DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-11, 14-17, and 19-20 are amended.
Claims 12-13, 18 are canceled.
Claims 21-23 are new.
Claims 1-11, 14-17 and 19-23 are pending.
Response to Remarks
Double Patenting
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previous rejections. Accordingly, the previous rejections are withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. § 101
Remark 1: Applicant contends that the limitations are not directed to the abstract concept of "updating balances" but rather to computer-executed steps that securely coordinate token balance updates across a distributed network of validation units through cryptographically signed messages and replicated data structures.
Response to Remark 1: Applicant's argument is not persuasive because these features are part of the additional elements discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two.
Remark 2: Applicant contends that the claim integrates any such abstract idea into a practical application because of the technological improvements provided by the system. The claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application by providing a specific technical architecture for user token balance synchronization across a network of validation units that enables the network of validation units to validation transmissions with consensus.
Response to Remark 2: What applicant contends is an improvement is merely an improvement in the recited abstract idea, and not an improvement in the functioning of computers, nor technology, nor a technical field. Moreover, a general-purpose computer would be capable of performing these same operations of a mere improvement in the abstract idea. Here, the additional elements individually and in combination, are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previous rejections. Accordingly, the previous rejections are withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. § 102
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previous rejections. Accordingly, the previous rejections are withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 07/10/2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) has/have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities. The claim recites the limitation “validating, the network of validation units, the transmission requested by the second message at least in part by”. It appears the limitation “by” was unintentionally not included within the claim as a typographical error. Examiner suggests amending the claim to recite “validating, by the network of validation units, the transmission requested by the second message at least in part by” instead. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 5-7 are also objected to per dependency upon an objected claim.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Regarding Claims 1-10, and 20-23 the term “operator unit” acts as a generic placeholder for the term “means”. Also, the generic placeholder is modified by functional language. Further, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. The structure corresponding to the “operator unit” may be found in at least Fig.11 item 1102 of Applicant’s specification.
Regarding Claims 1-11, 14-17 and 19-23 the term “validation units” acts as a generic placeholder for the term “means”. Also, the generic placeholder is modified by functional language. Further, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. The structure corresponding to the “validation units” may be found in at least Fig.11 item 1108 of Applicant’s specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-11, 14-17 and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Step 1 of the eligibility analysis asks is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter (See MPEP § 2106.03, subsections I and II). Claims 1-10 and 21-23 are directed to a computer-implemented method (i.e., process). Claims 11, 14-17 and 19 are directed to a computer-implemented system (i.e., machine, and manufacture). Claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (i.e., manufacture). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon (MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1)). Claims 1, 11 and 20 under a broadest reasonable interpretation recite an abstract idea because the claims describe updating user token balances based on received values, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II). The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea are grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas because the limitations describe fundamental economic principles or practices, including mitigating risk, and describe commercial or legal interactions, including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea.
Claim 1:
A method for updating user token balances in a cryptographic transmission system based on values in an external system separate from the cryptographic transmission system, the cryptographic transmission system comprising a network of validation units, the network of validation units each storing a respective data structure indicating token balances of a plurality of users in the cryptographic transmission system, the method comprising:
performing by an operator unit:
receiving, from the external system, an indication of a first value in the external system associated with a first user of the plurality of users for origination of new tokens in the cryptographic transmission system for the first user;
generating, based on the first value in the external system associated with the first user, a cryptographically signed first message indicating a first amount of tokens in the cryptographic transmission system to issue to a token balance of the first user in the cryptographic transmission system; and
transmitting, to the network of validation units, the first message indicating the first amount of tokens to issue to the first user;
performing, by the network of validation units:
receiving the first message indicating the first amount of tokens to issue to the first user; and
updating respective data structures at least in part by adding the first amount of tokens indicated by the first message to the token balance of the first user in the cryptographic transmission system such that an update to the token balance of the first user is replicated across the network of validation units.
Claim 11:
A cryptographic transmission system comprising:
a network of validation units each storing a respective data structure indicating token balances of a plurality of users in the cryptographic transmission system; and
an operator unit comprising at least one computer hardware processor configured to:
receive from, the external system, an indication of a first value in the external system associated with a first user of the plurality of users for origination of new tokens in the cryptographic transmission system for the first user;
generate, based on the first value in the external system associated with the first user, a cryptographically signed first message indicating a first amount of tokens in the cryptographic transmission system to issue to a token balance of the first user in the cryptographic transmission system; and
transmit, to the network of validation units, the first message indicating the first amount of tokens to issue to the first user,
wherein the network of validation units are configured to:
receive the first message indicating the first amount of tokens to issue to the first user; and
update respective data structures at least in part by adding the first amount indicated by the first message to the token balance of the first user in the cryptographic transmission system such that an update to the token balance of the first user is replicated across the network of validation units.
Claim 20:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a an operator unit and a network of validation units of a cryptographic transmission system, cause performance of a method for updating user token balances in the cryptographic transmission system based on values in an external system separate from the cryptographic transmission system, the network of validation units each storing a respective data structure indicating token balances of a plurality of users in the cryptographic transmission system, the method comprising:
performing, by the operator unit:
receiving from, the external system, an indication of a first value in the external system associated with a first user of the plurality of users for origination of new tokens in the cryptographic transmission system for the first user;
generating, based on the first value in the external system associated with the first user, a cryptographically signed first message indicating a first amount of tokens in the cryptographic transmission system to issue to a token balance of the first user in the cryptographic transmission system; and
transmitting, to the network of validation units, the first message indicating the first amount of tokens to issue to the first user;
performing, by the network of validation units:
receiving the first message indicating the first amount of tokens to issue to the first user; and
updating respective data structures at least in part by adding the first amount of tokens indicated by the first message to the token balance of the first user in the cryptographic transmission system such that an update to the token balance of the first user is replicated across the network of validation units.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2)). Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations discussed in more detail in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.04(d)(2), 2106.05(a) through (c) and 2106.05(e) through (h). Here, the non-underlined claim limitations above recite additional elements. The additional elements do not improve the functioning of computers, another technology, or a technical field (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)). The Specification does not assert that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. The claim does not purport to improve computer capabilities, but rather invokes computers merely as a tool by adding general purpose computers post-hoc to an abstract idea. A commonplace business method being applied on a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement to technology. The claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. The Specification and the claim language provide evidence that the focus of the claim is on a scheme. An improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology. Even if the Specification describes technical improvements, they are not claimed. The additional elements do not apply the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)). The additional elements do not implement the abstract idea with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim (MPEP § 2106.05(b)). A general-purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. The additional elements do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP § 2106.05(c)). The claim does not recite any transformation of an article where the article changes to a different state or thing. Nor do the additional elements apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way or impose a meaningful limit on it beyond linking its use to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05(e)). The additional elements generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. A wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of additional feature that provides any practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea itself. The additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements are being used in their ordinary capacity. The additional elements do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. The additional elements generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Thus, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to the abstract idea identified above.
Step 2B
Step 2B determines whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP § 2106.05). In Step 2B examiners carry over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two; carry over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e), (f) and (h); re-evaluate any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; and evaluate whether any additional element or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d). The additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The additional elements generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Individually, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Here, the additional elements simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Here, the specification of the application indicates that additional elements are well-known or conventional (See Spec. 0040-0045, 0049, 0053, 0059-0060). There is nothing in the specification to indicate that the operations recited in the claims require any specialized hardware or inventive computer components or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions. The ordered combination recites no more than the individual elements do. Thus, the additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to the abstract idea identified above without significantly more. The claims are not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Dependent Claims
Claim 2 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes updating user token balances based on received values and validation by signature, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0040-0045, 0049, 0053, 0059-0060). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
performing, by the operator unit:
generating the first message indicating the first amount of tokens to issue to the first user at least in part by cryptographically signing the first message with a cryptographic signature of an operator unit designated for initiating amounts in the cryptographic transmission system.
Claim 3 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes updating user token balances based on received values, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0040-0045, 0049, 0053, 0059-0060). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
performing, by the operator unit:
receiving from, the external system, an indication of a second value in the external system associated with a second user of the plurality of users;
determining, based on the second value in the external system associated with the second user, a second amount of tokens to issue to a token balance of the second user; and
transmitting, to the network of validation units, a second message indicating the second amount of tokens to issue to the second user,
wherein transmitting the second message causes the network of validation units to update respective data structures at least in part by adding the second amount of tokens indicated by the second message to the token balance of the second user.
Claim 4 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes updating user token balances based on received values and validation by signature, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0040-0045, 0049, 0053, 0059-0060). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
receiving, from a device by the network of validation units, a second message requesting transmission of a second amount of tokens from the first user to at least one recipient;
validating, the network of validation units, the transmission requested by the second message at least in part by:
determining whether the token balance of the first user is sufficient to complete the transmission of the second amount of tokens to the at least one recipient; and
when it is determined that the token balance of the first user is sufficient to complete the transmission of the second amount of tokens to the at least one recipient:
cryptographically signing respective messages with respective cryptographic signatures indicating that the transmission is valid to obtain a cryptographically signed second message; and
transmitting, to the device, the cryptographically signed messages.
Claim 5 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes updating user token balances based on received values and validation by signature, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0040-0045, 0049, 0053, 0059-0060). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
performing, by the device:
in response to receiving, from the network of validation units, a threshold number of cryptographic signatures indicating that the transmission requested by the second message is valid:
generating a validation certificate using the cryptographic signatures; and
transmitting, to the network of validation units, the validation certificate,
wherein transmission of the validation certificate triggers execution of the transmission from the first user to the at least one recipient.
Claim 6 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes updating user token balances based on received values and validation by consensus and signature, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0040-0045, 0049, 0053, 0059-0060). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
performing, by the network of validation units:
determining that the network of validation units has reached a consensus that the transmission requested by the second message is valid; and
in response to determining that the network of validation units has reached the consensus, updating respective data structures by updating the token balance of the first user in the respective data structures and updating at least one token balance of the at least one recipient in the respective data structures.
Claim 7 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes updating user token balances based on received values and validation by consensus and signature, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0040-0045, 0049, 0053, 0059-0060). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
performing, by the network of validation units:
receiving, from the device, a validation certificate indicating that a threshold number of validation units have determined that the transmission requested by the second message is valid; and
in response to receiving the validation certificate, updating respective data structures by updating the token balance of the first user in the respective data structures and updating at least one token balance of the at least one recipient in the respective data structures
Claim 8 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes updating user token balances based on received values, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0040-0045, 0049, 0053, 0059-0060). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
performing, by the operator unit:
generating the first message indicating the first amount of tokens to issue to the first user by including, in the first message, information indicating a transmission of the first amount of tokens from a sender to the first user.
Claim 9 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes updating user token balances based on received values and validation by signature, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0040-0045, 0049, 0053, 0059-0060). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
receiving, from a device by the network of validation units, a second message requesting transmission of a second amount of tokens from the token balance of the first user to the external system;
validating, by the network of validation units, the transmission requested by the second message at least in part by:
determining whether the token balance of the first user is sufficient to complete the transmission of the second amount of tokens from the token balance of the first user to the external system; and
when it is determined that the token balance of the first user is sufficient to complete the transmission of the second amount of tokens to the external system:
cryptographically signing messages with respective cryptographic signatures of the validation unit indicating that the transmission is valid to obtain a cryptographically signed messages; and
transmitting, to the device, the cryptographically signed messages.
Claim 10 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes updating user token balances based on received values and validation by consensus and signature, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0040-0045, 0049, 0053, 0059-0060). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
in response to receiving, from the network of validation units, a threshold number of cryptographic signatures indicating that the transmission requested by the second message is valid:
transmitting a second value, based on the second amount of tokens, to the first user in the external system.
Claim 14 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes updating user token balances based on received values and validation by signature, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0040-0045, 0049, 0053, 0059-0060). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
the at least one computer hardware processor is further configured to
receive, from a device by the network of validation units, a second message requesting transmission of a second amount from the first user to at least one recipient; and
the network of validation units is configured to
validate the transmission requested by the second message at least in part by performing:
determine whether the token balance of the first user is sufficient to complete the transmission of the second amount of tokens to the at least one recipient; and
when it is determined that the token balance of the first user is sufficient to complete the transmission of the second amount of tokens to the at least one recipient:
cryptographically sign messages with respective cryptographic signatures indicating that the transmission is valid to obtain a cryptographically signed messages; and
transmit, to the device, the cryptographically signed messages.
Claim 15 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes updating user token balances based on received values and validation by consensus and signature, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0040-0045, 0049, 0053, 0059-0060). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
the device, wherein the device is configured to:
in response to receiving, from the network of validation units, a threshold number of cryptographic signatures indicating that the transmission requested by the second message is valid:
generate a validation certificate using the cryptographic signatures; and
transmit, to the network of validation units, the validation certificate,
wherein transmission of the validation certificate triggers execution of the transmission from the first user to the at least one recipient.
Claim 16 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes updating user token balances based on received values and validation by consensus and signature, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0040-0045, 0049, 0053, 0059-0060). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the network of validation units is configured to:
determine that the network of validation units has reached a consensus that the transmission requested by the second message is valid; and
in response to determining that the network of validation units has reached the consensus, update respective data structures by updating the token balance of the first user in the respective data structures and updating at least one token balance of the at least one recipient in the respective data structures.
Claim 17 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes updating user token balances based on received values and validation by consensus and signature, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0040-0045, 0049, 0053, 0059-0060). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the network of validation units is configured to:
receive, from the device, a validation certificate indicating that a threshold number of validation units have determined that the transmission requested by the second message is valid; and
in response to receiving the validation certificate, update respective data structures by updating the token balance of the first user in the respective data structures and updating at least one token balance of the at least one recipient in the respective data structures
Claim 19 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes updating user token balances based on received values and validation by signature, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0040-0045, 0049, 0053, 0059-0060). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
the at least one computer hardware processor is further configured to
receive, from a device by the network of validation units, a second message requesting transmission of a second amount of tokens from the token balance of the first user to the external system; and
the network of validation units is configured to validate the transmission requested by the second message at least in part by performing:
determine whether the token balance of the first user is sufficient to complete the transmission of the second amount of tokens from the token balance of the first user to the external system; and
when it is determined that the token balance of the first user is sufficient to complete the transmission of the second amount of tokens to the external system:
cryptographically sign messages with respective cryptographic signatures indicating that the transmission is valid to obtain a cryptographically signed messages; and
transmit, to the device, the cryptographically signed messages.
Claim 21 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes updating user token balances based on received values, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0040-0045, 0049, 0053, 0059-0060). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
burning, by the operator unit, a second amount of tokens from the token balance of the first user;
updating, by the network of validation units, respective data structures at least in part by reducing the token balance of the first user by the second amount of tokens; and
transmitting, by the operator unit, to the external system, a second message based on the second amount of tokens, wherein transmission of the second message to the external system causes a corresponding update to the first value in the external system associated with the first user.
Claim 22 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes updating user token balances based on received values and validation by signature, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0040-0045, 0049, 0053, 0059-0060). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
performing, by the network of validation units:
in response to receiving the first message from the operator unit:
validating a cryptographic signature of the operator unit in the first message; and
performing the updating of the respective data structures in response to determining that the cryptographic signature of the operator unit is valid.
Claim 23 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes updating user token balances based on received values, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0040-0045, 0049, 0053, 0059-0060). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the token balance of the first user represents an amount of an asset belonging to the user stored by the external system as the first value associated with the first user.
Claims Free of Art
Claims 1-11, 14-17 and 19-23 are free of art. The closest prior art of record is US 2022/0374886 A1 to Micali et al. (“Micali”). Micali teaches:
performing, by an operator unit: (Fig.1, Fig.5, 0038)
receiving, from the external system, an indication of a first value in the external system associated with a first user of the plurality of users for origination of new tokens in the cryptographic transmission system for the first user; (0024, 0026, 0035, 0038, 0040, 0054-0056, 0096)
generating, based on the first value in the external system associated with the first user, a cryptographically signed first message indicating a first amount of tokens in the cryptographic transmission system to issue to a token balance of the first user in the cryptographic transmission system; and (0024, 0026, 0035, 0038, 0040, 0054-0056, 0096)
transmitting, to the network of validation units, the first message indicating the first amount of tokens to issue to the first user, (0033, 0042, 0051, 0053, 0058, 0097)
performing, by the network of validation units: (Fig.1, Fig.5, 0038)
receiving the first message indicating the first amount of tokens to issue to the first user; and (0033, 0042, 0051, 0053, 0058, 0097)
Therefore, the prior art does not teach, neither singly nor in combination the following:
updating respective data structures at least in part by adding the first amount of tokens indicated by the first message to the token balance of the first user in the cryptographic transmission system such that an update to the token balance of the first user is replicated across the network of validation units
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2022/0385460 A1 to Guo et al. discloses: The disclosed embodiments provide a distributed transaction system including a group of validator nodes that are known to each other in a network but are indistinguishable to other network nodes. The validator nodes form a Committee including a Leader node and one or more Associate nodes configured to receive and process transaction requests, for example, to add new blocks to one or more blockchains. The Committee may be dynamically changed, such that new network nodes may be added to the Committee or may replace existing validator nodes. The Associate nodes also may coordinate with each other to select a new Leader node. The disclosed embodiments reduce the distributed system's reliance on the stability of any particular node(s) in the network, as the validator nodes in the Committee may be changed at a sufficient frequency to remove unreliable, unavailable, or otherwise untrusted nodes. Further, the disclosed embodiments provide a scheme that helps ensure the Leader node, as well as the other Committee members, functions properly.
US 2019/0279210 A1 to Pen discloses: A novel architecture for a infinitely scalable cryptocurrency system is disclosed in the form of multilevel tree hierarchy of blockchains, where the hash for each block in each blockchain is not only passed to the next block in that blockchain, but is also passed to at least one other blockchain on another level to be included in its own hashes, such that no change can be made in any of the blockchains in the hierarchy without recomputing them all. To facilitate maintaining these multiple levels of blockchains, a novel proof of connectivity lottery method is disclosed whereby all active devices connected online associated with a particular blockchain exchange messages where a hash that cannot be controlled by any particular device determines the winner of the lottery. To expedite transmission of messages in a peer-to-peer network, a further innovation is disclosed in the form of a nested propagation network, where an ordered register of devices online is divided into successively sub-divided segments, which can then be used to complete propagation of a message across the peer-to-peer network in a minimum number of theoretical hops.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Ari Shahabi whose telephone number is (571)272-2565. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John W Hayes can be reached at 571-272-6708. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ARI SHAHABI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights