DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
This action is a Non-Final Rejection. This action is in response to the application filed on August 14, 2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending and rejected.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 22, 2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant should be aware that there is claim language that does not serve to differentiate the claims from the prior art and/or provide an additional element that can be a consideration for eligibility1. See MPEP 2103(c).
Contingent Limitations
Contingent limitations are generally not given patentable weight. For example, if a claim states that a step occurs if a condition is met, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim does not require that the contingent step occurs because the condition may not be satisfied. System claims differ in that even if a condition that is required to perform a function is not met, the structure for performing the contingent limitation is given patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.04(II); see also Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016).
The following limitations are contingent:
Claim 1: “in response to an indication from an exchange node that the first digital currency is to be destroyed, destroying, by the node of the first DLT network, the first digital currency from the first DLT network” (Because there is no positively recited limitation of an indication from an exchange node that the digital currency is to be destroyed, this condition may or may not occur. If it does not occur, the “destroying” may not occur.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Category? (see MPEP 2106.03)
Yes, with respect to claims 1-7, which recite a method and, therefore, are directed to the statutory class of process.
Yes, with respect to claims 8-14, which recite a system and, therefore, are directed to the statutory class of machine or manufacture.
Yes, with respect to claims 15-20, which recite a non-transitory computer readable storage media and, therefore, are directed to the statutory class of manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited? (see MPEP 2106.04(a))
The following claims (Claims 1-7 are representative) identify the limitations that recite the abstract idea in regular text and that recite additional elements in bold:
1. A method, comprising:
detecting, by a node of a first distributed ledger technology (DLT) network, a request to transfer a first digital currency from the first DLT network of a first type to a second DLT network of a second type;
in response to an indication from an exchange node that the first digital currency is to be destroyed, destroying, by the node of the first DLT network, the first digital currency from the first DLT network; and
creating, by the node of the first DLT network, a second digital currency on the second DLT network, wherein creating the second digital currency on the second DLT network comprises attaching, by the node of the first DLT network via the exchange node, a serial number to the second digital currency.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
transferring, by the node of the first DLT network, the first digital currency from the first DLT network to the second DLT network via the exchange node; and
sending, by the node of the first DLT network via the exchange node and responsive to transferring the first digital currency from the first DLT network to the second DLT network, a confirmation request to the second DLT network.
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising receiving, by the node of the first DLT network via the exchange node, a confirmation from the second DLT network indicating whether transfer of the first digital currency from the first DLT network to the second DLT network has completed.
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising receiving, by the node from the first DLT network from the exchange node, a destruction command to destroy the first digital currency from the first DLT network.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the serial number indicates an association between the first digital currency and the second digital currency.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the first digital currency is associated with a created state or destroyed state and the second digital currency is associated with the other of the created state or the destroyed state.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the first digital currency comprises a first type and the second digital currency comprises a second type, and wherein the first type and the second type are different types of digital currency.
Yes. But for the recited additional elements as shown above in bold, the remaining limitations of the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity. The claims are directed to transferring value. This type of method of organizing human activity is a fundamental economic practice because it includes payments and a commercial interaction such as agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application? (see MPEP 2106.04(d))
No. The claims as a whole merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The computing components (i.e., additional elements that are in bold above) are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to implement the steps. For example, only a programmed general purpose computing device (i.e., node of claim 1 and processing circuits of claims 8 and 15) is needed to implement the claimed process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the abstract idea is merely being linked to a particular technological environment, i.e., a distributed ledger technology network environment. Employing well known technology within a distributed ledger technology network environment to execute the abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the abstract idea to this environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application or add significantly more. Additionally, there is no improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology. Therefore, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept? (see MPEP 2106.05)
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements in the claims, both individually and in combination, amount to no more than tools to perform the abstract idea. Merely performing the abstract idea using a computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims do not provide an inventive concept.
As such, the claims are not patent eligible.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madisetti et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0311337 A1; Borkowski, M., McDonald, D., Ritzer, C., & Schulte, S. “Towards Atomic Cross‑Chain Token Transfers: State of the Art and Open Questions within TAST.” Distributed Systems Group, TU Wien, Vienna, Austria (2018); and “KRATSCOIN The Crypto-Currency with an Electronic Serial Number,” https://www.bangkokpost.com/business/general/1806959/kratscoin-the-crypto-currency-with-an-electronic-serial-number (Dec. 2, 2019).
Claim 1:
Madisetti teaches:
detecting, by a node of a first distributed ledger technology (DLT) network, a request to transfer a first digital currency from the first DLT network of a first type to a second DLT network of a second type (see at least Madisetti, Figure 7 (shows currency transfer between blockchain networks); paragraph 0019 (“receiving from a client a request to transfer value”); paragraph 0063 (“The VTTP inter-chain value transfer process enables transfer of cryptocurrency or tokens from an account on a blockchain network to another account on a different blockchain network. At step 1 408, User A 404 initiates a cross chain value transfer request to User B 406 (e.g. to send 1 ETH from user A to user B who receives the value in equivalent number of LTC). At step 2 410, VTTP client 400 sends a VTTP SEND request to the VTTP server 418. At step 3 434, VTTP server generates a raw transaction and returns the same in SEND response. In this raw transaction the ‘from’ field is user A's account, and ‘to’ field is a ‘Vault Account’ on blockchain network-1 430. At step 4 412, User A 404 signs the raw transaction with the private key and VTTP client 400 sends the VTTP SIGN transaction. At step 5 426, VTTP server 418 verifies the signature and broadcasts the transaction to the blockchain network-1 430. At step 6 422, when the value transfer from User A account to Vault account on blockchain network-1 430 is confirmed, the cryptocurrency and tokens are sent to a Cryptocurrency/Token Exchange account 420. At step 7 424, cyptocurrency or tokens are exchanged. At step 8 428, the exchanged cyptocurrency or tokens are sent to User B account on blockchain network-2 432.”)).
Madisetti does not explicitly teach, but Borkowski, however, does teach:
in response to an indication from an exchange node that the first digital currency is to be destroyed, destroying, by the node of the first DLT network, the first digital currency from the first DLT network; and (see at least Borkowski, pages 5-6 (“Metronome proposes the feature of cross-chain portability: a user transferring MTN from one blockchain to another can do so by destroying tokens on the source blockchain in a provable and controlled way, receiving a proof of exit receipt. This receive can then be used on the target blockchain to call the Metronome contracts, which yield MTN on the target blockchain. In other words, while MTN tokens on both blockchains are technically not the same token, they are treated like one type of asset. Metronome uses on-chain communication using Ethereum smart contracts.”); pages 7-8 (“Both the removal of tokens from A and the creation of tokens on B can be realized in several different ways. The exit of tokens from A can be implemented by actually destroying tokens, rendering them unusable, or by locking the tokens into an account only accessible by providing another proof of exit from a transaction back to A.”)).
creating, by the node of the first DLT network, a second digital currency on the second DLT network, (see at least Borkowski, page 8 (“Similarly, claiming MTN on B in exchange for a proof of exit receipt can be realized either by minting new MTN on B, unlocking previously locked MTN, or by changing the internal tracked location of certain (unique) MTN tokens to B.”)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Borkowski’s method of transferring digital currency from one blockchain to another by destroying the currency on the first blockchain and minting new currency on the second blockchain with Madisetti’s invention for exchanging value between blockchain networks. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate this feature for the purpose of providing the flexibility of being able to transfer value from one network to another while maintaining the proper value amounts at each network and reducing the likelihood of fraud by destroying the currency that is no longer valid.
Madisetti does not explicitly teach, but KRATSCOIN, however, does teach:
wherein creating the second digital currency on the second DLT network comprises attaching, by the node of the first DLT network via the exchange node, a serial number to the second digital currency (see at least KRATSCOIN, page 8 (“A new digital currency of unknown origin called “KRATSCOIN” (KTC) is being talked about in the crypto-currency arena. It has gained interest because there is a serial number designed and encrypted into each mined coin.”)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate KRATSCOIN’s serial numbers with Madisetti’s invention for exchanging value between blockchain networks. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate this feature for the purpose of tracking transactions related to the digital currency. See KRATSCOIN, pages 9 and 13.
Claim 2:
Madisetti further teaches:
transferring, by the node of the first DLT network, the first digital currency from the first DLT network to the second DLT network via the exchange node; and (see at least Madisetti, Figure 7 (shows currency transfer between blockchain networks); paragraph 0019 (“receiving from a client a request to transfer value”); paragraph 0063 (“The VTTP inter-chain value transfer process enables transfer of cryptocurrency or tokens from an account on a blockchain network to another account on a different blockchain network. At step 1 408, User A 404 initiates a cross chain value transfer request to User B 406 (e.g. to send 1 ETH from user A to user B who receives the value in equivalent number of LTC). At step 2 410, VTTP client 400 sends a VTTP SEND request to the VTTP server 418. At step 3 434, VTTP server generates a raw transaction and returns the same in SEND response. In this raw transaction the ‘from’ field is user A's account, and ‘to’ field is a ‘Vault Account’ on blockchain network-1 430. At step 4 412, User A 404 signs the raw transaction with the private key and VTTP client 400 sends the VTTP SIGN transaction. At step 5 426, VTTP server 418 verifies the signature and broadcasts the transaction to the blockchain network-1 430. At step 6 422, when the value transfer from User A account to Vault account on blockchain network-1 430 is confirmed, the cryptocurrency and tokens are sent to a Cryptocurrency/Token Exchange account 420. At step 7 424, cyptocurrency or tokens are exchanged. At step 8 428, the exchanged cyptocurrency or tokens are sent to User B account on blockchain network-2 432.”)).
sending, by the node of the first DLT network via the exchange node and responsive to transferring the first digital currency from the first DLT network to the second DLT network, a confirmation request to the second DLT network (see at least Madisetti, Figure 7, Items 9 and 10; paragraph 0063 (Sending the cryptocurrency to User B’s account is the claimed confirmation request, which causes confirmation to be sent to both users.)).
Claim 3:
Madisetti further teaches:
receiving, by the node of the first DLT network via the exchange node, a confirmation from the second DLT network indicating whether transfer of the first digital currency from the first DLT network to the second DLT network has completed (see at least Madisetti, Figure 7, Items 9 and 10; paragraph 0063 (Sending the cryptocurrency to User B’s account is the claimed confirmation request, which causes confirmation to be sent to both users.)).
Claim 4:
Madisetti does not explicitly teach, but Borkowski, however, does teach:
receiving, by the node from the first DLT network from the exchange node, a destruction command to destroy the first digital currency from the first DLT network (see at least Borkowski, pages 5-6 (“Metronome proposes the feature of cross-chain portability: a user transferring MTN from one blockchain to another can do so by destroying tokens on the source blockchain in a provable and controlled way, receiving a proof of exit receipt. This receive can then be used on the target blockchain to call the Metronome contracts, which yield MTN on the target blockchain. In other words, while MTN tokens on both blockchains are technically not the same token, they are treated like one type of asset. Metronome uses on-chain communication using Ethereum smart contracts.”); pages 7-8 (“Both the removal of tokens from A and the creation of tokens on B can be realized in several different ways. The exit of tokens from A can be implemented by actually destroying tokens, rendering them unusable, or by locking the tokens into an account only accessible by providing another proof of exit from a transaction back to A.”)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Borkowski’s method of transferring digital currency from one blockchain to another by destroying the currency on the first blockchain and minting new currency on the second blockchain with Madisetti’s invention for exchanging value between blockchain networks. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate this feature for the purpose of providing the flexibility of being able to transfer value from one network to another while maintaining the proper value amounts at each network and reducing the likelihood of fraud by destroying the currency that is no longer valid.
Claim 5:
Madisetti does not explicitly teach, but KRATSCOIN, however, does teach:
wherein the serial number indicates an association between the first digital currency and the second digital currency (see at least KRATSCOIN, page 9 (The serial number makes it easier to track blockchain-based electronic money transactions.); page 13 (“by using the electronic serial numbers embedded in KRATSCOIN crypto-currency, it is easy to determine the source of the encrypted assets through blockchain. This allows tax regulators to provide undisputedly the origin or ownership of the users’ assets, where they are being sold or to whom they are transferred to.”)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate KRATSCOIN’s serial numbers that are used to track transactions with Madisetti’s invention for exchanging value between blockchain networks. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate this feature for the purpose of tracking transactions related to the digital currency. Tracking transactions may be valuable for legal purposes or for evidence of ownership of currency or assets. See KRATSCOIN, page 13.
Claim 6:
Madisetti does not explicitly teach, but Borkowski, however, does teach:
wherein the first digital currency is associated with a created state or destroyed state and the second digital currency is associated with the other of the created state or the destroyed state (see at least Borkowski, pages 5-6 (“Metronome proposes the feature of cross-chain portability: a user transferring MTN from one blockchain to another can do so by destroying tokens on the source blockchain in a provable and controlled way, receiving a proof of exit receipt. This receive can then be used on the target blockchain to call the Metronome contracts, which yield MTN on the target blockchain. In other words, while MTN tokens on both blockchains are technically not the same token, they are treated like one type of asset. Metronome uses on-chain communication using Ethereum smart contracts.”); pages 7-8 (“Both the removal of tokens from A and the creation of tokens on B can be realized in several different ways. The exit of tokens from A can be implemented by actually destroying tokens, rendering them unusable, or by locking the tokens into an account only accessible by providing another proof of exit from a transaction back to A. … Similarly, claiming MTN on B in exchange for a proof of exit receipt can be realized either by minting new MTN on B, unlocking previously locked MTN, or by changing the internal tracked location of certain (unique) MTN tokens to B.”)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Borkowski’s method of transferring digital currency from one blockchain to another by destroying the currency on the first blockchain and minting new currency on the second blockchain with Madisetti’s invention for exchanging value between blockchain networks. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate this feature for the purpose of providing the flexibility of being able to transfer value from one network to another while maintaining the proper value amounts at each network and reducing the likelihood of fraud by destroying the currency that is no longer valid.
Claim 7:
Madisetti further teaches:
wherein the first digital currency comprises a first type and the second digital currency comprises a second type, and wherein the first type and the second type are different types of digital currency (see at least Madisetti, paragraph 0012 (ETH, LTC)).
Claim 8:
Claim 8 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 9:
Claim 9 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 2.
Claim 10:
Claim 10 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 3.
Claim 11:
Claim 11 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 4.
Claim 12:
Claim 12 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 5.
Claim 13:
Claim 13 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 6.
Claim 14:
Claim 14 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 7.
Claim 15:
Claim 15 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 16:
Claim 16 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 2.
Claim 17:
Claim 17 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 3.
Claim 18:
Claim 18 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 4.
Claim 19:
Claim 19 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 5.
Claim 20:
Claim 20 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 6.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,416,848 B1.
Instant Application – Claim 1
Patent Number 11,416,848 B1 (Application Number 16/795,259) – Claim 4
1. A method, comprising:
detecting, by a node of a first distributed ledger technology (DLT) network, a request to transfer a first digital currency from the first DLT network of a first type to a second DLT network of a second type;
in response to an indication from an exchange node that the first digital currency is to be destroyed, destroying, by the node of the first DLT network, the first digital currency from the first DLT network; and
creating, by the node of the first DLT network, a second digital currency on the second DLT network, wherein creating the second digital currency on the second DLT network comprises attaching, by the node of the first DLT network via the exchange node, a serial number to the second digital currency.
1. A method, comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors, an authorization associated with monitoring transaction requests associated with a first distributed ledger technology (DLT) network;
sending, by the one or more processors to the first DLT network, a smart contract comprising executable code associated with monitoring transaction requests;
detecting, by the one or more processors after receiving the authorization via the smart contract, a transaction request to transfer a first digital currency of a first type from the first DLT network to a second DLT network, the first digital currency created on the first DLT network based on a unit of fiat currency;
destroying, by the one or more processors, the first digital currency on the first DLT network;
creating, by the one or more processors and based on the unit of fiat currency, a second digital currency of a second type on the second DLT network;
transferring, by the one or more processors responsive to detecting the transaction request, the second digital currency to the second DLT network;
detecting, by the one or more processors, the transfer of the second digital currency is complete based on searching the second DLT network; and
sending, by the one or more processors responsive to detecting the completion of the transfer of the second digital currency, a message to the first DLT network indicating the completion of the transaction request.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the first digital currency is associated with a created state or a destroyed state and the second digital currency is associated with the other of the created state or the destroyed state.
4. The method of claim 3, wherein creating the second digital currency of the second type on the second DLT network comprises: attaching, by the one or more processors, a serial number to the second digital currency.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, the reference claim is not patentably distinct from instant claim 1 because each is drawn to the same invention. Claim 1 is anticipated by or made obvious by reference claim 4. To overcome this rejection, Applicant should file a Terminal Disclaimer or amend the claims. Upon double patenting being the only remaining rejection in this application, Examiner will review and update it, as appropriate, in light of the pending claims.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,983,705 B1.
Instant Application – Claim 1
Patent Number 11,983,705 B1 (Application Number 17/870,500) – Claim 5
1. A method, comprising:
detecting, by a node of a first distributed ledger technology (DLT) network, a request to transfer a first digital currency from the first DLT network of a first type to a second DLT network of a second type;
in response to an indication from an exchange node that the first digital currency is to be destroyed, destroying, by the node of the first DLT network, the first digital currency from the first DLT network; and
creating, by the node of the first DLT network, a second digital currency on the second DLT network, wherein creating the second digital currency on the second DLT network comprises attaching, by the node of the first DLT network via the exchange node, a serial number to the second digital currency.
1. A method, comprising:
receiving, by a node of a first distributed ledger technology (DLT) network of a first type, a first message including a smart contract;
executing, by the node of the first DLT network, the smart contract;
detecting, by the node of the first DLT network and via the smart contract, a transaction request to transfer a digital currency from the first DLT network to a second DLT network of a second type;
receiving, by the node of the first DLT network, a second message from an exchange node indicating that the digital currency is to be destroyed;
in response to receiving the second message, destroying, by the node of the first DLT network, the digital currency;
creating, by the node of the first DLT network and based on a unit of fiat currency, a second digital currency of a second type on the second DLT network; and
transferring, by the node of the first DLT network, the digital currency from the first DLT network to the second DLT network via the exchange node;
wherein the exchange node is separate from the first DLT network and the second DLT network.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein creating the second digital currency of the second type on the second DLT network comprises: attaching, by the node of the first DLT network via the exchange node, a serial number to the second digital currency.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, the reference claim is not patentably distinct from instant claim 1 because each is drawn to the same invention. Claim 1 is anticipated by reference claim 5. To overcome this rejection, Applicant should file a Terminal Disclaimer or amend the claims. Upon double patenting being the only remaining rejection in this application, Examiner will review and update it, as appropriate, in light of the pending claims.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,400,219 B1.
Instant Application – Claim 1
Patent Number 12,400,219 B1 (Application Number 18/658,574) – Claim 5
1. A method, comprising:
detecting, by a node of a first distributed ledger technology (DLT) network, a request to transfer a first digital currency from the first DLT network of a first type to a second DLT network of a second type;
in response to an indication from an exchange node that the first digital currency is to be destroyed, destroying, by the node of the first DLT network, the first digital currency from the first DLT network; and
creating, by the node of the first DLT network, a second digital currency on the second DLT network, wherein creating the second digital currency on the second DLT network comprises attaching, by the node of the first DLT network via the exchange node, a serial number to the second digital currency.
1. A method, comprising:
detecting, by a node of a first distributed ledger technology (DLT) network and via a smart contract, a transaction request to transfer a first digital currency from the first DLT network of a first type to a second DLT network of a second type, wherein the transaction request is received by the node of the first DLT from the first DLT network or the second DLT network;
receiving, by the node of the first DLT network, a message from an exchange node indicating that the first digital currency is to be destroy;
transferring, by the node of the first DLT network, the first digital currency from the first DLT network to the second DLT network via the exchange node, wherein the transferring comprises:
in response to receiving the message, destroying, by the node of the first DLT network, the first digital currency from the first DLT network;
creating, by the node of the first DLT network, a second digital currency of the second type on the second DLT network.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein creating the second digital currency of the second type on the second DLT network comprises attaching, by the node of the first DLT network via the exchange node, a serial number to the second digital currency.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, the reference claim is not patentably distinct from instant claim 1 because each is drawn to the same invention. Claim 1 is anticipated by reference claim 5. To overcome this rejection, Applicant should file a Terminal Disclaimer or amend the claims. Upon double patenting being the only remaining rejection in this application, Examiner will review and update it, as appropriate, in light of the pending claims.
Relevant Prior Art
The following references are relevant to Applicant’s invention:
Weber et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0327498 A1. Weber teaches a monitor that stores messages it receives from blockchain and is an intermediary for a transaction between two parties.
Whaley et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0204192 A1. Whaley teaches a currency destroyer that is an entity that holds a currency destroyer secret key. The currency destroyer therefore has the authority to destroy digital currency. Whaley also teaches that destroyed digital currency can be recreated.
Fletcher et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0074450 A1. This reference teaches secure transfers between blockchains.
Maim, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0133735 A1. This reference teaches token-based transactional systems. Specifically, this reference teaches burning tokens. See paragraph 0130.
Vessenes et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0172026 A1. This reference teaches cross blockchain secure transactions.
Grasso, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2016/0292788 A1. This reference teaches that digital assets will have unique identifiers. See paragraph 0020.
Robinson, Peter, R. Ramesh, S. Johnson. “Atomic Crosschain Transactions for Ethereum Private Sidechains,” (May 3, 2019). This reference discusses private sidechains that allow transactions to be executed atomically across sidechains.
Mihail S. “Capturing Suspicious Transactions on the Ethereum Blockchain,” Dev Blog, https://www.apriorit.com/dev-blog/562-suspicious-ethereum-transactions (September 6, 2018). This reference teaches ways to monitor transactions on blockchain and follow any transfers of currency.
Applicature, “How to Avoid Double-Spending Attacks in Hybrid Blockchain,” https://medium.com/applicature/how-to-avoid-double-spending-attacks-in-hybrid-blockchain-280f311e574f (October 9, 2018). This reference discusses ways to avoid double spending.
Email Communications
Per MPEP 502.03, Applicant may authorize email communications by filing Form PTO/SB/439, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf, via the USPTO patent electronic filing system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH H ROSEN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1850 and email address is elizabeth.rosen@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 AM ET - 7 PM ET.
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, Michael Anderson, can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/ELIZABETH H ROSEN/Primary Examiner, 3693
1 See MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) (“Examiners should keep in mind that in order to qualify as a "treatment" or "prophylaxis" limitation for purposes of this consideration, the claim limitation in question must affirmatively recite an action that effects a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. An example of such a limitation is a step of "administering amazonic acid to a patient" or a step of "administering a course of plasmapheresis to a patient." If the limitation does not actually provide a treatment or prophylaxis, e.g., it is merely an intended use of the claimed invention or a field of use limitation, then it cannot integrate a judicial exception under the "treatment or prophylaxis" consideration. For example, a step of "prescribing a topical steroid to a patient with eczema" is not a positive limitation because it does not require that the steroid actually be used by or on the patient, and a recitation that a claimed product is a "pharmaceutical composition" or that a "feed dispenser is operable to dispense a mineral supplement" are not affirmative limitations because they are merely indicating how the claimed invention might be used.”)
Prosecution Insights