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
This is the first office action on the merits in response to the application filed on 02/10/2026.
Claims 21-30 are currently pending and have been examined.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 17/534,767. Although the claims are not identical, the claims of the instant application are not patentably distinct from each other.
The claims of Application No. 17/534,767, recite inter alia, a method, system, a non-transitory computer-readable medium for broadcasting or rebroadcasting a cryptocurrency transaction, including “generating a transaction database record in an off-chain transaction database at the client device,” wherein the transaction database record comprises “the transaction and a transaction broadcast request,” “receiving an indication that the blockchain does not include the transaction,” “locking the transaction broadcast request in the transaction database record in the off-chain transaction database based on receiving the indication that the blockchain does not include the transaction,” wherein the locking “blocks rebroadcasting of the transaction to the network while the transaction is verified by the client device and allows a single broadcast attempt to be outstanding for the transaction,” “verifying” that the transaction is correctly formatted,” “unlocking the transaction broadcast request in the off-chain transaction database based on verifying that the transaction is correctly formatted,” and “rebroadcasting the transaction to the network.”
The claims of the instant application recite, inter alia, a method for rebroadcasting a blockchain transaction, including “storing, in an off-chain transaction database, a transaction record comprising a transaction comprising a sending address, a receiving address, and a transaction amount; and a broadcast request associated with the transaction,” “broadcasting the transaction to a blockchain network,” “querying the blockchain network to determine whether the transaction has been included in a block,” “responsive to determining that the transaction has not been included in the block, locking the transaction record in the off-chain transaction database to prevent issuance of multiple broadcast commands for the transaction, wherein the looking ensures that “only a single broadcast or rebroadcast attempt is active for the transaction at a time,” “validating that the transaction is operable on the blockchain network,” “updating a transaction fee associated with the transaction based on transaction fee data obtained from the blockchain network,” unlocking the transaction record,” and “rebroadcasting the transaction to the blockchain network.”
The instant claims are not patentably distinct from the claims of Application No. 17/534,767 because both claims set are directed to the same overall rebroadcast-control process for a blockchain/cryptocurrency transaction using an off-chain transaction database or record, locking to prevent multiple broadcast or rebroadcast attempts, validating or verifying blockchain operations, unlocking, and rebroadcasting the transaction. The additional limitations of updating a transaction fee based on blockchain transaction fee data, using recent fee data, maintaining a transaction nonce, applying a fee multiplier based on priority, and repeating the querying, locking, updating, unlocking, and rebroadcasting steps are considered obvious variations of the parent claims’ limitations of rebroadcasting and replay-protection features, which already recite generating new replay protection data or increasing a transaction fee, using a transaction nonce, and rebroadcasting after determining that the blockchain does not include the transaction. Accordingly, the differences constitute obvious variations, and the claims are not patentably distinct.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The independent claim 1 contains allowable subject matter. As per claim 1, the closest prior art of record, Singapore Patent Application No. SG 10202007907P A to Wright teaches the disclosure relates to a blockchain-implemented system and method of controlling the transmission and/or distribution of digital content. A first user is associated with a deposit quantity of cryptocurrency at a common address. A first node associated with the first user sends a request to the second node to provide an episode of digital content from a series of digital content; determines a payment transaction to transfer a payment quantity of cryptocurrency to the second user, wherein the payment quantity is based on a quantity of episodes of digital content in the series; and signs and sends the payment transaction to a second node. The second node associated with the second user: receives the request and the payment transaction; verifies the payment transaction; and based on the result of verifying: provides access to the episode of digital content to be available to the first node; and co-signs and sends the payment transaction to a distributed ledger. In addition, United States Patent Application No. 10785035 to LV teaches methods, systems, and apparatus, including computer programs encoded on computer storage media, for enhancing blockchain network security. Embodiments of this specification include receiving a transaction request from a client, wherein the transaction request includes a transaction requested to be recorded on a blockchain and a transaction hash calculated based on hashing the transaction; determining the transaction hash is not previously stored in a cache resource or the blockchain; storing the transaction hash in the cache resource; and executing the transaction request. In addition, International Application No. 2020112994 to Carver teaches a high-performance distributed ledger and transaction computing network fabric over which large numbers of transactions are processed concurrently in a scalable, reliable, secure and efficient manner. In one embodiment, the computing network core is configured to support a distributed blockchain network that organizes data in a manner that allows communication, processing and storage of blocks of the chain to be performed concurrently at very high performance and low latency, even when the transactions themselves originate from distant sources. This data organization relies on segmenting a transaction space within autonomous but cooperating computing nodes that are configured as a processing mesh. The system also provides for confidence- based consensus and automated fork resolution. The approach enables the blockchain to continue operating in the presence of an underlying network outage, and to enable clients to make decisions about the disposition of transactions during any period of uncertainty before full consensus has been achieved. In addition, United States Publication No. 20220342951 to Doiron teaches a method of accessing data from one or more destination transactions stored on a blockchain, wherein the method comprises selecting one or more hyperlinks linking to the destination transaction(s). According to a second aspect of the disclosure, there is provided a request-response protocol for requesting access to data from a destination transaction. In addition, the NPL Reference Systems and Methods for Authenticating Off-chain Data based on Proof Verification teaches determining when and/or how to execute a program or script published to a blockchain network may rely on data that is external to the blockchain (i.e., external data) such as data about the real-world state and events. A prover (e.g., a node of the blockchain network) may perform one or more computations on behalf of a client, such as the execution of the program. To execute the program properly, the prover may rely on external data, which the prover may obtain from a data provider that has a trust relationship with the client (e.g., the client accepts as valid data provided by a trusted data provider). Systems and methods described herein may be utilized by a prover to provide cryptographically verifiable assurances of the authenticity of input data purportedly obtained from a data provider, the input data utilized in the execution of a program or script published to a blockchain network. An example of a blockchain network is a Bitcoin-based network.
The closest prior art of record fails to teach or suggest, in the context of the ordered combination of the claim, responsive to determining that the transaction has not been included in the block; locking the transaction record in the off-chain transaction database to prevent issuance of multiple broadcast commands for the transaction, wherein the locking ensures that only a single broadcast or rebroadcast attempt is active for the transaction at a time; validating that the transaction is operable on the blockchain network; updating a transaction fee associated with the transaction based on transaction fee data obtained from the blockchain network; unlocking the transaction record; and rebroadcasting the transaction to the blockchain network. Accordingly, the cited prior art, whether considered individually or in combination, fails to teach or suggest the claimed sequence of operations and associated security constraints.
Claims 22-30 are dependent on claim 21 and contain allowable subject matter for the same reasons stated above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Davida L. King whose telephone number is (571) 272-4724. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Neha Patel can be reached on (571) 270-1492. 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.
/D.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights