DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 12, 2016 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on November 18, 2025 are acceptable.
Continuation
This application is a continuation application of U.S. application no. 17/761,165 filed on March 16, 2022 , now U.S. Patent 12,505,437 ("Parent Application"). See MPEP §201.07. In accordance with MPEP §609.02 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) 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) desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A. 2.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 5-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright (WO 2017/145004 A1), “Wright”, in view of Unique User-Generated Digital Pseudonyms “Schartner”.
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 10:
Claim 1: A computer-implemented method of generating a first blockchain transaction, the first blockchain transaction comprising a first output transferring an amount of a digital asset from a second party to a first party, the first blockchain transaction being for
transferring a first token from the second party to the first party, the first token
representing a first amount of a token asset other than the digital asset; the method being performed by the second party and comprising: (See at least Wright, [0015]; [0017-0019]; [0030]; [0042-0053]; [0084]; [0171] generating a first blockchain transaction (i.e., a blockchain transaction (Tx)) the first blockchain transaction comprising a first output (i.e. an output (TxO)) transferring an amount of a digital asset from a second party to a first party the first blockchain transaction being for transferring a first token from the second party to the first party (i.e., quantity of cryptocurrency as tokens with a value of the first portion (Rl)) the first token representing a first amount of a token asset other than the digital asset ((i.e., could receive fiat currency). generating a first blockchain transaction (i.e., a blockchain transaction (Tx)) the first blockchain transaction comprising a first output (i.e. an output (TxO)) transferring an amount of a digital asset from a second party to a first party the first blockchain transaction being for transferring a first token from the second party to the first party (i.e., quantity of cryptocurrency as tokens with a value of the first portion (Rl)) the first token representing a first amount of a token asset other than the digital asset ((i.e., could receive fiat currency).
Claim 9: Computer equipment, comprising: memory comprising one or more memory units; and processing apparatus comprising one or more processing units, wherein the memory stores code arranged to run on the processing apparatus (See at least Wright, Fig. 13, [0250]) , the code being configured so as when on the processing apparatus, the processing apparatus performs a method of generating a first blockchain transaction, the first blockchain transaction comprising a first output transferring an amount of a digital asset from a second party to a first party, the first blockchain transaction being for transferring a first token from the second party to the first party, the first token representing a first amount of a token asset other than the digital asset; the method being performed by the second party and comprising: (See at least Wright, [0015]; [0017-0019]; [0030]; [0042-0053]; [0084]; [0171] generating a first blockchain transaction (i.e., a blockchain transaction (Tx)) the first blockchain transaction comprising a first output (i.e. an output (TxO)) transferring an amount of a digital asset from a second party to a first party the first blockchain transaction being for transferring a first token from the second party to the first party (i.e., quantity of cryptocurrency as tokens with a value of the first portion (Rl)) the first token representing a first amount of a token asset other than the digital asset ((i.e., could receive fiat currency). generating a first blockchain transaction (i.e., a blockchain transaction (Tx)) the first blockchain transaction comprising a first output (i.e. an output (TxO)) transferring an amount of a digital asset from a second party to a first party the first blockchain transaction being for transferring a first token from the second party to the first party (i.e., quantity of cryptocurrency as tokens with a value of the first portion (Rl)) the first token representing a first amount of a token asset other than the digital asset ((i.e., could receive fiat currency).
Claim 10: A computer program product embodied on a non-transitory computer-readable storage including computer program code configured so as, when run on computer equipment (See at least Wright, Fig. 13, [0250]), the computer equipment perform a method of generating a first blockchain transaction, the first blockchain transaction comprising a first output transferring an amount of a digital asset from a second party to a first party, the first blockchain transaction being for transferring a first token from the second party to the first party, the first token representing a first amount of a token asset other than the digital asset; the method being performed by the second party and comprising: (See at least Wright, [0015]; [0017-0019]; [0030]; [0042-0053]; [0084]; [0171] generating a first blockchain transaction (i.e., a blockchain transaction (Tx)) the first blockchain transaction comprising a first output (i.e. an output (TxO)) transferring an amount of a digital asset from a second party to a first party the first blockchain transaction being for transferring a first token from the second party to the first party (i.e., quantity of cryptocurrency as tokens with a value of the first portion (Rl)) the first token representing a first amount of a token asset other than the digital asset ((i.e., could receive fiat currency). generating a first blockchain transaction (i.e., a blockchain transaction (Tx)) the first blockchain transaction comprising a first output (i.e. an output (TxO)) transferring an amount of a digital asset from a second party to a first party the first blockchain transaction being for transferring a first token from the second party to the first party (i.e., quantity of cryptocurrency as tokens with a value of the first portion (Rl)) the first token representing a first amount of a token asset other than the digital asset ((i.e., could receive fiat currency).
generating the first token comprising the first amount of the token asset,(See at least Wright, [0015]; [0018]; [0022-0024] generating the first token (i.e., generating… metadata comprising a token) comprising the first amount of the token asset (e.g., creating a token, whereby the specific terms and conditions are included in the metadata embedded in the redeem script)
generating the first blockchain transaction comprising i) a first output configured to, when executed by a blockchain node alongside an input of a second blockchain transaction, cause the blockchain node to verify that the input of the second blockchain transaction comprises a first public key of the first party in order for the first output to be unlocked, and ii) a second output comprising the first token. (See at least Wright Abs,; [0004]; [0015]; generating the first blockchain transaction comprising (i.e., generating a blockchain transaction (Tx)) a first output configured to (i.e., having an output) , when executed by a blockchain node alongside an input of a second blockchain transaction, (e.g., Software clients installed on the nodes perform this validation work on an unspent transaction (UTXO) by executing its locking and unlocking scripts. If execution of the locking and unlocking scripts evaluate to TRUE, the transaction is valid and the transaction is ritten to the blockchain) cause the blockchain node to verify (e.g., In order for a transaction to be written to the blockchain, it must be "validated". Network nodes (miners) perform work to ensure that each transaction is valid,…) that the input of the second blockchain transaction comprises a first public key of the first party in order for the first output to be unlocked, (e.g., The redeem script also comprises at least one (preferably two or more) public cryptographic keys.) and ii) a second output comprising the first token. (See at least Wright, Abs. a blockchain transaction (Tx) having an output (Tx 0) related to a quantity of cryptocurrency such as Bitcoin, and a hash of a redeem script. The redeem script comprises metadata which in turn comprises a token.)
Wright does not explicitly disclose, however Schartner teaches generating an encrypted identifier of the first party by encrypting an identifier of the first party using a second public key of the first party, wherein the second public key comprises a modulus; (see at least Schartner, pp. 196-198 generating an encrypted identifier of the first party (i.e., unique identifier) by encrypting an identifier of the first party (i.e., unique identifier) using a second public key of the first party (i.e., the publickey (e, n)) wherein the second public key comprises a modulus (e.g., the PSE generates the modulus n, the public exponent e, and the private exponent d).)
the [token] (e.g., Pseudonym) comprising the encrypted identifier of the first party, and the modulus; and (See at least Schartner, p. 198; encrypted ID (EID), is concatenated with the public-key. In case of RSA this results in EID||e||n, which forms the unique and highly random pseudonym.) note that the modulus is n.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wright and include Schartner’s teachings in order to enhance confidentiality and enforce access control.
Regarding claim 5: The combination of Schartner and Wright teaches the method of claim 1. The combination further disclose; wherein the first blockchain transaction comprises iii) a third output configured to require, when executed alongside an input of a fourth transaction, the input of the fourth transaction to comprise a first public key of the second party in order to be unlocked. (See at least Wright, [0015]; [0024]; [0028]; [0030]; generating a blockchain transaction (Tx) having an output (TxO) related to a digital asset; Software clients installed on the nodes perform this validation work on an unspent transaction (UTXO) by executing its locking and unlocking scripts. If execution of the locking and unlocking scripts evaluate to TRUE, the transaction is valid; redeem script (RS 1) which comprises… at least one (preferably two or more) public cryptographic keys; The quantity of cryptocurrency (Bl) can only be spent (redeemed) upon provision of an unlocking script which meets the requirements of the locking script for the output TxO.)
Regarding claim 6: The combination of Schartner and Wright teaches the method of claim 1. The combination further disclose wherein the first output of the first blockchain transaction comprises a hash puzzle configured to require, when executed alongside the input of the second transaction, the input of the second blockchain transaction to comprise the first token. (See at least Wright, [0015] blockchain transaction (Tx) having an output (TxO) related to a digital asset (B 1) and a hash (Hl). In particular, a redeem script must be presented which, when hashed, matches the hash provided in the locking script of TxO. )
Regarding claim 7: The combination of Schartner and Wright teaches the method of claim 1. The combination further disclose: transmitting the first blockchain transaction to a blockchain network for inclusion in the blockchain. (See at least Wright, [0015]; he method may further include the step of submitting the transaction Tx to a blockchain.)
Claim(s) 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright and Schartner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xiao et al. (US 20100299519 A1).
Regarding claim 2: The combination of Wright and Schartner disclose the method of claim 1. The combination do not explicitly disclose; however Xiao teaches wherein the identifier of the first party is a third public key of the first party. (See at last Xiao, [0008]; [0018]; an ID-based public key).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination and include Xiao’s teachings in order to simplify key management.
Regarding claim 4: The combination of Wright and Xiao disclose the method of claim 2. The combination further disclose:
obtaining the second and/or third public keys of the first party from first party. (See at least Wright, [0018] receiving, over a communications network, a request from a first user (A) for a first token (Tl); determining a first user public key (PlA).)
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright and Schartner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Meng (US 20190253249 A1).
Regarding claim 3: The combination of Wright and Schartner disclose the method of claim 1. The combination do not explicitly disclose; however Meng generating a shared private key based on a private key of the second party and the second public key of the first party; and (See at least Meng, Abs, [0007-0014] the shared key is a key generated based on the second private key and the first public key using a preset key-agreement algorithm; generating a shared key based on the first private key and the second public key using the key-agreement algorithm, and using the shared key to decrypt the ciphertext to obtain the seed parameter.)
generating the first public key of the first party based on the shared private key and the second public key of the first party. (See at least Meng, Abs, [0007-0014] the shared key is a key generated based on the second private key and the first public key using a preset key-agreement algorithm; generating a shared key based on the first private key and the second public key using the key-agreement algorithm, and using the shared key to decrypt the ciphertext to obtain the seed parameter.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination and include Meng’s teachings in order to enable forward secrecy, authentication, and efficient symmetric encryption.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright and Schartner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hardjono (US 6738900 B1).
Regarding claim 8: The combination of Wright and Schartner disclose the method of claim 7. The combination further disclose obtaining the second public key of the first party; (See at least Wright, [0015]; [0024] redeem script (RS 1) which comprises at least one (preferably two or more) public cryptographic keys.).
The combination do not explicitly disclose, however Hardjono teaches determining that the second public key is certified by a trusted party; and said transmitting comprising transmitting the first transaction only if the second public key is certified. (See at least Hardjono, Col. 1 lines 14-20; determining that the second public key is certified by a trusted party (i.e., certified by an accepted Trusted Authority) and said transmitting comprising transmitting the first transaction only if the second public key is certified (e.g., before they are used in a domain).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination and include Hardjono’s teachings in order to ensure that cryptographic operations are both secure and trustworthy.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim (US 20210218561 A1) [0031] Sender generates the shared private key 52 k with encrypted recipient private key 53 e.sub.r and sender private key 54 a by a.sup.te.sub.r and converts it into p×n matrix K by splitting the key into each cell of matrix K.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARLYANNIE M GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)272-6950. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 4:30-pm.
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.
/K.G.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights