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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 19, 2026, is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement filed on September 4, 2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Status of the Claims
This is a final rejection prepared in response to applicant’s amendment filed on 06/16/2026.
Claim 1 is cancelled.
Claims 2-3, 6-7, 9-13 and 16-18 are amended.
Claims 2-21 are pending.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
There is insufficient antecedent basis for “a first intermediate validation data” and “a second intermediate validation data” in the specifications.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 9 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2 and 9, the recited “wherein computation scheme” should be amended to “wherein the computation scheme” as “a computation scheme” was previously recited on the claim.
Claims 2, 9 and 16 recite the limitation "the first computer node". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2, 9 and 16 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.
Claims 2, 9 and 16 recite the limitations “a first intermediate validation data” and “a second intermediate validation data” however the specification does not recite any “intermediate validation data”. Rather, the specifications recite “a first portion of the secret” and “a second portion of the secret” and “a first output” and “a second output”. The specification does not establish what constitute “a first intermediate validation data” and “a second intermediate validation data” or how these intermediate data correspond to the recited first and second portion of the secret or first and second outputs. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 3-8, 10-15 and 17-21 are also rejected as they depend on either claims 2, 9 or 16.
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 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an
abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 2-8 are directed to a system (i.e., machine, and manufacture). Claims 9-15 are directed to a computer-implemented method (i.e., process). Claims 16-21 are directed to a computer-storage media (i.e., manufacture). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of
invention, and thus must be further analyzed at Step 2A to determine if the claims are directed to a
judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.03, subsection II).
Step 2A Prong One: Claim 9, recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea. More specifically, the following bolded claim elements recite abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
A method, comprising:
receiving, by a computer node of a plurality of computer nodes associated with a blockchain network, a request for processing a blockchain transaction associated with a digital wallet according to a computation scheme implemented within the blockchain network, wherein computation scheme comprises (i) a minimum number of computer node requirement and (ii) a designated computer node requirement for validating the blockchain transaction, wherein a key associated with the digital wallet was decomposed into a plurality of shares distributed among the plurality of computer nodes according to the computation scheme that enables a first subset of the plurality of computer nodes that satisfies (i) the minimum number of computer node requirement and (ii) the designated computer node requirement to produce a digital signature associated with the key and prevents a second subset of the plurality of computer nodes that fails to satisfy (i) the minimum number of computer node requirement or (ii) the designated computer node requirement from producing the digital signature;
participating, by the first computer node, in a transaction validation process for validating the blockchain transaction, wherein the participating in the transaction validation process comprises (i) in response to receiving first intermediate validation data, determining whether a share accessible by the first computer node is usable to transform the first intermediate validation data into second intermediate validation data and (ii) generating the second intermediate validation data based on the first intermediate validation data and the share when the share is determined to be usable to generate the second intermediate validation data;
obtaining, by the computer node, an output from the transaction validation process;
validating, by the computer node, that the output corresponds to the digital signature; and in response to validating the output,
storing, by the computer node, the blockchain transaction in a blockchain.
Claim 9, recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) a method for validating and storing a transaction or data record. The claim achieves this by:
receiving a request for a transaction
participating in a transaction validation process
obtaining an output from the transaction validation process
validating the output to determine if it corresponds to a signature
storing the transaction based on the validation.
As such the claim recites “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas (i.e., commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)) and “mental processes”. Claims 2 and 16 are significantly similar to claim 9. As such claims 2 and 16 also recite an abstract idea.
In regards to “a key associated with the digital wallet was decomposed into a plurality of shares distributed among the plurality of computer nodes according to the computation scheme that enables a first subset of the plurality of computer nodes that satisfies (i) the minimum number of computer node requirement and (ii) the designated computer node requirement to produce a digital signature associated with the key and prevents a second subset of the plurality of computer nodes that fails to satisfy (i) the minimum number of computer node requirement or (ii) the designated computer node requirement from producing the digital signature” the examiner finds this to be a mathematical concept. As such the subject further recites an abstract idea. Claims 2 and 16 are significantly similar to claim 9. As such claims 2 and 16 also recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: Because the claim recites abstract ideas, the analysis proceeds to
determine whether the claim recites additional elements that recite a practical application of the
abstract ideas. Here, the additional elements of a computer system, a non-transitory memory, one or more hardware processors, a blockchain, a blockchain network, a computer node, a first computer node, a digital wallet, a plurality of computer nodes, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Further, the additional element “digital” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the claim as a whole fail to recite a practical application of the abstract ideas.
Step 2B: Determines whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the exception itself. Evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Here, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements merely serve as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Dependent Claims: Claims 3-8, 10-15 and 17-21 have also been analyzed for subject matter
eligibility. The claims recite bolded claim elements as abstract ideas and non-bolded claim elements, if
any, as additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). Accordingly, claims 3-8, 10-15 and 17-21 also fail to recite patent eligible subject matter for the following reasons:
Claims 3 and 17 recite:
the participating in the transaction validation process further comprises broadcasting the second intermediate validation data within the blockchain network.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional element of a blockchain network fails to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claim 4 recites:
determine one or more security conditions associated with the plurality of computer nodes; and determine the minimum number of computer node requirement based on the one or more security conditions.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements of a plurality of computer nodes fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claims 5, 14 and 19 recite:
the plurality of shares comprises a first share and a plurality of second shares, wherein
the first share was provided only to a particular computer node from the plurality of computer nodes, and wherein each of the plurality of second shares was provided to two or more computer nodes from the plurality of computer nodes.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements of a particular computer node from the plurality of computer nodes and two or more computer nodes from the plurality of computer nodes fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claims 6, 15 and 20 recite:
the designated computer node requirement requires a particular computer node from the plurality of computer nodes to participate in the transaction validation process.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The claim does not recite any additional elements for consideration under Step 2A prong two and Step 2B. Therefore, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claims 7 and 21 recite:
select, from the plurality of computer nodes, the particular computer node for the multi-party computation scheme.
The non-bolded additional elements of a plurality of computer nodes and a particular computer node fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because they merely serve as tools to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claim 8 recites:
the particular computer node is selected based on one or more security characteristics associated with the particular computer node.
The non-bolded additional elements of a particular computer node fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claim 11 recites:
the transaction validation process requires each computer node in the first subset of the plurality of computer nodes to sequentially process data using a corresponding share.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements of each computer node and the plurality of computer nodes fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claim 12 recites:
the blockchain transaction is associated with a cryptocurrency transaction.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional element of the blockchain fails to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claim 13 recites:
determining one or more computer characteristics associated with the plurality of computer nodes; and determining the minimum number of computer node requirement based on the one or more computer characteristics.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional element of the plurality of computer nodes fails to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claim 18 recite:
determining one or more attributes associated with the plurality of computer nodes; and determining the minimum number of computer node requirement for the computation scheme based on the one or more attributes
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements of the plurality of computer nodes fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because they merely serve as tools to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-3, 5-6, 9-10, 12, 14-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barger (US 20220393858 A1) in view of Fletcher (US 11870894 B2).
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16 Barger discloses:
receiving, by a computer node of a plurality of computer nodes associated with a blockchain network, a request for processing a blockchain transaction associated with a digital wallet according to a computation scheme implemented within the blockchain network, (Barger ¶0064, Referring again to FIG. 2B, the client node initiates the transaction 291 by constructing and sending a request to the peer node 281, which is an endorser. ¶0075, FIG. 3C illustrates a process 350 of a transaction being processed by a permissionless blockchain 352 including a plurality of nodes 354. A sender 356 desires to send payment or some other form of value (e.g., a deed, medical records, a contract, a good, a service, or any other asset that can be encapsulated in a digital record) to a recipient 358 via the permissionless blockchain 352. In one embodiment, each of the sender device 356 and the recipient device 358 may have digital wallets (associated with the blockchain 352) that provide user interface controls and a display of transaction parameters.)
wherein computation scheme comprises (i) a minimum number of computer node requirement and (ii) a designated computer node requirement for validating the blockchain transaction, (Barger ¶0052, As further described in the examples of FIGS. 4A-4C, there are multiple different approaches for distributing the m key shares. In one approach, the m key shares can be distributed to the nodes 131-135 of the distributed vault 130, alone. In a second approach, the symmetric encryption key may be divided into two secret shares (s1, s2) using a secret sharing scheme and then assign one of the secret shares (e.g., s1) to a peer 121-124 or other user of the distributed ledger. Meanwhile, the second secret share (s2) may be split using a threshold secret sharing scheme and distributed to the nodes 131-135 of the distributed vault. In this second approach, the user of the blockchain must collaborate with the nodes 131-135 of the distributed vault 130 to recover the symmetric encryption key.)
wherein a key associated with the digital wallet was decomposed into a plurality of shares distributed among the plurality of computer nodes according to the computation scheme that enables a first subset of the plurality of computer nodes that satisfies (i) the minimum number of computer node requirement and (ii) the designated computer node requirement to produce a digital signature associated with the key and prevents a second subset of the plurality of computer nodes that fails to satisfy (i) the minimum number of computer node requirement or (ii) the designated computer node requirement from producing the digital signature; (Barger ¶0032, An endorsement policy allows chaincode to specify endorsers for a transaction in the form of a set of peer nodes that are necessary for endorsement. ¶0038, The publisher may split the encryption key into multiple key shares (partial keys) and distribute the key shares to different nodes of a distributed vault, also referred to as a distributed shared vault (DSV). In addition to transmitting a key share to a node, the publisher may also provide an expiration data value identifying when the node is to delete the respective key share from a memory of the node. In addition, the key shares may be deleted upon demand by the publisher. In some embodiments, prior to splitting the encryption key, the publisher may encrypt the encryption key using a one-time-pad (OTP) encryption scheme. Once encrypted, the publisher may split the encryption key using a threshold secret sharing scheme that generates a plurality of key shares (e.g., N shares) where N may also be the number of nodes in the distributed vault, however, embodiments are not limited thereto. As an example, a threshold of at least m key shares of the N key shares must be present to reconstruct the encryption key, where m<=N. ¶0039, In addition to distributing the key shares among the nodes the distributed vault, the publisher may also distribute a portion of the key shares to one or more users (e.g., clients, peers, etc.) of the distributed ledger. Here, at least one key distributed to the users of the distributed ledger may be required to reconstruct the encryption key along with at least one key share stored with the nodes of the distributed vault. In this way, both the users on the distributed ledger and the nodes of the distributed vault must cooperate to reconstruct the encryption key. ¶0080, In a second embodiment, the encryption key is split into two shares and a first share is distributed to a user and the other share is split and divided among the nodes of the distributed vault. In this example, the user must cooperate with the nodes of the distributed vault to recover the encryption key. In a third embodiment, the encryption key is split into two subsets of key shares where a first subset of key shares is distributed among a plurality of users and a second subset of key shares is distributed among the nodes of the distributed vault. In this case, multiple users must cooperate with the nodes of the distributed vault to recover the encryption key. ¶0084, Here, a first share 441 is encrypted using a public key of the user 430 and sent to the user 430. Meanwhile, the second share 442 is split into n shares and distributed among the nodes of the distributed vault 420. Thus, a user must interact with both the user 430 of the blockchain and the nodes of the distributed vault 420 to recover the encryption key. In this case the user 430 cannot reconstruct the encryption key 440 on their own, and neither can the nodes of the distributed vault 420. ¶0088, In some embodiments, the splitting may include splitting the encryption key into a first share and a second share, transmitting the first share to a user device of the distributed ledger, splitting the second share into a plurality of sub shares, and distributing the plurality of sub shares to the nodes of the distributed vault.)
participating, by the first computer node, in a transaction validation process for validating the blockchain transaction, (Barger ¶0032, Blockchain transactions associated with this application can be “endorsed” before being committed to the blockchain while transactions, which are not endorsed, are disregarded. An endorsement policy allows chaincode to specify endorsers for a transaction in the form of a set of peer nodes that are necessary for endorsement. When a client sends the transaction to the peers specified in the endorsement policy, the transaction is executed to validate the transaction. ¶0057, The blockchain nodes 202 may include one or more nodes 204-210 (these four nodes are depicted by example only). These nodes participate in a number of activities, such as blockchain transaction addition and validation process (consensus) ¶0063, Before committal to the blockchain, each peer 281-283 may validate the transaction. For example, the peers may check the endorsement policy to ensure that the correct allotment of the specified peers have signed the results and authenticated the signatures against the transaction payload 293.)
validating, by the computer node, that the output corresponds to the digital signature; and in response to validating the output, (Barger ¶0063, Before committal to the blockchain, each peer 281-283 may validate the transaction. For example, the peers may check the endorsement policy to ensure that the correct allotment of the specified peers have signed the results and authenticated the signatures against the transaction payload 293. ¶0065, In response, the endorsing peer node 281 may verify (a) that the transaction proposal is well formed, (b) the transaction has not been submitted already in the past (replay-attack protection), (c) the signature is valid, and (d) that the submitter (client 260, in the example) is properly authorized to perform the proposed operation on that channel. ¶0066, In response, the application of the client 260 inspects/verifies the signatures of the endorsing peers and compares the proposal responses to determine if the proposal response is the same. ¶0138, The signature is included in the message so that the recipient can verify using the public key of the sender. This way, the recipient can be sure that only the sender could have sent this message. ¶0139, Also, every transaction that is executed on the blockchain is digitally signed by the sender using their private key. This signature ensures that only the owner of the account can track and process (if within the scope of permission determined by a smart contract) the file of the blockchain.)
storing, by the computer node, the blockchain transaction in a blockchain. (Barger ¶0143, The collected data may be stored in the blockchain 810 based on a consensus mechanism. The consensus mechanism pulls in (permissioned nodes) to ensure that the data being recorded is verified and accurate. The data recorded is time-stamped, cryptographically signed, and immutable. ¶0063, Before committal to the blockchain, each peer 281-283 may validate the transaction. For example, the peers may check the endorsement policy to ensure that the correct allotment of the specified peers have signed the results and authenticated the signatures against the transaction payload 293. ¶0068, Furthermore, in step 295 each peer node 281-283 appends the block to the channel's chain, and for each valid transaction the write sets are committed to current state database. An event may be emitted, to notify the client application that the transaction (invocation) has been immutably appended to the chain, as well as to notify whether the transaction was validated or invalidated. ¶0102, When the committing peer validates the transaction, the transaction is written to the blockchain 722 on the distributed ledger 720, and the state database 724 is updated with the write data from the read-write set.)
Barger further discloses:
one or more hardware processors coupled to the non-transitory memory and configured to execute the instructions stored in the non-transitory memory (col 4 lines 8-19, The electronic device may include an interface device, a processor coupled to the interface device and a memory coupled to the processor. The memory may have stored thereon computer executable instructions which, when executed, configure the processor to perform a method described herein. In accordance with the invention, there may be provided a computer readable storage medium. The computer readable storage medium may include computer-executable instructions which, when executed, configure a processor to perform a method described herein.)
Barger does not disclose, however Fletcher teaches:
wherein the participating in the transaction validation process comprises
(i) in response to receiving first intermediate validation data, determining whether a share accessible by the first computer node is usable to transform the first intermediate validation data into second intermediate validation data and (ii) generating the second intermediate validation data based on the first intermediate validation data and the share when the share is determined to be usable to generate the second intermediate validation data; (col 7 lines 57-67 & col 8 line 1, However, monitoring nodes may continually attempt to identify whether the encryption private key corresponding to the encryption public key can be determined from indicators. For example, the monitoring nodes may repeatedly select subsets of indicators and may calculate a possible shared secret from that subset of indicators. Then, the monitoring nodes may evaluate the possible shared secret against the encryption public key to determine whether the possible shared secret is, in fact, the encryption 65 private key. That is, a search may be performed based on the indicators provided by the monitoring nodes to identify the encryption private key. col 8 lines 1-5, When a threshold number of encryption private key shares have been provided, it will be possible to reconstruct the encryption private key due to the threshold scheme used in the generation of the encryption private key shares. col 14 lines 1-4, At operation 412, the node then cooperates with other nodes of the group to identify the encryption private key and, when the nodes of the group have successfully identified the encryption private key, at least one of the nodes prepare a transaction… col 14 lines60-67, The node iteratively provides an indicator to a plurality of nodes of the group. That is, the node repeatedly signals to other nodes of the group and the signalling is based on the result of the monitoring. More specifically, the node iteratively provides an indicator to other nodes of the group. col 15 lines 4-5, In response to detection of the predetermined event, however, the node provides an indicator that includes the encryption private key share held by the node… col 15 lines 18-39, The node, at operation 504, signals to the other nodes based on the monitoring by providing the indicator in a block on the event chain. Each block is timestamped. Other nodes of the group are also configured to independently perform their own monitoring and signalling operations (similar to operation 504 of the method 500) and may provide a "true signal" when they detect the occurrence of the event. Thus, at operation 506, the node may obtain a plurality of indicators provided by a plurality of other nodes of the group. Each of the indicators represents one of an encryption private key share or a dummy signal. The indicators may be iteratively obtained by the node ( e.g., obtained from each block of the event-chain) and the indicators, once obtained, may be analyzed to attempt to identify the encryption private key. More particularly, the encryption private key may be identified by iteratively selecting at operation 508) a subset of the indicators from a current block and/or one or more recent blocks, calculating (at operation 510) a possible shared secret from the subset of indicators, and evaluating (at operation 512) each possible shared secret against the encryption public key to determine whether the possible shared secret is the encryption private key. col 15 lines 45-64, Accordingly, the node may effectively perform a search based on indicators that have been provided in blocks on the event chain. When the number of true signals (i.e., encryption private key shares) provided in indicators is greater than the threshold, C,, for the threshold private key reconstruction scheme, then it is possible to obtain the encryption private key. The encryption private key may be reconstructed (i.e., obtained from a threshold of encryption private key shares) by performing a search algorithm and SSSS. At operation 508, a shared secret is calculated (with SSSS) for each possible threshold combination of the node's indicators (i.e., the dummy signal or true signal provided by each node) for the previous number of block within a defined window of opportunity. The window of opportunity may be defined in the monitoring request submitted by the requestor. For each potential shared private key, the corresponding public key may be calculated using elliptic curve cryptography. Then, the calculated public key may be compared with the known encryption public key.)
obtaining, by the computer node, an output from the transaction validation process; (col 14 lines 15-17, At operation 414, the encryption private key is provided
to the requestor. For example, the encryption private key may be included in the transaction as metadata. col 15 lines 64,67, If the calculated public key corresponds
with the encryption public key, then the search may cease and the encryption private key may be reported back to the requester.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention, to have modified Barger’s disclosure with Fletcher’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements in order to protect and increase security of the data.
Further, in the method claim, the claim limitations “(i) in response to receiving first intermediate validation data, determining whether a share accessible by the first computer node is usable to transform the first intermediate validation data into second intermediate validation data” and “(ii) generating the second intermediate validation data based on the first intermediate validation data and the share when the share is determined to be usable to generate the second intermediate validation data” are a conditional limitations which means that the claim limitations is only required when the stated conditions are met.
Furthermore, the claimed limitation “wherein computation scheme comprises (i) a minimum number of computer node requirement and (ii) a designated computer node requirement for validating the blockchain transaction” and “wherein a key associated with the digital wallet was decomposed into a plurality of shares distributed among the plurality of computer nodes according to the computation scheme that enables a first subset of the plurality of computer nodes that satisfies (i) the minimum number of computer node requirement and (ii) the designated computer node requirement to produce a digital signature associated with the key and prevents a second subset of the plurality of computer nodes that fails to satisfy (i) the minimum number of computer node requirement or (ii) the designated computer node requirement from producing the digital signature” only describes characteristics of the computation scheme and the key which are non-functional descriptive material that do not move to distinguish over prior art. When descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in terms of patentability. It has been held that where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.
Regarding claims 3 and 17, the combination of Barger and Fletcher further disclose:
the participating in the transaction validation process further comprises broadcasting the second intermediate validation data within the blockchain network. (Col 11 lines 12-21, The encryption private key may be obtained, for example, through the blockchain network. For example, after the group has reconstructed the encryption private key using techniques such as those described below, the encryption private key may be added to a transaction that is broadcast to the blockchain network and added to the blockchain. The requestor (or another node requiring the encryption private key) may monitor the blockchain and obtain the encryption private key from the blockchain.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of Barger and Fletcher with Fletcher’s additional teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements in order to maintain an immutable record that is accessible to other nodes.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Barger and Fletcher further disclose:
the blockchain transaction is associated with a cryptocurrency transaction. (¶0031, Public blockchains can involve native cryptocurrency and use consensus based on various protocols such as Proof of Work (PoW).)
Further, the claimed limitation “… associated with a cryptocurrency transaction” only describes characteristics of the blockchain transaction record which is non-functional descriptive material that does not move to distinguish over prior art. When descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in terms of patentability. It has been held that where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.
Regarding claims 5, 14 and 19, the combination of Barger and Fletcher further disclose:
wherein the plurality of shares comprises a first share and a plurality of second shares, wherein the first share was provided only to a particular computer node from the plurality of computer nodes, and wherein each of the plurality of second shares was provided to two or more computer nodes from the plurality of computer nodes. (¶0080, In a second embodiment, the encryption key is split into two shares and a first share is distributed to a user and the other share is split and divided among the nodes of the distributed vault. In this example, the user must cooperate with the nodes of the distributed vault to recover the encryption key. In a third embodiment, the encryption key is split into two subsets of key shares where a first subset of key shares is distributed among a plurality of users and a second subset of key shares is distributed among the nodes of the distributed vault. In this case, multiple users must cooperate with the nodes of the distributed vault to recover the encryption key. ¶0084, Here, a first share 441 is encrypted using a public key of the user 430 and sent to the user 430. Meanwhile, the second share 442 is split into n shares and distributed among the nodes of the distributed vault 420. Thus, a user must interact with both the user 430 of the blockchain and the nodes of the distributed vault 420 to recover the encryption key. In this case the user 430 cannot reconstruct the encryption key 440 on their own, and neither can the nodes of the distributed vault 420. ¶0088, In some embodiments, the splitting may include splitting the encryption key into a first share and a second share, transmitting the first share to a user device of the distributed ledger, splitting the second share into a plurality of sub shares, and distributing the plurality of sub shares to the nodes of the distributed vault.)
Further, the claimed limitation “wherein the plurality of shares comprises a first share and a plurality of second shares, wherein the first share was provided only to a particular computer node from the plurality of computer nodes, and wherein each of the plurality of second shares was provided to two or more computer nodes from the plurality of computer nodes.” only describes characteristics of the plurality of shares which are non-functional descriptive material that does not move to distinguish over prior art. When descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in terms of patentability. It has been held that where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Barger and Fletcher further disclose:
the designated computer node requirement requires a particular computer node from the plurality of computer nodes to participate in the transaction validation process. (¶0088, In some embodiments, the splitting may include splitting the encryption key into a first share and a second share, transmitting the first share to a user device of the distributed ledger, splitting the second share into a plurality of sub shares, and distributing the plurality of sub shares to the nodes of the distributed vault. See claim 6)
Further, the claimed limitation “ the designated computer node requirement requires a particular computer node from the plurality of computer nodes to participate in the transaction validation process” only describes characteristics of the designated computer node which are non-functional descriptive material that does not move to distinguish over prior art. When descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in terms of patentability. It has been held that where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Barger and Fletcher disclose:
the computer node is a first computer node from the plurality of computer nodes; (Barger ¶0075, A sender 356 desires to send payment or some other form of value (e.g., a deed, medical records, a contract, a good, a service, or any other asset that can be encapsulated in a digital record) to a recipient 358 via the permissionless blockchain 352. In one embodiment, each of the sender device 356 and the recipient device 358 may have digital wallets (associated with the blockchain 352) that provide user interface controls and a display of transaction parameters. In response, the transaction is broadcast throughout the blockchain 352 to the nodes 354. Depending on the blockchain's 352 network parameters the nodes verify 360 the transaction based on rules (which may be pre-defined or dynamically allocated) established by the permissionless blockchain 352 creators. For example, this may include verifying identities of the parties involved, etc. The transaction may be verified immediately or it may be placed in a queue with other transactions and the nodes 354 determine if the transactions are valid based on a set of network rules.)
wherein the participating in the validation process further comprises broadcasting the second intermediate validation data to the blockchain network, and wherein a second computer node from the plurality of computer nodes is configured to generate the output based on the second intermediate validation data. (Fletcher col 11 lines 12-21, The encryption private key may be obtained, for example, through the blockchain network. For example, after the group has reconstructed the encryption private key using techniques such as those described below, the encryption private key may be added to a transaction that is broadcast to the blockchain network and added to the blockchain. The requestor (or another node requiring the encryption private key) may monitor the blockchain and obtain the encryption private key from the blockchain.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of Barger and Fletcher with Fletcher’s additional teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements in order ensure access to keys shares and proper validation and reconstruction of the key structure.
Further, the claimed limitation “the computer node is a first computer node from the plurality of computer nodes” only describes the computer node which is non-functional descriptive material that does not move to distinguish over prior art. When descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in terms of patentability. It has been held that where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.
Regarding claims 15 and 20 the combination of Barger and Fletcher further disclose:
the first subset of the plurality of computer nodes comprises the particular computer node. (¶0088, In some embodiments, the splitting may include splitting the encryption key into a first share and a second share, transmitting the first share to a user device of the distributed ledger, splitting the second share into a plurality of sub shares, and distributing the plurality of sub shares to the nodes of the distributed vault. See claim 6)
Further, the claimed limitation “the first subset of the plurality of computer nodes comprises the particular computer node.” only describes characteristics of the first subset of the plurality of computer nodes which are non-functional descriptive material that does not move to distinguish over prior art. When descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in terms of patentability. It has been held that where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.
Claims 4, 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barger and Fletcher as applied to claims 2, 9 and 16 above, in further view of Guo (US 20210099312 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Barger and Fletcher do not disclose, however Guo teaches:
determine one or more security conditions associated with the plurality of computer nodes; and determine the minimum number of computer node requirement based on the one or more security conditions (¶0072, In step 770, the candidate Common node 230 determines whether it has received a sufficient number of decisions from validator nodes in the Committee. In some embodiments, for example, the threshold number of validator nodes may be predefined when the system is set up in the P2P network. The threshold number may also be determined or updated each time a new Committee is formed, for example, by adding and/or removing Associate or Leader validator nodes. Preferably, the threshold number is determined based on the fault tolerance of the system. For a tolerance of f, a threshold value of 2f+1 may be required. ¶0098, The threshold number of PPS signatures that the Leader node is configured to receive may vary depending on the selection of the multi-signature scheme and/or the fault tolerance of the system. Preferably, the Leader node is configured such that at least 2f+1 signatures are required to create an aggregate signature in a system tolerating f faults. ¶0099, In a preferred embodiment, the threshold number is 2f+1 for a system that can tolerate f faulty validator nodes. This threshold may vary depending on the setup of the system.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of Barger and Fletcher with Guo’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements in order to enhance security.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Barger and Fletcher do not disclose, however Guo teaches:
determining one or more computer characteristics associated with the plurality of computer nodes; and determining the minimum number of computer node requirement based on the one or more computer characteristics. (¶0072, In step 770, the candidate Common node 230 determines whether it has received a sufficient number of decisions from validator nodes in the Committee. In some embodiments, for example, the threshold number of validator nodes may be predefined when the system is set up in the P2P network. The threshold number may also be determined or updated each time a new Committee is formed, for example, by adding and/or removing Associate or Leader validator nodes. Preferably, the threshold number is determined based on the fault tolerance of the system. For a tolerance of f, a threshold value of 2f+1 may be required. ¶0098, The threshold number of PPS signatures that the Leader node is configured to receive may vary depending on the selection of the multi-signature scheme and/or the fault tolerance of the system. Preferably, the Leader node is configured such that at least 2f+1 signatures are required to create an aggregate signature in a system tolerating f faults. ¶0099, In a preferred embodiment, the threshold number is 2f+1 for a system that can tolerate f faulty validator nodes. This threshold may vary depending on the setup of the system.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of Barger and Fletcher with Guo’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements in order to enhance security.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Barger and Fletcher do not disclose, however Guo teaches:
determining one or more attributes associated with the plurality of computer nodes; and determining the minimum number of computer node requirement for the computation scheme based on the one or more attributes. (¶0072, In step 770, the candidate Common node 230 determines whether it has received a sufficient number of decisions from validator nodes in the Committee. In some embodiments, for example, the threshold number of validator nodes may be predefined when the system is set up in the P2P network. The threshold number may also be determined or updated each time a new Committee is formed, for example, by adding and/or removing Associate or Leader validator nodes. Preferably, the threshold number is determined based on the fault tolerance of the system. For a tolerance of f, a threshold value of 2f+1 may be required. ¶0098, The threshold number of PPS signatures that the Leader node is configured to receive may vary depending on the selection of the multi-signature scheme and/or the fault tolerance of the system. Preferably, the Leader node is configured such that at least 2f+1 signatures are required to create an aggregate signature in a system tolerating f faults. ¶0099, In a preferred embodiment, the threshold number is 2f+1 for a system that can tolerate f faulty validator nodes. This threshold may vary depending on the setup of the system.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of Barger and Fletcher with Guo’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements in order to enhance security.
Claims 7, 8 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barger and Fletcher as applied to claims 6 and 19 above, in further view of An (US 20210149737 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 21, the combination of Barger and Fletcher do not disclose, however An teaches:
select, from the plurality of computer nodes, the particular computer node for the multi-party computational scheme. (¶0013, In addition, determining may include determining the node to allocate the resources for executing the requested specific service, by additionally considering a level of security. ¶0015, In addition, determining may include giving weights to the idle CPU percentage, the idle memory percentage, the idle storage percentage, the idle network percentage, the level of security, and the number of times of occurrence of fault, respectively, and determining the node to allocate the resources for executing the requested specific service, by additionally considering the weights. ¶0017, In addition, determining may include determining a node that has a highest idle resource current state score from among nodes of a cluster that satisfies a predetermined security condition by the requested specific service and exists in a predetermined region, as the node to allocate the resources for executing the requested specific service.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of Barger and Fletcher with An’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements in order to ensure that the first subset of nodes can reconstruct the key.
Further, the claimed limitation “for…” in “the particular computer node for the multi-party computational scheme” consists of language disclosing an intended use, so it is considered but given no patentable weight. (see MPEP 2111.05, MPEP 2114 and authorities cited therein). The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Barger, Fletcher and An further teache:
the particular computer node is selected based on one or more security characteristics associated with the particular computer node. (¶0013, In addition, determining may include determining the node to allocate the resources for executing the requested specific service, by additionally considering a level of security. ¶0015, In addition, determining may include giving weights to the idle CPU percentage, the idle memory percentage, the idle storage percentage, the idle network percentage, the level of security, and the number of times of occurrence of fault, respectively, and determining the node to allocate the resources for executing the requested specific service, by additionally considering the weights. ¶0069, However, when a resource allocation request for a specific service has a condition set to require a node of high security, the controller 120 may determine node 3 having high security as the resource allocation node for the service, although node 3 has the lowest idle resource current state score.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of Barger, Fletcher and An with An’s additional teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements in order to improve the security of the key reconstruction process.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barger and Fletcher as applied to claim 9 above, in further view of Sharma (WO 2017/006118 A1).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Barger and Fletcher do not disclose, however Sharma teaches:
the transaction validation process requires each computer node in the first subset of the plurality of computer nodes to sequentially process data using a corresponding share. (¶0014, performing a cryptographic function on the received payload data to generate partially encrypted/decrypted output data; and transmitting the partially encrypted/decrypted output data as request data to the subsequent cryptographic processing node. The received sequence data may be modified by each cryptographic processing node to remove data identifying the cryptographic processing node as a node in the ordered sequence, and the modified sequence data included in the request data to the subsequent cryptographic processing node. ¶0027, The cryptographic processing nodes 5 are interconnected, with each node 5 configured to perform a particular cryptographic function on received data to generate encrypted/decrypted data that is passed on to a subsequent cryptographic processing node 5 in a sequence defined by the CS server 3. Advantageously, each cryptographic processing node 5 may implement a plug-and-play mechanism that allows a wide variety of encryption protocols to be flexibly implemented, for example one or more algorithms complying with the Digital Encryption Standard ("DES") or Advanced Encryption Standard ("AES"), with respective different cryptographic hashing functions, such as MD4, MD5, SHA-1, SHA-2 or the like, to generate respective partial hash output values based on received input data. The processed data output by each node 5 may be considered partially encrypted or decrypted in the context of the distributed cryptography network 6 as a whole, whereby the original data is wholly encrypted or decrypted after sequential processing by each cryptographic processing node 5 in the defined sequence. ¶0073, In the embodiments described above, the original data is processed by a sequence of independent nodes of the distributed cryptography network, each node applying its own randomly selected cryptographic hash function, and passing the cryptographic result as payload data to the next node in the sequence for subsequent processing. As those skilled in the art will appreciate, the pipelined hash functions implemented by a determined sequence of nodes may be related. For example, each node in the sequence may be assigned or associated with a respective portion of the original data to be encrypted/decrypted.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of Barger and Fletcher with Sharma’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements in order to ensure that only the correct subset of nodes can reconstruct the key and extract the data.
Further, the claimed limitation “the transaction validation process requires each computer node in the first subset of the plurality of computer nodes to sequentially process data using a corresponding share” only describes characteristics of transaction validation process which is non-functional descriptive material that does not move to distinguish over prior art. When descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in terms of patentability. It has been held that where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
Claim objections in the previous non-final action dated 03/24/2026 are withdrawn in light of the claim amendments.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 101
The applicant presents several assertions in regard to claim 101 rejection in the previous non-final office action rejection. The basis of these assertions are based on the applicant’s argument on pages 9-12.
First, the applicant assets that the amended claims are not directed to an abstract idea and even if it is determined that the amended claims recite an abstract idea, the amended claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by configuring a group of computers nodes to collaborate in validating transactions associated with a shard chain of a blockchain. Further, the applicant asserts that such framework reduces security risks associated with individual shard chains by distributing secrets to multiple computer nodes such as a minimum number, but not all of the nodes are required to produce the secret. The examiner finds these assertions unpersuasive and respectfully disagrees. The claimed multiparty computation framework merely applies a mathematical concept to a blockchain transaction validation rather than improving the underlying blockchain technology. The requirement for a designated computer node and a minimum number of participating nodes merely determine which nodes are allowed to participate in the generation of the digital signature. The claim as amended does not recite any specific improvement to the blockchain network, cryptographic algorithm, validation process or the operation of the computer nodes.
Second, the applicant relies on USPTO example 42 and asserts that the additional elements in the amended claims improve the technology related to blockchain transactions by using a multi-party computation framework that improves transaction efficiency in blockchains without sacrificing computer security. The examiner finds this assertion unpersuasive and respectfully disagrees. The additional elements on the amended claim do not provide a comparable improvement to the underlying technology. Example 42 is directed to an improvement in the computer technology by changing the way in which the computer performs its underlining operations. In the amended claim the key shares are distributed among a minimum number of computer nodes and a designated computer node for performing cryptographic operations which only rules which nodes participate in the cryptographic operation and under what conditions but does not change how the blockchain or the multi-party computation itself operates. Further, applicant assertion that the transaction processing efficiency is improved without sacrificing computer security, the examiner also disagrees. The amended claim does not recite any particular mechanism that suggests such specific improvement as alleged by the applicant. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the mathematical concept into a practical application or provide a specific improvement to the blockchain or any other computer technology.
As such the claims remain within an abstract idea and rejection is maintained based on the newly amended claims.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant submits remarks and arguments geared toward the amendments. The examiner has carefully reviewed and considered the applicant’s remarks; however, they ARE MOOT in light of the fact that they are geared towards the newly added claimed expression in the amendments.
Relevant Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20220038264 A1 to Yakira discloses: Systems and methods are disclosed for decentralized key generation. In one implementation, a first device is enrolled to a distributed key generation application. A local secret is generated, including a polynomial function and first coefficient(s). Commitment(s) are calculated for the polynomial function and transmitted to node(s) within a decentralized system. A value of the polynomial function is computed with respect to an identifying value that corresponds to a second device. The computed value of the polynomial function is encrypted with a public key of the second device and transmitted to one or more node(s). An encrypted value of the polynomial function computed by the second device with respect to an identifying value of the first device is decrypted and validated. The value of the polynomial function computed by the second device is combined with value(s) computed by other devices to generate a private key share associated with the first device.
US 20200133780 A1 to Zhang discloses: Embodiments of the present disclosure provide a method, a device and a computer program product for data processing. The method comprises determining, at a first node of a plurality of nodes of a metadata management system, a set of nodes from the plurality of nodes that store access information associated with a shard of metadata; determining, from the set of nodes, the number of available nodes capable of providing the shard; and adjusting the number of available nodes based on a threshold number. In this way, a distributed management of the shard of metadata in each node could be achieved without using the management node in a conventional way.
US 10735193 B1 to Knas discloses: Methods and systems disclosed herein generate a secure blockchain key for a user by generating a blockchain key comprising a string of alphanumerical and/or character values; generating one or more key segments by dividing the key string in to a number of sub-strings based on a first encryption method; encrypting each sub-string based on a second encryption method; determining a latest valid blockchain associated with the user; identifying a group of network nodes associated with the latest valid blockchain; selecting a number of network nodes from the identified group of network nodes; and instructing the selected network nodes to store the encrypted key segments.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANICE LOZA whose telephone number is (571)270-3979. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571) 272-7575. 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.
/J.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/STEVEN S KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights