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 .
Continuation Application
This Application is a continuation of US Application No. 18/964,180 filed on 11/29/2024 now patent US 12,475,442 B2 (“Parent Application”). See MPEP § 201.07. In accordance with MPEP § 609.02 (II)(A)(2) and MPEP § 2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Application. Also, in accordance with MPEP § 2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Application are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) is/are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicant(s) desires the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP § 609.02 (II)(A)(2).
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed 11/20/2025 was considered. An initialed copy of the Form PTO-1449 is enclosed herewith.
Acknowledgements
This Office Action is in response to the claims originally filed on 01/20/2025.
Claims 1-20 were newly introduced.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 were examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 4 and 14 recite” can be be bridged”. Examiner interprets the language as “can be bridged”. Examiner advises removing the repeated words. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
According to MPEP 2106 II, It is essential that the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim be established prior to examining a claim for eligibility. Further, MPEP 2103 I C establishes that the subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit the scope of the claim when given their broadest reasonable interpretation. It is this subject matter that must be examined. Regarding the independent claims, claims 1, 11 and 20 recite “ wherein the adjusted batch instruction includes a modification to the batch instruction”, language directed to non-functional descriptive material. See MPEP 2111.05.
With respect to the Eligibility Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo two-part test of the subject matter eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106), in the instant case claims 1-10 are directed to a system, claims 11-19 are directed to a method, and claim 20 are directed to a medium. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Following step 2A, prong one of the analysis, the language of the independent claims reciting an abstract idea are marked in bold below:
a. “receiving, by one or more processors, a request for a destination token on a destination blockchain”;b. “based on receiving the request, determining, by the one or more processors, a location of a user who submitted the request”;c. “determining, by the one or more processors and based on the location of the user, a path through a plurality of blockchains to obtain the destination token”;d. “generating, by the one or more processors, a batch instruction based on the determined path, wherein the batch instruction includes a plurality of portions for performing a plurality of operations on the plurality of blockchains to obtain the destination token”;e. “submitting, by the one or more processors, the batch instruction for execution”;f. “after submitting the batch instruction for execution, detecting, by the one or more processors, an error associated with the execution of at least a portion of the batch instruction”;g. “in response to detecting the error, generating, by the one or more processors, an adjusted batch instruction that resolves the error, wherein the adjusted batch instruction includes a modification to the batch instruction”; andh. “submitting, by the one or more processors, the adjusted batch instruction for execution”
Therefore, the portions highlighted in bold above recite receiving and processing requests, including error handling, which is an abstract idea grouped within the certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A. The claims are grouped within certain methods of organizing human activity because the steps recited describe the fundamental economic practice of routing financial operations and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, such as following rules or instructions. Additionally, the claims are also grouped within mental processes because the steps recited describe collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, which is a concept that can be performed in the human mind or by pen and paper. In situations like this where a series of steps recite judicial exceptions, examiners should combine all recited judicial exceptions and treat the claim as containing a single judicial exception for purposes of further eligibility analysis. See MPEP 2106.04 and 2106.05(II). Thus, the language identified in the certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes groupings were considered as a single abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
With respect to step 2A, prong two of the analysis, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Specifically, with respect to using processor, memory, non-transitory computer-readable medium to perform the recited steps/functions, these additional elements performs the steps or functions such as: “receiving… request…”, “determining… location… (i.e. request data)”, “determining… path…”, “generating... instruction...”, “submitting… instruction…”, “detecting… error…”, “generating… adjusted... instruction…”, “submitting… adjusted… instruction…”. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which only serves to use computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they require no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional element(s) of plurality of blockchains amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, following the analysis of step 2A, prong two, the claims are still directed to an abstract idea.
With respect to step 2B of the analysis, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional computer elements, such as processor, memory, non-transitory computer-readable medium, plurality of blockchains. The processor, memory, non-transitory computer-readable medium perform the steps/functions of “receiving… request…”, “determining… location… (i.e. request data)”, “determining… path…”, “generating... instruction...”, “submitting… instruction…”, “detecting… error…”, “generating… adjusted... instruction…”, “submitting… adjusted… instruction…”, and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept beyond the abstract idea of receiving and processing requests, including error handling. The additional element(s) of plurality of blockchains amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, these additional elements perform the steps or functions that correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of receiving and processing requests, including error handling. Therefore, the independent claims are not eligible.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 further recite the following additional language, in which elements which merely further define the identified abstract idea are marked in bold below:
i) wherein the operations further comprise: determining, based on one or more data structures, a blockchain on which an intermediate token can be on-ramped, the blockchain being included in the plurality of blockchains; and generating the batch instruction to include a sub-instruction configured to on-ramp the intermediate token onto the blockchain. j) wherein the operations further comprise: determining, based on one or more data structures, a blockchain on which an intermediate token can be converted into the destination token, the blockchain being included in the plurality of blockchains; and generating the batch instruction to include a sub-instruction configured to convert the intermediate token into the destination token on the blockchain. k) wherein the operations further comprise: determining, based on one or more data structures, a blockchain on which an intermediate token can be bridged from a first blockchain to a second blockchain, the first blockchain and the second blockchain being included in the plurality of blockchains; and generating the batch instruction to include a sub-instruction configured to bridge the intermediate token from the first blockchain to the second blockchain. l) wherein the operations further comprise: authenticating a blockchain operation to be performed on a blockchain of the plurality of blockchains based on (i) a signing key, (ii) a signature, (iii) a hashing algorithm, or (iv) an address. m) wherein the operations further comprise: providing a gas token for converting an intermediate token into the destination token on a blockchain of the plurality of blockchains. n) wherein the operations further comprise: determining the path through the plurality of blockchains based on one or more data structures. o) wherein the one or more data structures is a table. p) wherein the one or more data structures is a list. q) wherein the modification is to a part of the batch instruction that triggered the error.
Examiner notes that, for elements recited in the dependent claims which were previously analyzed as additional elements of the independent claims above (i.e. processor, memory, non-transitory computer-readable medium), the assessment of these elements under step 2A and step 2B for the dependent claims is inherited from the analysis of the independent claims and omitted for brevity, unless noted by Examiner below.
With respect to the eligibility analysis of claims 2 and 12, Further, the claims recite item i) above, which represents the additional elements/functions of determining an intermediary and generating an instruction. This language further elaborates the abstract idea of receiving and processing requests, including error handling identified in the analysis of independent claims 1, 11 and 20. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
With respect to the eligibility analysis of claims 3 and 13, Further, the claims recite item j) above, which represents the additional elements/functions of determining an intermediary and generating an instruction. This language further elaborates the abstract idea of receiving and processing requests, including error handling identified in the analysis of independent claims 1, 11 and 20. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
With respect to the eligibility analysis of claims 4 and 14, Further, the claims recite item k) above, which represents the additional elements/functions of determining an intermediary and generating an instruction. This language further elaborates the abstract idea of receiving and processing requests, including error handling identified in the analysis of independent claims 1, 11 and 20. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
With respect to the eligibility analysis of claims 5 and 15, Further, the claims recite item l) above, which represents the additional elements/functions of authenticating an operation. This language further elaborates the abstract idea of receiving and processing requests, including error handling identified in the analysis of independent claims 1, 11 and 20. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
With respect to the eligibility analysis of claims 6 and 16, Further, the claims recite item m) above, which represents the additional elements/functions of providing a token. This language further elaborates the abstract idea of receiving and processing requests, including error handling identified in the analysis of independent claims 1, 11 and 20. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
With respect to the eligibility analysis of claims 7 and 17, Further, the claims recite item n) above, which represents the additional elements/functions of determining the path. This language further elaborates the abstract idea of receiving and processing requests, including error handling identified in the analysis of independent claims 1, 11 and 20. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
With respect to claims 8 and 18, the claims include language which do not introduce additional elements/functions. The additional language merely represents statements directed to directed to non-functional descriptive material by describing what the (data) structure is (i.e. table). Those statements are insufficient to significantly alter the eligibility analysis. This language further elaborates the abstract idea of receiving and processing requests, including error handling identified in the analysis of independent claims 1, 11 and 20. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
With respect to claims 9 and 18, the claims include language which do not introduce additional elements/functions. The additional language merely represents statements directed to directed to non-functional descriptive material by describing what the (data) structure is (i.e. list). Those statements are insufficient to significantly alter the eligibility analysis. This language further elaborates the abstract idea of receiving and processing requests, including error handling identified in the analysis of independent claims 1, 11 and 20. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
With respect to claims 10 and 19, the claims include language which do not introduce additional elements/functions. The additional language merely represents statements directed to directed to non-functional descriptive material by describing what the modification is (i.e. “to instruction”). Those statements are insufficient to significantly alter the eligibility analysis. This language further elaborates the abstract idea of receiving and processing requests, including error handling identified in the analysis of independent claims 1, 11 and 20. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Therefore, while the additional language i)-q) of dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 slightly modify the analysis provided with respect to independent claims 1, 11 and 20, these additional elements/functions are insufficient to render the dependent claims eligible, as detailed above. Therefore, these dependent claims are also ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kumawat et al. (US 2021/0026841 A1), hereinafter Kumawat, in view of Bukov et al. (US 2024/0273486 A1), hereinafter Bukov, and in view of Trestioreanu et al. (NPL 2021, listed in PTO-892 as reference "U"), hereinafter Trestioreanu.
With respect to claims 1, 11 and 20, Kumawat teaches a computer system, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories storing program code that is executable by the one or more processors; non-transitory computer-readable medium storing program code that is executable by one or more processors; and a method (Method and system for data localization-compliant blockchain processing and storage) comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors, a request for a destination token on a destination blockchain (see paragraph [0023]: “In the system 100, a computing device 104a located in the first country 106 may interact with a computing device 104b located in the second country 108 for a new transaction…");
based on receiving the request, determining, by the one or more processors, a location of a user who submitted the request (see paragraph [0024]: “The submission may include at least the digital signature, the public key of the cryptographic key pair of the computing device 104a, the blockchain address generated for the computing device 104b, and any other data to be included in the new blockchain data value. The local node 102 may identify the country in which each entity involved in the new blockchain transaction is located. In some embodiments, data may be stored directly in or in a location accessible by the local node 102 that includes an identifier, such as a public key, for each computing device 104 and the associated country...”; paragraph [0025]: “The local node 102 may accordingly identify that the computing device 104a is located in the first country 106 using its associated public key included in the submission...");
determining, by the one or more processors and based on the location of the user, a path… to obtain the destination token (see paragraph [0025]: “The local node 102 may accordingly identify that the computing device 104a is located in the first country 106 using its associated public key included in the submission. The local node 102 may also identify that the computing device 104b is located in the second country 108, using the destination blockchain address included in the submission. In some cases, the address may be unsuitable for use as an identifier. In such cases, the submission may also include the public key provided by the computing device 104b. In these cases, the local node 102 may identify the second country 108 using this additional public key included in the submitted data.”; Examiner notes identifying the source and destination blockchains is interpreted as the path).
Kumawat does not explicitly disclose a system, method and medium comprising: the path is "through a plurality of blockchains"; generating, by the one or more processors, a batch instruction based on the determined path, wherein the batch instruction includes a plurality of portions for performing a plurality of operations on the plurality of blockchains to obtain the destination token; submitting, by the one or more processors, the batch instruction for execution; after submitting the batch instruction for execution, detecting, by the one or more processors, an error associated with the execution of at least a portion of the batch instruction; in response to detecting the error, generating, by the one or more processors, an adjusted batch instruction that resolves the error, wherein the adjusted batch instruction includes a modification to the batch instruction; and submitting, by the one or more processors, the adjusted batch instruction for execution.
However, Bukov discloses a system, method and medium (Dynamic multi-path transfers) comprising:
the path is "through a plurality of blockchains" (see paragraph [0011]: “Systems and methods for dynamic multi-path transfers are disclosed herein. Advantageously, the systems disclosed herein for multi-route transfers as described herein can analyze every possible transfer to determine the best exchanges to use to transfer the source token to the destination token, and/or the best volume of the source token to transfer via each exchange to receive the largest volume of the destination token. The system for multi-route transfers can allow a user to transfer the source token on a plurality of exchanges simultaneously while receiving the largest volume of destination token. In some embodiments, the system for multi-route transfers can allow a user to transfer the source token to the destination via a plurality of intermediate assets to receive the largest volume of destination token.”; Fig. 1A, paragraph [0067]: “FIG. 1A shows a schematic of an example multi-route transfer 100 of a source asset 104 (e.g., input token ‘A’) to a destination asset 106 (e.g., input token ‘B’).” See also Provisional application, Fig. 1A, paragraphs [0036]-[0038]);
generating, by the one or more processors, a batch instruction based on the determined path, wherein the batch instruction includes a plurality of portions for performing a plurality of operations on the plurality of blockchains to obtain the destination token (see paragraph [0013]: “A multi-route transfer of a source token for a destination token may be determined by analyzing a graph representing a plurality of tokens and exchanges to determine a plurality of unique transfer paths. A transfer path may reflect a direct transfer in which the source token is swapped for the destination token, or it may reflect a series of intermediate transfers in which the source token is swapped for intermediate token(s) that are swapped for the destination token. Dynamic programming can be used to select the transfer paths to include in the multi-route transfer, determine how to distribute swaps across those transfer paths, and determine how to distribute swaps for each transfer of a transfer path—thereby optimizing for the total amount of the destination token received while accounting for transaction fees.”; atomic transfer between multiple blockchain, paragraph [0063]; paragraph [0064]: “In some embodiments, a system for multi-route transfer may analyze, for example, hundreds of exchanges and/or thousands of assets to determine or generate a multi-route transfer with a largest volume of a destination asset for a particular volume of source asset..." See also Provisional application, Fig. 1A, paragraphs [0030]-[0031]);
submitting, by the one or more processors, the batch instruction for execution (see paragraph [0016] executing the multi-route transfer; Fig. 2, paragraph [0111]: “In some embodiments, if the user selects to execute the multi-route transfer 100, the computer system and/or the algorithm can execute the multi-route transfer 100 at step 212. In some embodiments, as described above, the computer system and/or the algorithm can execute the multi-route transfer 100 as an atomic multi-route transfer 100”; See also Provisional application, Fig. 1A, paragraph [0066]);
after submitting the batch instruction for execution, detecting, by the one or more processors, an error associated with the execution of at least a portion of the batch instruction (see paragraph [0063]: “In some embodiments, the combination of paths or links that results in the largest volumes of destination asset may comprise a multi-route transfer. In some embodiments, the multi-route transfer may include an atomic transfer or an atomic swap, wherein an atomic transfer or an atomic swap is a transfer or a swap that can be automatically cancelled or reversed if the transfer or the swap is not completed within a predetermined time. In some embodiments, an atomic transfer or an atomic swap may include a transfer or a swap that can be automatically cancelled or reversed if every condition or step of a smart contract for the transfer is not completed within a predetermined time. In some embodiments, an atomic transfer or an atomic swap may include hash timelock contract technology (HTCL) that requires verification from each party of a transfer for the transfer to be completed. In some embodiments, an atomic transfer or an atomic swap may include a transfer between multiple blockchains.”; ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the smart order routing as disclosed by Bukov in the system, method and medium of Kumawat, the motivation being to enable large transactions to be performed with less slippage by planning and executing multi-route transfers (e.g., complex multi-token and/or multi-exchange transactions), in a manner that will optimize the amount of destination token received while accounting for transaction fees and complexity (see Bukov, paragraph [0008]).
The combination of Kumawat and Bukov does not explicitly disclose a system, method and medium comprising: in response to detecting the error, generating, by the one or more processors, an adjusted batch instruction that resolves the error, wherein the adjusted batch instruction includes a modification to the batch instruction; and submitting, by the one or more processors, the adjusted batch instruction for execution.
However, Trestioreanu discloses a system, method and medium (SPON: Enabling Resilient Inter-Ledgers Payments with an Intrusion-Tolerant Overlay) comprising:
in response to detecting the error, generating, by the one or more processors, an adjusted batch instruction that resolves the error, wherein the adjusted batch instruction includes a modification to the batch instruction; and submitting, by the one or more processors, the adjusted batch instruction for execution (see page 94: "The data forwarding layer can be an overlay of relay nodes that implement customized routing algorithms for better latency, routing around failures and with BGP attack resilience. The ILP payment exchange connectors use the overlay of relays to communicate with each other."; Fig, 6, page 96, page 98: "2) Global topology. Through our two connectors attached to the Spines nodes FRA and HKG, we sent a payment of 80000 drops, and packet size 50 drops (1600 ILP micro-payments), during a total time of 500s. While the STREAM is sent, we cut the communication of nodes SJC, NYC, LON, WAS, JHU, DFW, ATL using IPtables on the respective machines, at a 40s interval, in a 5-count cycle. This procedure completely melts and brings back every 40s, all the possible paths but FRA-CHI-DEN-LAX-HKG from Figure 6. The baseline is two ILP connectors paired over a single link with delay 151ms equivalent to the remaining path (FRA-CHI-DEN-LAX-HKG) from Figure 6, after all other paths go down.").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the fault-tolerance to benign failures such as node failures and network partitions as disclosed by Trestioreanu in the system, method and medium of Kumawat and Bukov, the motivation being to increase transaction security by preventing relay nodes between ledgers to be compromised and not forward payments and/or preventing routing attacks in the relay network itself (see Trestioreanu, page 93, column 1). With respect to the BRI of the claims, Examiner notes that claims 1, 11 and 20 recite “ wherein the adjusted batch instruction includes a modification to the batch instruction”, language directed to non-functional descriptive material. See MPEP 2111.05.
With respect to claims 2 and 12, the combination of Kumawat, Bukov and Trestioreanu teaches all the subject matter of the system and method as described above with respect to claims 1 and 11. Furthermore, Bukov disclose a system and method wherein the operations further comprise:
determining, based on one or more data structures, a blockchain on which an intermediate token can be on-ramped, the blockchain being included in the plurality of blockchains (see Fig. 1A, paragraph [0075]: “In some embodiments, a transfer path 102 may comprise multiple transfers 101, which can be considered intermediate transfers or bridge transfers (e.g., involving an intermediary asset, as opposed to a direct swap from the source asset 104 to the destination asset 106). For example, as depicted in the figure, the transfer path 102-A comprises two intermediate transfers 101-B which implies a swap to/from an intermediary asset (not shown). The transfer path 102-B is shown with three intermediate transfers 101-B which implies a swap to/from two different intermediary assets (not shown).”; See also Provisional application, Fig. 1A, paragraphs [0036]-[0038]); and
generating the batch instruction to include a sub-instruction configured to on-ramp the intermediate token onto the blockchain (see paragraph [0063]: "In some embodiments, an atomic transfer or an atomic swap may include a transfer between multiple blockchains."; paragraph [0075]: “In some embodiments, a transfer path 102 may comprise multiple transfers 101, which can be considered intermediate transfers or bridge transfers (e.g., involving an intermediary asset, as opposed to a direct swap from the source asset 104 to the destination asset 106)..."; paragraph [0076]: “In some embodiments, the transfer paths 102 can include two or more intermediate transfers 101-B. In some embodiments, a transfer path 102 can include two (2), three (3), four (4), five (5), six (6), seven (7), eight (8), nine (9), and/or ten (10) intermediate transfers 101-B...". See also Provisional application, Fig. 1A, paragraphs [0036]-[0038]). Regarding the BRI of the claims, Examiner notes that claims 2 and 12 recite “generating the batch instruction to include a sub-instruction configured to on-ramp the intermediate token onto the blockchain”, statements of intended use or field use. See MPEP 2114 II. The motivation for combining the references remain unaltered from the motivation described above in conjunction with the rejection of the independent claims.
With respect to claims 3 and 13, the combination of Kumawat, Bukov and Trestioreanu teaches all the subject matter of the system and method as described above with respect to claims 1 and 11. Furthermore, Bukov disclose a system and method wherein the operations further comprise:
determining, based on one or more data structures, a blockchain on which an intermediate token can be converted into the destination token, the blockchain being included in the plurality of blockchains (see Fig. 1A, paragraph [0075]; See also Provisional application, Fig. 1A, paragraphs [0036]-[0038]); and
generating the batch instruction to include a sub-instruction configured to convert the intermediate token into the destination token on the blockchain (see paragraph [0063]: "In some embodiments, an atomic transfer or an atomic swap may include a transfer between multiple blockchains."; paragraph [0075]: “In some embodiments, a transfer path 102 may comprise multiple transfers 101, which can be considered intermediate transfers or bridge transfers (e.g., involving an intermediary asset, as opposed to a direct swap from the source asset 104 to the destination asset 106)..."; paragraph [0076]: “In some embodiments, the transfer paths 102 can include two or more intermediate transfers 101-B. In some embodiments, a transfer path 102 can include two (2), three (3), four (4), five (5), six (6), seven (7), eight (8), nine (9), and/or ten (10) intermediate transfers 101-B...". See also Provisional application, Fig. 1A, paragraphs [0036]-[0038]). Regarding the BRI of the claims, Examiner notes that claims 3 and 13 recite “generating the batch instruction to include a sub-instruction configured to convert the intermediate token into the destination token on the blockchain.”, statements of intended use or field use. See MPEP 2114 II. The motivation for combining the references remain unaltered from the motivation described above in conjunction with the rejection of the independent claims.
With respect to claims 4 and 14, the combination of Kumawat, Bukov and Trestioreanu teaches all the subject matter of the system and method as described above with respect to claims 1 and 11. Furthermore, Bukov disclose a system and method wherein the operations further comprise:
determining, based on one or more data structures, a blockchain on which an intermediate token can be bridged from a first blockchain to a second blockchain, the first blockchain and the second blockchain being included in the plurality of blockchains (see Fig. 1A, paragraph [0075]; See also Provisional application, Fig. 1A, paragraphs [0036]-[0038]); and
generating the batch instruction to include a sub-instruction configured to bridge the intermediate token from the first blockchain to the second blockchain (see paragraph [0063]: "In some embodiments, an atomic transfer or an atomic swap may include a transfer between multiple blockchains."; paragraph [0076]: “In some embodiments, the transfer paths 102 can include two or more intermediate transfers 101-B. In some embodiments, a transfer path 102 can include two (2), three (3), four (4), five (5), six (6), seven (7), eight (8), nine (9), and/or ten (10) intermediate transfers 101-B...". See also Provisional application, Fig. 1A, paragraphs [0036]-[0038]).
Regarding the BRI of the claims, Examiner notes that claims 4 and 14 recite “generating the batch instruction to include a sub-instruction configured to bridge the intermediate token from the first blockchain to the second blockchain”, statements of intended use or field use. See MPEP 2114 II. The motivation for combining the references remain unaltered from the motivation described above in conjunction with the rejection of the independent claims.
With respect to claims 5 and 15, the combination of Kumawat, Bukov and Trestioreanu teaches all the subject matter of the system and method as described above with respect to claims 1 and 11. Furthermore, Kumawat disclose a system and method wherein the operations further comprise: authenticating a blockchain operation to be performed on a blockchain of the plurality of blockchains based on (i) a signing key, (ii) a signature, (iii) a hashing algorithm, or (iv) an address (see paragraph [0020]: “In some embodiments, the blockchain may be used to store information regarding blockchain transactions conducted between two different blockchain wallets. A blockchain wallet may include a private key of a cryptographic key pair that is used to generate digital signatures that serve as authorization by a payer for a blockchain transaction, where the digital signature can be verified by the blockchain network 104 using the public key of the cryptographic key pair..."). Regarding the BRI of the claims, Examiner notes that claims 5 and 15 recite “ a gas token for converting an intermediate token into the destination token…” , statements of intended use or field use. See MPEP 2114 II. The motivation for combining the references remain unaltered from the motivation described above in conjunction with the rejection of the independent claims.
With respect to claims 6 and 16, the combination of Kumawat, Bukov and Trestioreanu teaches all the subject matter of the system and method as described above with respect to claims 1 and 11. Furthermore, Bukov disclose a system and method wherein the operations further comprise: providing a gas token for converting an intermediate token into the destination token on a blockchain of the plurality of blockchains (see paragraph [0004]: “Users often transfer and exchange digital assets as swaps of blockchain-based cryptocurrency tokens, in which an amount of a source token is exchanged for an amount of a destination token. Such swaps can be performed over centralized exchanges and decentralized exchanges, the latter of which are gaining in popularity. These swaps typically require that the user pay transaction fees to incentivize nodes of the blockchain network to process the transaction. These transaction fees are sometimes referred to as gas fees.”; paragraph [0026]: ““Gas” is a term of art that is often used to refer to a transaction fee for compensating miners/validators of a Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) compatible blockchain network in exchange for their computational effort of mining and processing blocks on the blockchain. However, the inventions disclosed herein may be applicable to other blockchain networks and implementations. Accordingly, the term “gas” may also broadly refer to any fee that enables users to conduct transactions or execute contracts on a blockchain network or to any fee that could incentivize an entity or participant to process transactions on a blockchain”). The motivation for combining the references remain unaltered from the motivation described above in conjunction with the rejection of the independent claims.
With respect to claims 7 and 17, the combination of Kumawat, Bukov and Trestioreanu teaches all the subject matter of the system and method as described above with respect to claims 1 and 11. Furthermore, Bukov disclose a system and method wherein the operations further comprise: determining the path through the plurality of blockchains based on one or more data structures (see paragraph [0105]: “In some embodiments, the computer system and/or the algorithm can determine predicted asset data and/or predicted exchange data based on one or more rules of an asset and/or an exchange. In some embodiments, the computer system and/or the algorithm can retrieve the one or more rules of the asset and/or the exchange from one or more exchanges and/or a blockchain associated with one or more assets. In some embodiments, the computer system and/or the algorithm can retrieve the one or more rules of the asset and/or the exchange from source code of the asset and/or the exchange. In some embodiments, the computer system and/or the algorithm can retrieve the one or more rules of the asset and/or the exchange via an application programming interface (API), a webhook, and/or any other communication protocols.”; Examiner notes the rules are "data structures"). The motivation for combining the references remain unaltered from the motivation described above in conjunction with the rejection of the independent claims.
With respect to claims 8 and 18, the combination of Kumawat, Bukov and Trestioreanu teaches all the subject matter of the system and method as described above with respect to claims 7 and 17. Furthermore, Bukov disclose a system and method wherein the one or more data structures is a table (see rules, paragraph [0105]). Regarding the BRI of the claims, Examiner notes that claims 8 and 18 recite “wherein the one or more data structures is a table”, language directed to non-functional descriptive material. The motivation for combining the references remain unaltered from the motivation described above in conjunction with the rejection of the independent claims.
With respect to claims 9 and 18, the combination of Kumawat, Bukov and Trestioreanu teaches all the subject matter of the system and method as described above with respect to claims 7 and 17. Furthermore, Bukov disclose a system and method wherein the one or more data structures is a list (see rules, paragraph [0105]). Regarding the BRI of the claims, Examiner notes that claims 9 and 18 recite “wherein the one or more data structures is a list”, language directed to non-functional descriptive material. The motivation for combining the references remain unaltered from the motivation described above in conjunction with the rejection of the independent claims.
With respect to claims 10 and 19, the combination of Kumawat, Bukov and Trestioreanu teaches all the subject matter of the system and method as described above with respect to claims 1 and 11. Furthermore, Trestioreanu disclose a system and method wherein the modification is to a part of the batch instruction that triggered the error (see page 97: "... While the STREAM is sent, we take down the communication of the overlay nodes 2, 7, 14 ... This procedure completely melts and brings back every 40s, all the possible paths but the green one (nodes 1-9-10-11-5) from Figure 5. In Figures 10a, 10b, 10c we plot individual ILP packet latencies. We observe that, if one of the currently active transmission paths is the actual path to remain unaffected by the network melt, then the system can offer optimal protection against the melt starting even from 2-paths; on 1-path, the minimal drawback comes due to rerouting time to a better path after the network becomes available again. Even when all but one path vanish, SPON service continues reliably, with no packets lost during the experiment."; Fig. 6, page 94; page 98: "While the STREAM is sent, we cut the communication of nodes SJC, NYC, LON, WAS, JHU, DFW, ATL using IPtables on the respective machines, at a 40s interval, in a 5-count cycle. This procedure completely melts and brings back every 40s, all the possible paths but FRA-CHI-DEN-LAX-HKG from Figure 6. The baseline is two ILP connectors paired over a single link with delay 151ms equivalent to the remaining path (FRA-CHI-DEN-LAX-HKG) from Figure 6, after all other paths go down").
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Patent Literature
Wu et al. (US 2019/0188711 A1) disclose cross-ledger transfers between distributed ledgers, including using a Merkle proof to prove the presence of the transaction granting the mint license in a source chain.
Maathur et al. (US 2021/0398211 A1) disclose systems and methods for converting cryptocurrency, including a set of blockchain transactions, which function to send an amount of cryptocurrency from a sending blockchain address to a recipient blockchain address via the respective blockchain..
Boo et al. (US 2024/0070659 A1) disclose systems and methods for facilitating blockchain operations across multiple blockchain networks using a decentralized exchange, including steps involved in processing blockchain operations featuring a plurality of blockchain operation types.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDUARDO D CASTILHO whose telephone number is (571)270-1592. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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.
/EDUARDO CASTILHO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3698