false”), an indication of an attribute of the user (e.g., a country code in the example of a geographic location), or if the custodial token platform 110 does not have the information to answer the query. For example, the external service 260 may query the custodial token platform 110 regarding the user's geographic location, and the custodial token platform 110 may return an attestation record that indicates the country (e.g., the attestation includes a country code for the user).”);
in response to receiving the attribute query, retrieving, from the identification service blockchain, the attribute data corresponding to at least some of the plurality of off-chain attributes (¶0047, “…For example, the external service 260 may query the custodial token platform 110 regarding the user's geographic location, and the custodial token platform 110 may return an attestation record that indicates the country (e.g., the attestation includes a country code for the user).”), (¶0037, “The custodial token platform 110 may retrieve stored information associated with the user profile to determine whether the user meets one or more criteria for the attestation. For example, the custodial token platform 110 may include an eligibility service which evaluates whether the user is eligible for the requested attestation. That is, the custodial token platform 110 (e.g., or the eligibility service of the custodial token platform) may determine whether the user meets the criteria for the attestation and move forward with generating the attestation record via the blockchain network 105 accordingly…”), (¶0044, “… the Dapp 245 may query the indexing contract 240 via the SDK to retrieve associated attestations for an address (e.g., a wallet address) associated with the user or the user profile….”); and
However, Wu does not explicitly disclose the following limitation:
providing, by the identification service and to the transaction blockchain that includes the blockchain address, an attribute response that includes the attribute data corresponding to at least some of the plurality of off-chain attributes.
KAIZER discloses providing, by the identification service and to the transaction blockchain that includes the blockchain address, an attribute response that includes the attribute data corresponding to at least some of the plurality of off-chain attributes (¶0057, “… Blockchain directory stakeholder 108 may perform such an update 122 by passing the top-level domain name(s) over which it has registration authority and the blockchain address of the signature verification program 106 to the name services program, which updates a record of the association.”), (¶0062-¶0063, “…The proof of blockchain address ownership may be passed to registrar 104 to be validated, after registrar 104 receives a message from registrant 202 specifying a domain name and blockchain address and requesting association of the specified domain with as the user's specified existing blockchain address. To validate the proof of blockchain address ownership at that point, registry 102 may verify the signature using the public key of the user's blockchain key pair and check whether the specified blockchain address in the message matches the blockchain address that is signed in the proof….”), (¶0228, “Embodiments disclosed in this subsection may have the added benefit of enabling secure two-factor identification by consulting the blockchain for a given user's address to fetch additional factors for use to verify its identity. For example, if a given address on a blockchain has an attached phone number or email address, those could be consulted on chain as a source to send a message to, to confirm proof of address ownership.”, wherein the phone number and the email address are off-chain attributes.).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify the method of Wu to include providing, by the identification service and to the transaction blockchain that includes the blockchain address, an attribute response that includes the attribute data corresponding to at least some of the plurality of off-chain attributes as disclosed by KAIZER and be motivated in doing so provide additional verification factors to be used to confirm proof of blockchain address ownership-KAIZER ¶0228 in parts.
Regarding claim 14, Wu discloses a computer system for performing authentication of blockchain addresses (abstract, “…The custodial token platform may broadcast a second message configured to store a mapping of an identifier for the attestation record and a self-custody blockchain address associated with the user profile.”), (¶0091, “…the custodial token platform 110 may generate the verification message to determine whether the user is the owner of the self-custody blockchain address. That is, at 620, the custodial token platform 110 may verify the verification message which, if the user is the owner of the self-custody blockchain address, may be signed via a private key associated with the self-custody blockchain address.”), comprising:
one or more data processing apparatuses of an identification service, the one or more data processing apparatuses comprising one or more processors, memory, and storage devices storing instructions that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform operations (¶0143, “An apparatus for data management is described. The apparatus may include one or more memories storing processor executable code, and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories. The one or more processors may individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the apparatus to receive, at a custodial token platform and from a client application on a user device,…”) comprising:
storing, by an identification service blockchain of the identification service, a relational link between (i) a blockchain address and (ii) a plurality of off-chain attributes that pertain to an owner of the blockchain address (¶0108, “…The attribute verification component 730 may be configured as or otherwise support a means for verifying, after receiving the request, that the user profile is associated with a set of attributes for the requested attestation record. The attestation record component 735 may be configured as or otherwise support a means for broadcasting, after verifying that the user profile is associated with the set of attributes, a first message that is configured to generate the attestation record via a blockchain network, wherein the first message is signed using a key associated with the custodial token platform. The identifier component 740 may be configured as or otherwise support a means for broadcasting a second message that is configured to store a mapping of an identifier for the attestation record and a self-custody blockchain address associated with the user profile.”), (¶0094, “the custodial token platform 110 may verify a set of attributes. For example, the custodial token platform 110 may check that the user profile is associated with the set of attributes for the attestation record requested at 625. In some examples, at 635, the custodial token platform 110 may access an off-chain database in order to determine whether the user is associated with the set of attributes. The off-chain database may include data associated with the user profile used to register the user on the custodial token platform 110, such as information verifying an identity of the user.”);
receiving, by the identification service and from a transaction blockchain that includes the blockchain address, an attribute query for attribute data corresponding to at least some of the plurality of off-chain attributes that pertain to the owner of the blockchain address (¶0044, “…in some examples, the Dapp 245 may leverage the indexing contract 240 to identify whether the user profile is associated with a human user (e.g., as opposed to a bot).”), (¶0046-¶0047, “…As an example, the external service 260 may query the custodial token platform 110 about an attribute of a user, such as a geographic location. The custodial token platform 110 may access the self-executing program 225 and respond to the query with an indication of whether the user is at the geographic location (e.g., “true” or “false”), an indication of an attribute of the user (e.g., a country code in the example of a geographic location), or if the custodial token platform 110 does not have the information to answer the query. For example, the external service 260 may query the custodial token platform 110 regarding the user's geographic location, and the custodial token platform 110 may return an attestation record that indicates the country (e.g., the attestation includes a country code for the user).”);
in response to receiving the attribute query, retrieving, from the identification service blockchain, the attribute data corresponding to at least some of the plurality of off-chain attributes (¶0047, “…For example, the external service 260 may query the custodial token platform 110 regarding the user's geographic location, and the custodial token platform 110 may return an attestation record that indicates the country (e.g., the attestation includes a country code for the user).”), (¶0037, “The custodial token platform 110 may retrieve stored information associated with the user profile to determine whether the user meets one or more criteria for the attestation. For example, the custodial token platform 110 may include an eligibility service which evaluates whether the user is eligible for the requested attestation. That is, the custodial token platform 110 (e.g., or the eligibility service of the custodial token platform) may determine whether the user meets the criteria for the attestation and move forward with generating the attestation record via the blockchain network 105 accordingly…”), (¶0044, “… the Dapp 245 may query the indexing contract 240 via the SDK to retrieve associated attestations for an address (e.g., a wallet address) associated with the user or the user profile….”); and
However, Wu does not explicitly disclose the following limitation:
providing, by the identification service and to the transaction blockchain that includes the blockchain address, an attribute response that includes the attribute data corresponding to at least some of the plurality of off-chain attributes.
KAIZER discloses providing, by the identification service and to the transaction blockchain that includes the blockchain address, an attribute response that includes the attribute data corresponding to at least some of the plurality of off-chain attributes (¶0057, “… Blockchain directory stakeholder 108 may perform such an update 122 by passing the top-level domain name(s) over which it has registration authority and the blockchain address of the signature verification program 106 to the name services program, which updates a record of the association.”), (¶0062-¶0063, “…The proof of blockchain address ownership may be passed to registrar 104 to be validated, after registrar 104 receives a message from registrant 202 specifying a domain name and blockchain address and requesting association of the specified domain with as the user's specified existing blockchain address. To validate the proof of blockchain address ownership at that point, registry 102 may verify the signature using the public key of the user's blockchain key pair and check whether the specified blockchain address in the message matches the blockchain address that is signed in the proof….”), (¶0228, “Embodiments disclosed in this subsection may have the added benefit of enabling secure two-factor identification by consulting the blockchain for a given user's address to fetch additional factors for use to verify its identity. For example, if a given address on a blockchain has an attached phone number or email address, those could be consulted on chain as a source to send a message to, to confirm proof of address ownership.”, wherein the phone number and the email address are off-chain attributes.).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify the method of Wu to include providing, by the identification service and to the transaction blockchain that includes the blockchain address, an attribute response that includes the attribute data corresponding to at least some of the plurality of off-chain attributes as disclosed by KAIZER and be motivated in doing so provide additional verification factors to be used to confirm proof of blockchain address ownership-KAIZER ¶0228 in parts.
Regarding claim 2, WU in view of KAIZER discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1.
Wu further discloses further comprising: verifying an off-chain identity of the owner of the blockchain address (¶0094, “In some examples, at 635, the custodial token platform 110 may access an off-chain database in order to determine whether the user is associated with the set of attributes…”), (¶0108, “…The attestation record component 735 may be configured as or otherwise support a means for broadcasting, after verifying that the user profile is associated with the set of attributes, a first message that is configured to generate the attestation record via a blockchain network, wherein the first message is signed using a key associated with the custodial token platform. The identifier component 740 may be configured as or otherwise support a means for broadcasting a second message that is configured to store a mapping of an identifier for the attestation record and a self-custody blockchain address associated with the user profile.”);
verifying the plurality of off-chain attributes that pertain to the owner of the blockchain address (¶0094, “At 630, the custodial token platform 110 may verify a set of attributes. For example, the custodial token platform 110 may check that the user profile is associated with the set of attributes for the attestation record requested at 625. In some examples, at 635, the custodial token platform 110 may access an off-chain database in order to determine whether the user is associated with the set of attributes. The off-chain database may include data associated with the user profile used to register the user on the custodial token platform 110, such as information verifying an identity of the user.”), (¶0090, “At 610, the custodial token platform 110 may receive a user input from the client application 205. The user input may indicate a self-custody blockchain address. That is, prior to generating attestation records for the user, the custodial token platform 110 may verify that the user is the owner of the self-custody blockchain address. In some examples, the user input indicating the self-custody blockchain address may be an example of associating an existing wallet of the user with the client application 205.”); and
verifying that the owner of the blockchain address owns the blockchain address (¶0090-¶0091, “… the custodial token platform 110 may generate the verification message to determine whether the user is the owner of the self-custody blockchain address. That is, at 620, the custodial token platform 110 may verify the verification message which, if the user is the owner of the self-custody blockchain address, may be signed via a private key associated with the self-custody blockchain address.”).
Regarding claim 15, Wu in view of KAIZER discloses the computer system of claim 14.
Wu further discloses further comprising: verifying an off-chain identity of the owner of the blockchain address (¶0094, “In some examples, at 635, the custodial token platform 110 may access an off-chain database in order to determine whether the user is associated with the set of attributes…”), (¶0108, “…The attestation record component 735 may be configured as or otherwise support a means for broadcasting, after verifying that the user profile is associated with the set of attributes, a first message that is configured to generate the attestation record via a blockchain network, wherein the first message is signed using a key associated with the custodial token platform. The identifier component 740 may be configured as or otherwise support a means for broadcasting a second message that is configured to store a mapping of an identifier for the attestation record and a self-custody blockchain address associated with the user profile.”);
verifying the plurality of off-chain attributes that pertain to the owner of the blockchain address (¶0094, “At 630, the custodial token platform 110 may verify a set of attributes. For example, the custodial token platform 110 may check that the user profile is associated with the set of attributes for the attestation record requested at 625. In some examples, at 635, the custodial token platform 110 may access an off-chain database in order to determine whether the user is associated with the set of attributes. The off-chain database may include data associated with the user profile used to register the user on the custodial token platform 110, such as information verifying an identity of the user.”), (¶0090, “At 610, the custodial token platform 110 may receive a user input from the client application 205. The user input may indicate a self-custody blockchain address. That is, prior to generating attestation records for the user, the custodial token platform 110 may verify that the user is the owner of the self-custody blockchain address. In some examples, the user input indicating the self-custody blockchain address may be an example of associating an existing wallet of the user with the client application 205.”); and
verifying that the owner of the blockchain address owns the blockchain address (¶0090-¶0091, “… the custodial token platform 110 may generate the verification message to determine whether the user is the owner of the self-custody blockchain address. That is, at 620, the custodial token platform 110 may verify the verification message which, if the user is the owner of the self-custody blockchain address, may be signed via a private key associated with the self-custody blockchain address.”).
Regarding claim 3, WU in view of KAIZER discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 2.
Wu further discloses wherein verifying the off-chain identity of the owner of the blockchain address and verifying the plurality of off-chain attributes that pertain to the owner of the blockchain address is based on a presentation of a form of identification by the owner of the blockchain address to the identification service (¶0090, “At 610, the custodial token platform 110 may receive a user input from the client application 205. The user input may indicate a self-custody blockchain address. That is, prior to generating attestation records for the user, the custodial token platform 110 may verify that the user is the owner of the self-custody blockchain address. In some examples, the user input indicating the self-custody blockchain address may be an example of associating an existing wallet of the user with the client application 205.”, wherein the user input may indicate a self-custody blockchain address is a form of identification), (¶0113, “… the address verification component 855 may be configured as or otherwise support a means for verifying that the verification message is signed by a private key associated with the self-custody blockchain address, wherein the user profile is verified after verifying that the verification message is signed by the key.”), see also ¶0046 about user account information which is also a real world identification link for the owner of a blockchain address.
Regarding claim 10, WU in view of KAIZER discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1.
Wu further discloses further comprising: publishing, by the identification service, a set of enumerated attributes that are available for querying (¶0046, “an external service 260 may send a query 265 the custodial token platform 110. For example, the external service 260 may send the query 265 to determine whether a user account is associated with a criteria and/or has one or more attestation records. In other words, the external service 260 may query the custodial token platform 110 for information about a user account…. Additionally, or alternatively, the custodial token platform 110 may leverage attestations issued by external services (e.g., third parties) to respond to the query. In other words, the custodial token platform 110 may access attestation records associated with a wallet address of a user account which were not issued by the custodial token platform 110 to respond to the query.”, wherein attestations issued by external services (a third party) indicates that the user attributes/account information has been published ); and
wherein the attribute query received from the transaction blockchain includes a request for confirmation of whether an attribute value of the owner of the blockchain address corresponds to an enumerated attribute value represented in the attribute query (¶0054, “the custodial token platform may access a user database having information about the user account to determine whether the user is eligible for the attestation. Or, in some other examples, the custodial token platform may query another internal or external database (e.g., not associated with the custodial token platform) to verify whether the user is associated with the one or more criteria. That is, the custodial token platform may access public records and/or publicly available data sources (e.g., outside of the user database and/or the user profile). Example external sources may include a United Nations (UN) sanctions list, a United States (US) sanctions list, public social media information (e.g., Tweets, Reddit posts), credit information (from credit rating providers), property records, etc”), (¶0093-¶0095, FIG. 6, “… At 630, the custodial token platform 110 may verify a set of attributes. For example, the custodial token platform 110 may check that the user profile is associated with the set of attributes for the attestation record requested at 625. In some examples, at 635, the custodial token platform 110 may access an off-chain database in order to determine whether the user is associated with the set of attributes. The off-chain database may include data associated with the user profile used to register the user on the custodial token platform 110, such as information verifying an identity of the user….”), (¶0108, “The attribute verification component 730 may be configured as or otherwise support a means for verifying, after receiving the request, that the user profile is associated with a set of attributes for the requested attestation record. The attestation record component 735 may be configured as or otherwise support a means for broadcasting, after verifying that the user profile is associated with the set of attributes, a first message that is configured to generate the attestation record via a blockchain network, wherein the first message is signed using a key associated with the custodial token platform. The identifier component 740 may be configured as or otherwise support a means for broadcasting a second message that is configured to store a mapping of an identifier for the attestation record and a self-custody blockchain address associated with the user profile.”), (¶0118, “to support broadcasting the first message, the attestation record component 835 may be configured as or otherwise support a means for broadcasting the first message that is configured to call a schema, for the attestation record, that is stored in a self-executing program on the blockchain network, wherein the first message includes values that are to be included in fields defined by the schema”), (¶0090-¶0094, “…That is, prior to generating attestation records for the user, the custodial token platform 110 may verify that the user is the owner of the self-custody blockchain address. In some examples, the user input indicating the self-custody blockchain address may be an example of associating an existing wallet of the user with the client application 205…”).
Regarding claim 17, WU in view of KAIZER discloses the computer system of claim 14.
Wu further discloses the operations further comprising: publishing, by the identification service, a set of enumerated attributes that are available for querying (¶0046, “an external service 260 may send a query 265 the custodial token platform 110. For example, the external service 260 may send the query 265 to determine whether a user account is associated with a criteria and/or has one or more attestation records. In other words, the external service 260 may query the custodial token platform 110 for information about a user account…. Additionally, or alternatively, the custodial token platform 110 may leverage attestations issued by external services (e.g., third parties) to respond to the query. In other words, the custodial token platform 110 may access attestation records associated with a wallet address of a user account which were not issued by the custodial token platform 110 to respond to the query.”, wherein attestations issued by external services (a third party) indicates that the user attributes/account information has been published ); and
wherein the attribute query received from the transaction blockchain includes a request for confirmation of whether an attribute value of the owner of the blockchain address corresponds to an enumerated attribute value represented in the attribute query (¶0054, “the custodial token platform may access a user database having information about the user account to determine whether the user is eligible for the attestation. Or, in some other examples, the custodial token platform may query another internal or external database (e.g., not associated with the custodial token platform) to verify whether the user is associated with the one or more criteria. That is, the custodial token platform may access public records and/or publicly available data sources (e.g., outside of the user database and/or the user profile). Example external sources may include a United Nations (UN) sanctions list, a United States (US) sanctions list, public social media information (e.g., Tweets, Reddit posts), credit information (from credit rating providers), property records, etc”), (¶0093-¶0095, FIG. 6, “… At 630, the custodial token platform 110 may verify a set of attributes. For example, the custodial token platform 110 may check that the user profile is associated with the set of attributes for the attestation record requested at 625. In some examples, at 635, the custodial token platform 110 may access an off-chain database in order to determine whether the user is associated with the set of attributes. The off-chain database may include data associated with the user profile used to register the user on the custodial token platform 110, such as information verifying an identity of the user….”), (¶0108, “The attribute verification component 730 may be configured as or otherwise support a means for verifying, after receiving the request, that the user profile is associated with a set of attributes for the requested attestation record. The attestation record component 735 may be configured as or otherwise support a means for broadcasting, after verifying that the user profile is associated with the set of attributes, a first message that is configured to generate the attestation record via a blockchain network, wherein the first message is signed using a key associated with the custodial token platform. The identifier component 740 may be configured as or otherwise support a means for broadcasting a second message that is configured to store a mapping of an identifier for the attestation record and a self-custody blockchain address associated with the user profile.”), (¶0118, “to support broadcasting the first message, the attestation record component 835 may be configured as or otherwise support a means for broadcasting the first message that is configured to call a schema, for the attestation record, that is stored in a self-executing program on the blockchain network, wherein the first message includes values that are to be included in fields defined by the schema”), (¶0090-¶0094, “…That is, prior to generating attestation records for the user, the custodial token platform 110 may verify that the user is the owner of the self-custody blockchain address. In some examples, the user input indicating the self-custody blockchain address may be an example of associating an existing wallet of the user with the client application 205…”).
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US. PGPub. No. 20250173721 to Wu et al. (hereinafter Wu.) in view of US. PGPub. No. 20220376889 to KAIZER et al. (hereinafter KAIZER) and further in view of US. PGPub. No. 20230289410 to Shulman; Steven (hereinafter Shulman).
Regarding claim 4, WU in view of KAIZER discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 2.
Wu further discloses wherein verifying that the owner of the blockchain address owns the blockchain address comprises: receiving a message that has been signed using a private key that is under the control of the owner of the blockchain address (¶0091, “At 615, the custodial token platform 110 may generate a verification message. For example, the custodial token platform 110 may generate the verification message to determine whether the user is the owner of the self-custody blockchain address. That is, at 620, the custodial token platform 110 may verify the verification message which, if the user is the owner of the self-custody blockchain address, may be signed via a private key associated with the self-custody blockchain address.”), (¶0113, “… the verification message component 850 may be configured as or otherwise support a means for generating, after receiving the request, a verification message to be signed via the self-custody blockchain address. In some examples, the address verification component 855 may be configured as or otherwise support a means for verifying that the verification message is signed by a private key associated with the self-custody blockchain address, wherein the user profile is verified after verifying that the verification message is signed by the key.”); and
However, Wu in view of KAIZER does not explicitly disclose the following limitation:
determining that the private key corresponds to the blockchain address by decrypting the signed message with a public key of the blockchain address.
Shulman discloses determining that the private key corresponds to the blockchain address by decrypting the signed message with a public key of the blockchain address (¶0003, “…The next step involves the verifier decrypting the message using the public key. In many cases the public key is the public wallet identifier itself. Owing to the fundamental cryptographic principles which underly nearly all blockchain technology, if the decryption process is successful, the verifier will know that the owner is in possession of the private key and is indeed the owner of the NFT but will not need to access the private key to do so.”), (¶0042, “…The blockchain shell system 212 can then decrypt the message using the public key and, assuming the private key really was available to owner device 511, the ownership of the NFT will have been verified by the blockchain shell system 212. The blockchain shell system 212 can then generate or obtain an ownership identifier for the owner and store it in association with an NFT identifier for the NFT.”), (¶0047, “…Upon receiving the response and decrypting it using the public wallet identifier or public key, the server 111 can verify ownership of the NFT and return ownership verification data to the dedicated verifier device 611.”).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify the method of Wu and KAIZER to include decrypting the signed message with a public key of the blockchain address as disclosed by Shulman and be motivated in doing so in order to confirm the authenticity, integrity, and origin of data linked to a specific blockchain address.
Regarding claim 11, WU in view of KAIZER discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 10.
However, Wu in view of KAIZER does not explicitly disclose the following limitation
wherein the attribute response is a binary value that indicates whether the attribute value of the owner of the blockchain address corresponds to the enumerated attribute value represented in the attribute query.
Shulman discloses wherein the attribute response is a binary value that indicates whether the attribute value of the owner of the blockchain address corresponds to the enumerated attribute value represented in the attribute query (¶0048, “… As shown in block diagram 710, upon receiving an NFT owner identifier and an NFT identifier 711, server 111 can run a database access 712 of database 713 using either value as a key and verify that the identified NFT is owned by the identified owner. The ownership verification data that is returned can include a binary indication that ownership was verified or could include additional data such as personal identification information 715 that can be used to allow a verifier to confirm that the person that provided NFT owner identifier is the true recorded owner of the NFT…”), see also ¶0030 regarding ownership verification data to be a binary output.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify the method of Wu and KAIZER in claim 10 to include wherein the attribute response is a binary value as disclosed by Shulman and be motivated in doing so in order to in order to prevent malicious actors from havesting the owner full profiles PII if there is a breach.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US. PGPub. No. 20250173721 to Wu et al. (hereinafter Wu.) in view of US. PGPub. No. 20220376889 to KAIZER et al. (hereinafter KAIZER) and further in view of US. PGPub. No. 20200013026 to NOONNAN et al. (hereinafter NOONNAN).
Regarding claim 5, WU in view of KAIZER discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 2.
However, Wu in view of KAIZER does not explicitly disclose the following limitation:
wherein verifying that the owner of the blockchain address owns the blockchain address comprises: witnessing, by the identification service, that a transaction has been signed by the owner of the blockchain address using a private key that corresponds to the blockchain address; and witnessing, by the identification service, that the transaction blockchain that includes the blockchain address has confirmed the transaction.
NOONNAN discloses witnessing, by the identification service, that a transaction has been signed by the owner of the blockchain address using a private key that corresponds to the blockchain address (¶0049, “System 100 may also include servers 110 associated with an entity 112. The entity 112 may be a company, an individual, or any other legal entity with an identity that can be authenticated by servers 108. For example, a CA can verify a name, mailing address, Internet domain name, and Bitcoin address of an entity. Optionally, and also for example, a CA can establish ownership of a blockchain identifier (e.g., a Bitcoin address) by requiring an entity to prove ownership of a private key corresponding to the blockchain identifier (e.g., by providing a digital signature constructed using a private key corresponding to a Bitcoin address).”), (¶0048, “The certification service may also provide authentication using asymmetric cryptography (e.g., public-key cryptography using public/private key pairs) to establish the source of, or an entity's association with, data or transactions (e.g., by witnessing or authorizing a digital signature or transaction).”); and
witnessing, by the identification service, that the transaction blockchain that includes the blockchain address has confirmed the transaction (¶0023, “…, each node having a blockchain address, wherein a first node of the plurality of nodes has a first blockchain address associated with a transaction. A certification certificate is requested from a certification server, the certification certificate comprising one or more fields to verify the identity of an entity associated with the transaction and having an address field containing a certified address. The entity associated with the transaction is verified by determining that the certified address matches the first blockchain address.”), (¶0075, “…Thus, certification certificate 300 can provide assurances that the entity listed in the certification certificate 300 is really the entity that is involved in the blockchain transaction associated with verified attribute 302.”), (¶0079, “…the wallet can also verify the certificate in the QR code by, for example, requesting that servers 108 authenticate the certification certificate contained in the QR code, for example. The wallet can then engage in a transaction with the address with confidence that they are conducting transactions with the verified entity.”), (¶0091, FIG. 5, “…The certification certificate can then be sent to the transferor of funds which can, in step 514, verify, through the certification certificate, that the address provided is indeed an address associated with the first party. In step 516, the transfer of funds can be initiated.”). see also ¶0094, FIG. 6.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify the method of Wu and KAIZER to include discloses witnessing, by the identification service, that a transaction has been signed by the owner of the blockchain address using a private key that corresponds to the blockchain address as disclosed by NOONAN and be motivated in doing so in order that the owner that signed the transaction can no longer deny the transaction.
Regarding claim 6, WU in view of KAIZER and further in view of NOONNAN discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 5.
Wu further discloses wherein the transaction is signed using a cryptocurrency wallet of the owner of the blockchain address (¶0025, “…A key management service (e.g., a key manager) of the custodial token platform 110 may create, manage, or otherwise use private keys that are associated with user wallets and internal wallets. For example, if a user wishes to withdraw a token associated with the user account to an external wallet address, key manager 180 may sign a transaction associated with a wallet of the user, and broadcast the signed transaction to nodes 145 of the blockchain network 105, as described herein.”).
Regarding claim 7, WU in view of KAIZER and further in view of NOONNAN discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 5.
Wu further discloses wherein witnessing that the transaction blockchain that includes the blockchain address has confirmed the transaction comprises monitoring a blockchain explorer of the transaction blockchain (¶0041, “…The indexing contract 240 may be an example of a data contract which stores a mapping of an attester, a recipient, a schema, and/or an attestation identifier. In some examples, the indexing contract 240 may verify the attestation in the registry contract 230 (e.g., ensure that the attestation exists) before indexing the mapping. The indexing contract 240 may include manually indexed attestations (e.g., backfilled attestations).”), (¶0049-¶0052, “A user interface may display multiple content items to support on-chain attestations as described herein. The user interface flow 300 includes an example of the user interface where the multiple content items may be displayed to enable a user to request an on-chain attestation from a custodial token platform, such as the custodial token platform 110 as described with reference to FIG. 1 and FIG. 2….”).
Claims 8-9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US. PGPub. No. 20250173721 to Wu et al. (hereinafter Wu.) in view of US. PGPub. No. 20220376889 to KAIZER et al. (hereinafter KAIZER) and further in view of US. PGPub. No. 20230073337 to Chan et al. (hereinafter Chan).
Regarding claim 8, WU in view of KAIZER discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1.
However, Wu in view of KAIZER does not explicitly disclose the following limitation:
wherein receiving the attribute query and providing the attribute response is performed using a cross-chain messaging protocol of the identification service.
Chan discloses wherein receiving the attribute query and providing the attribute response is performed using a cross-chain messaging protocol of the identification service (¶0022, “Blockchain bridges enable interoperability between different blockchain networks, such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, etc., and between parent blockchains and child blockchains (e.g., sidechains), which may operate under different protocols, consensus rules, cryptographic suites, etc. Interoperability between blockchain networks may include the transfer/exchange of tokens, data, and smart contract instructions between the blockchain networks. For example, blockchain bridges may allow users to deploy digital assets hosted on one blockchain network to decentralized applications (dApps) on another blockchain network,…”, wherein interoperability between different blockchain networks, such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, etc., and between parent blockchains and child blockchains (e.g., sidechains is achieved and facilitated by a cross-chain interoperability protocol ), see also ¶0151.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify the method of Wu and KAIZER to include a cross-chain messaging protocol as disclosed by Chan and be motivated in doing so in order for two or more blockchain networks involved in the transaction to reach an agreement with regard to how the transaction will be processed on their respective blockchain networks-Chan ¶0023 in parts.
Regarding claim 16, Wu in view of KAIZER discloses the computer system of claim 14.
However, Wu in view of KAIZER does not explicitly disclose the following limitation:
wherein receiving the attribute query and providing the attribute response is performed using a cross-chain messaging protocol of the identification service.
Chan discloses wherein receiving the attribute query and providing the attribute response is performed using a cross-chain messaging protocol of the identification service (¶0022, “Blockchain bridges enable interoperability between different blockchain networks, such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, etc., and between parent blockchains and child blockchains (e.g., sidechains), which may operate under different protocols, consensus rules, cryptographic suites, etc. Interoperability between blockchain networks may include the transfer/exchange of tokens, data, and smart contract instructions between the blockchain networks. For example, blockchain bridges may allow users to deploy digital assets hosted on one blockchain network to decentralized applications (dApps) on another blockchain network,…”, wherein interoperability between different blockchain networks, such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, etc., and between parent blockchains and child blockchains (e.g., sidechains is achieved and facilitated by a cross-chain interoperability protocol ), see also ¶0151.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify the method of Wu and KAIZER to include a cross-chain messaging protocol as disclosed by Chan and be motivated in doing so in order for two or more blockchain networks involved in the transaction to reach an agreement with regard to how the transaction will be processed on their respective blockchain networks-Chan ¶0023 in parts.
Regarding claim 9, WU in view of KAIZER and further in view of Chan discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 8.
Chan further discloses wherein the cross-chain messaging protocol comprises:
providing, to the transaction blockchain, a public key of the identification service (¶0046, “The transaction 465 may include a public key 415, a blockchain address 430 associated with the first user 110, a digital signature 455, and transaction output information 460. The transaction application may derive a public key 415 from a private key 405 of the first user 110 by applying a cryptographic hash function 410 to the private key 405…”), see also ¶0054; and
signing, by one or more nodes of the identification service blockchain, the attribute response, such that the transaction blockchain is enabled to cryptographically prove that the attribute response is from the identification service using the public key of the identification service (¶0054, “…the node 205 may verify whether the transaction 502 is legal or conforms to a pre-defined set of rules. The node 205 may also validate the transaction 502 based on establishing user authenticity and transaction data integrity. User authenticity may be established by determining whether the sender indicated by the transaction 502 is in fact the actual originator of the transaction 502. User authenticity may be proven via cryptography, for example, asymmetric-key cryptography using a pair of keys, such as a public key and a private key…”).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify the method of Wu and KAIZER to include cryptographically prove that the attribute response is from the identification service using the public key of the identification service as disclosed by Chan and be motivated in doing so in order to prevent tampering and preserve the integrity of the inter-blockchains transactions.
Claims 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US. PGPub. No. 20250173721 to Wu et al. (hereinafter Wu.) in view of US. PGPub. No. 20220376889 to KAIZER et al. (hereinafter KAIZER) and further in view of US. PGPub. No. 20070208778 to ALTOUNIAN et al. (hereinafter ALTOUNIAN).
Regarding claim 12, WU in view of KAIZER discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1.
Wu further discloses further comprising: logging, by the identification service, data that represents a received attribute query and a corresponding attribute response (¶0046-¶0047, “an external service 260 may send a query 265 the custodial token platform 110. For example, the external service 260 may send the query 265 to determine whether a user account is associated with a criteria and/or has one or more attestation records. In other words, the external service 260 may query the custodial token platform 110 for information about a user account. In some examples, the custodial token platform 110 may respond to the query 265 indicating whether the criteria is satisfied and/or the attestation records exist without revealing information, such as personally identifiable information (PII), about the user. For example, the custodial token platform 110 may access the self-executing program 225 to determine the status of an attestation (e.g., whether an attestation has been revoked, expired, etc.) and respond to the query 265. Additionally, or alternatively, the custodial token platform 110 may leverage attestations issued by external services (e.g., third parties) to respond to the query. In other words, the custodial token platform 110 may access attestation records associated with a wallet address of a user account which were not issued by the custodial token platform 110 to respond to the query… the external service 260 may query the custodial token platform 110 about an attribute of a user, such as a geographic location. The custodial token platform 110 may access the self-executing program 225 and respond to the query with an indication of whether the user is at the geographic location (e.g., “true” or “false”), an indication of an attribute of the user (e.g., a country code in the example of a geographic location), or if the custodial token platform 110 does not have the information to answer the query. For example, the external service 260 may query the custodial token platform 110 regarding the user's geographic location, and the custodial token platform 110 may return an attestation record that indicates the country (e.g., the attestation includes a country code for the user”, wherein an attestation record is a log);
However, Wu in view of KAIZER does not explicitly disclose the following limitation:
receiving, by the identification service and from a requestor device, a request for attribute query/response log data; and
in response to receiving the request for attribute query/response log data, (i) retrieving, from the identification service blockchain, query/response log data that corresponds to the request, and (ii) providing to the retrieved query/response log data to the requestor device.
ALTOUNIAN discloses receiving, by the identification service and from a requestor device, a request for attribute query/response log data (¶0069, “The Web/XML interface module 96 receives the HTTP request 102 and processes therefrom the data item record request 102. The data item record request 102 is based upon the input of the user via the user terminal 76. Examples of a data item record request include a query to the item data management server 24, a query response, data input regarding a physical item, a command for additional information, et cetera.”);
in response to receiving the request for attribute query/response log data, (i) retrieving, from the identification service blockchain, query/response log data that corresponds to the request (¶0070, “The command engine 98 receives the data item record request 102, and with the data item record command 104, accesses the database systems 100 and retrieves response data 108. The command engine 98 provides a response command to the Web/XML interface module 96….”), and (ii) providing to the retrieved query/response log data to the requestor device (¶0070, “…The command engine 98 provides a response command to the Web/XML interface module 96. The Web/XML interface module sends a web page response 94. The browser engine 90, processes the web page response 94, and presents a web page 88 to the GUI 84 for interaction with a user via the user terminal 76.”).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify the method of Wu and KAIZER to include a request for attribute query/response log data and providing to the retrieved query/response log data to the requestor device as disclosed by ALTOUNIAN and be motivated in doing so in order to have immediate access to the most current system information and ensure consistent data parsing.
Regarding claim 18, WU in view of KAIZER discloses the computer system of claim 14.
Wu further discloses the operation further comprising:
logging, by the identification service, data that represents a received attribute query and a corresponding attribute response (¶0046-¶0047, “an external service 260 may send a query 265 the custodial token platform 110. For example, the external service 260 may send the query 265 to determine whether a user account is associated with a criteria and/or has one or more attestation records. In other words, the external service 260 may query the custodial token platform 110 for information about a user account. In some examples, the custodial token platform 110 may respond to the query 265 indicating whether the criteria is satisfied and/or the attestation records exist without revealing information, such as personally identifiable information (PII), about the user. For example, the custodial token platform 110 may access the self-executing program 225 to determine the status of an attestation (e.g., whether an attestation has been revoked, expired, etc.) and respond to the query 265. Additionally, or alternatively, the custodial token platform 110 may leverage attestations issued by external services (e.g., third parties) to respond to the query. In other words, the custodial token platform 110 may access attestation records associated with a wallet address of a user account which were not issued by the custodial token platform 110 to respond to the query… the external service 260 may query the custodial token platform 110 about an attribute of a user, such as a geographic location. The custodial token platform 110 may access the self-executing program 225 and respond to the query with an indication of whether the user is at the geographic location (e.g., “true” or “false”), an indication of an attribute of the user (e.g., a country code in the example of a geographic location), or if the custodial token platform 110 does not have the information to answer the query. For example, the external service 260 may query the custodial token platform 110 regarding the user's geographic location, and the custodial token platform 110 may return an attestation record that indicates the country (e.g., the attestation includes a country code for the user”, wherein an attestation record is a log);
However, Wu in view of KAIZER does not explicitly disclose the following limitation:
receiving, by the identification service and from a requestor device, a request for attribute query/response log data; and
in response to receiving the request for attribute query/response log data, (i) retrieving, from the identification service blockchain, query/response log data that corresponds to the request, and (ii) providing to the retrieved query/response log data to the requestor device.
ALTOUNIAN discloses receiving, by the identification service and from a requestor device, a request for attribute query/response log data (¶0069, “The Web/XML interface module 96 receives the HTTP request 102 and processes therefrom the data item record request 102. The data item record request 102 is based upon the input of the user via the user terminal 76. Examples of a data item record request include a query to the item data management server 24, a query response, data input regarding a physical item, a command for additional information, et cetera.”);
in response to receiving the request for attribute query/response log data, (i) retrieving, from the identification service blockchain, query/response log data that corresponds to the request (¶0070, “The command engine 98 receives the data item record request 102, and with the data item record command 104, accesses the database systems 100 and retrieves response data 108. The command engine 98 provides a response command to the Web/XML interface module 96….”), and (ii) providing to the retrieved query/response log data to the requestor device (¶0070, “…The command engine 98 provides a response command to the Web/XML interface module 96. The Web/XML interface module sends a web page response 94. The browser engine 90, processes the web page response 94, and presents a web page 88 to the GUI 84 for interaction with a user via the user terminal 76.”).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify the method of Wu and KAIZER to include a request for attribute query/response log data and providing to the retrieved query/response log data to the requestor device as disclosed by ALTOUNIAN and be motivated in doing so in order to have immediate access to the most current system information and ensure consistent data parsing.
Claims 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US. PGPub. No. 20250173721 to Wu et al. (hereinafter Wu.) in view of US. PGPub. No. 20220376889 to KAIZER et al. (hereinafter KAIZER) and further in view of US. PGPub. No. 20210119807 to Chen et al. (hereinafter Chen) and further in view of US. PGPub. No. 20250342462 to TUSSEAU; Victoire (hereinafter TUSSEAU).
Regarding claim 13, Wu in view of KAIZER discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1.
Wu further discloses further comprising: verifying an off-chain identity of the owner of the blockchain address (¶0091, “…the custodial token platform 110 may generate the verification message to determine whether the user is the owner of the self-custody blockchain address. That is, at 620, the custodial token platform 110 may verify the verification message which, if the user is the owner of the self-custody blockchain address, may be signed via a private key associated with the self-custody blockchain address.”), (¶0094, “…the custodial token platform 110 may access an off-chain database in order to determine whether the user is associated with the set of attributes. The off-chain database may include data associated with the user profile used to register the user on the custodial token platform 110, such as information verifying an identity of the user.”);
A private key is associated with a blockchain address (¶0148, “a verification message to be signed via the self-custody blockchain address, and verifying that the verification message may be signed by a private key associated with the self-custody blockchain address, wherein the user profile may be verified after verifying that the verification message may be signed by the key.”),
However, Wu in view of KAIZER does not explicitly disclose the following limitation:
receiving, by the identification service, a report of a compromised private key that corresponds to the blockchain address; and submitting an update to the identification service blockchain that removes the relational link between (i) the blockchain address and (ii) the plurality of off-chain attributes that pertain to the owner of the blockchain address.
Chen discloses receiving, by the identification service, a report of a compromised private key that corresponds to the blockchain address (¶0034, “a user may determine that the private key may no longer be a secret and may be known to a malicious party. The user can initiate a blockchain account migration transaction that invalidates the private key and generates a new account for the user with a new asymmetric key pair and associates the old (potentially compromised account) to the new account…”), (¶0061, “A blockchain account migration may be initiated for a variety of reasons—a user may have reason to believe that the private key associated with a blockchain account has been compromised. A blockchain account migration can be used to replace an asymmetric key pair that was generated under a first cryptographic algorithm with a second cryptographic algorithm, which may be prompted by the discovery of a weakness or vulnerability of the first cryptographic algorithm…”)
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify the method of Wu and KAIZER to include a report of a compromised private key that corresponds to the blockchain address as disclosed by Chen and be motivated in doing so in order to initiate a blockchain account migration transaction that invalidates the private key and generates a new account for the user with a new asymmetric key pair and associates the old (potentially compromised account) to the new account-Chen ¶0034 in parts.
The combination of Wu, KAIZER, and Chen does not explicitly disclose the following limitation:
submitting an update to the identification service blockchain that removes the relational link between (i) the blockchain address and (ii) the plurality of off-chain attributes that pertain to the owner of the blockchain address.
TUSSEAU submitting an update to the identification service blockchain that removes the relational link between (i) the blockchain address and (ii) the plurality of off-chain attributes that pertain to the owner of the blockchain address (¶0058, “…the changeable address 435A is directly linked to the asset and not to any specific owner of the asset.”), (¶0086, “The changeable address is not updated to include the address of the new purchaser; rather, the changeable address is updated to reflect a new address that is linked to the asset, as were the previously recorded addresses. The new owner's account profile will reflect the new address as well as the new private key associated with that new address”), (¶0099, FIGs. 3 and 7, “Notably, the address(es) 335 are linked to the asset 320; the address(es) 335 are not linked to an asset owner 345, as shown by the no link 350 label. Although the address(es) 335 are not linked to the asset owner 345, the asset owner 345 will have access to the address(es) 335 and the corresponding private key(s) 340 via the secure user account 330, which can be surfaced to the asset owner 345 via the user interface 700 of FIG. 7.”), (¶0102, “By breaking the link between the asset owner and the changeable address and by changing the changeable address, the embodiments prevent malicious users from being able to not only discern when a transaction takes place but also to prevent them from discerning who the asset owner is.”).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify the method of Wu, KAIZER, and Chen to include removing the relational link between (i) the blockchain address and (ii) the plurality of off-chain attributes that pertain to the owner of the blockchain address as disclosed by TUSSEAU and be motivated in doing so and be motivated in doing so in order to prevent malicious users from being able to not only discern when a transaction takes place but also to prevent them from discerning who the asset owner is-TUSSEAU ¶0102 in parts.
Regarding claim 19, Wu in view of KAIZER discloses the computer system of claim 14.
Wu further discloses the operations further comprising: verifying an off-chain identity of the owner of the blockchain address (¶0091, “…the custodial token platform 110 may generate the verification message to determine whether the user is the owner of the self-custody blockchain address. That is, at 620, the custodial token platform 110 may verify the verification message which, if the user is the owner of the self-custody blockchain address, may be signed via a private key associated with the self-custody blockchain address.”), (¶0094, “…the custodial token platform 110 may access an off-chain database in order to determine whether the user is associated with the set of attributes. The off-chain database may include data associated with the user profile used to register the user on the custodial token platform 110, such as information verifying an identity of the user.”);
A private key is associated with a blockchain address (¶0148, “a verification message to be signed via the self-custody blockchain address, and verifying that the verification message may be signed by a private key associated with the self-custody blockchain address, wherein the user profile may be verified after verifying that the verification message may be signed by the key.”),
However, Wu in view of KAIZER does not explicitly disclose the following limitation:
receiving, by the identification service, a report of a compromised private key that corresponds to the blockchain address; and submitting an update to the identification service blockchain that removes the relational link between (i) the blockchain address and (ii) the plurality of off-chain attributes that pertain to the owner of the blockchain address.
Chen discloses receiving, by the identification service, a report of a compromised private key that corresponds to the blockchain address (¶0034, “a user may determine that the private key may no longer be a secret and may be known to a malicious party. The user can initiate a blockchain account migration transaction that invalidates the private key and generates a new account for the user with a new asymmetric key pair and associates the old (potentially compromised account) to the new account…”), (¶0061, “A blockchain account migration may be initiated for a variety of reasons—a user may have reason to believe that the private key associated with a blockchain account has been compromised. A blockchain account migration can be used to replace an asymmetric key pair that was generated under a first cryptographic algorithm with a second cryptographic algorithm, which may be prompted by the discovery of a weakness or vulnerability of the first cryptographic algorithm…”)
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify the method of Wu and KAIZER to include a report of a compromised private key that corresponds to the blockchain address as disclosed by Chen and be motivated in doing so in order to initiate a blockchain account migration transaction that invalidates the private key and generates a new account for the user with a new asymmetric key pair and associates the old (potentially compromised account) to the new account-Chen ¶0034 in parts.
The combination of Wu, KAIZER, and Chen does not explicitly disclose the following limitation:
submitting an update to the identification service blockchain that removes the relational link between (i) the blockchain address and (ii) the plurality of off-chain attributes that pertain to the owner of the blockchain address.
TUSSEAU submitting an update to the identification service blockchain that removes the relational link between (i) the blockchain address and (ii) the plurality of off-chain attributes that pertain to the owner of the blockchain address (¶0058, “…the changeable address 435A is directly linked to the asset and not to any specific owner of the asset.”), (¶0086, “The changeable address is not updated to include the address of the new purchaser; rather, the changeable address is updated to reflect a new address that is linked to the asset, as were the previously recorded addresses. The new owner's account profile will reflect the new address as well as the new private key associated with that new address”), (¶0099, FIGs. 3 and 7, “Notably, the address(es) 335 are linked to the asset 320; the address(es) 335 are not linked to an asset owner 345, as shown by the no link 350 label. Although the address(es) 335 are not linked to the asset owner 345, the asset owner 345 will have access to the address(es) 335 and the corresponding private key(s) 340 via the secure user account 330, which can be surfaced to the asset owner 345 via the user interface 700 of FIG. 7.”), (¶0102, “By breaking the link between the asset owner and the changeable address and by changing the changeable address, the embodiments prevent malicious users from being able to not only discern when a transaction takes place but also to prevent them from discerning who the asset owner is.”).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify the method of Wu, KAIZER, and Chen to include removing the relational link between (i) the blockchain address and (ii) the plurality of off-chain attributes that pertain to the owner of the blockchain address as disclosed by TUSSEAU and be motivated in doing so and be motivated in doing so in order to prevent malicious users from being able to not only discern when a transaction takes place but also to prevent them from discerning who the asset owner is-TUSSEAU ¶0102 in parts.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUDASIRU K OLAEGBE whose telephone number is (571)272-2082. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI. 7.30AM-5.30PM.
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, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached at 5712723739. 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.
/MUDASIRU K OLAEGBE/Examiner, Art Unit 2495
