DETAILED ACTION
Claim Status
This is first office action on the merits in response to the application filed on 2/10/2026.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 21-31 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 2/24/2026 is(are) in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 21, 23, and 30 recite the limitation "the transaction" in claim 21, line 33; and claims 23 and 30, corresponding lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether “the transaction” is “first transaction” or “second transaction”.
Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 21-26 and 28-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gauthier (US 20230385814 A1) in view of Gutierrez-Sheris (WO 2020252479 A1).
Regarding Claims 21 and 31, Gauthier teaches A computer-implemented method for rebroadcasting a cryptocurrency transaction, comprising (Gauthier: Abstract; Paragraph(s) 0139): A system for rebroadcasting a cryptocurrency transaction, comprising: an off-chain transaction database; a processor; and memory storing instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to (Gauthier: Paragraph(s) 0266, 0068):
broadcasting, by a network client, a first transaction to a blockchain network, the first transaction comprising a sending address, a receiving address, a transaction amount, replay protection data, and a digital signature (Gauthier: Paragraph(s) 0379-0392, 0227-0228, 0322-0325, 0053, 0074, 0077, 0139, 0144, 0386, 0390-0392 teach(es) a chain of transactions broadcasted and recorded on a blockchain, in accordance with some embodiments. The transactions described in FIG. 7A may correspond to any of the transactions and the transfer of blockchain-based units. A blockchain-based unit can be a cryptocurrency, a token, an NFT, a wrapped token, etc.; to prevent replay attacks);
querying the blockchain network to determine whether the first transaction has been included in a block of the blockchain network (Gauthier: Paragraph(s) 0389 teach(es) the nodes in a blockchain system may vote to determine the content of a new block; When there are multiple candidates new blocks that include different transactions are available, the nodes will vote for one of the blocks to be linked to the existing block);
responsive to determining that the first transaction has not been included in the block: storing the first transaction in a transaction database record in an off-chain transaction database (Gauthier: Paragraph(s) 0381 teach(es) The transactions are simply ordered temporally on the ledger that include a number of blocks. For example, in some embodiments, an account model is used and transactions do not have any references to previous transactions. In those blockchains, transactions are not chained and do not contain the hash of the previous transaction); and
locking the transaction database record to prevent concurrent broadcast attempts for the first transaction (Gauthier: Paragraph(s) 0137, 0218, 0261-0262 teach(es) the staking subnet is leveraged for the Sybil resistance of the certificate-recording system, requiring participants to lock a TOPOS amount (staking requirement) in order to join the certificate-recording system);
while the transaction database record is locked: validating that the first transaction is operable on the blockchain network by verifying: the sending address, the receiving address, the transaction amount, and the replay protection data (Gauthier: Paragraph(s) 0217-0218, 0261-0262, 0322-0325 teach(es) In order to defend the certificate-recording system against Sybil attacks, the certificate-recording system leverages the staking subnet to ensure that a majority of reliable broadcast participants follows the protocol such that it is not possible to inconsistently deliver cross-subnet messages, e.g., double-spend; In the practical case of a cross-subnet asset transfer, a sending subnet submits a certificate containing a proof of the validity of the asset transfer transaction. This transaction, after checking that the balance of the sender was sufficient to allow the transfer, proceeded with locking/burning the assets to be transferred. Once delivered and verified, the certificate gives total insurance to the receiving subnet that the balance check and the lock/burn operations were conducted with success on the sending subnet; to prevent replay attacks); and
determining an updated transaction fee based on transaction fee data obtained from the blockchain network (Gauthier: Paragraph(s) 0390, 0137, 0251, 0254 teach(es) The node may check the validity of the transaction (e.g., whether the transaction can be traced back to a prior recorded transaction and whether the digital signature of the generator of the transaction is valid). The selection may also depend on the number of broadcasted transactions that are pending to be recorded and also the fees that may be specified in the transactions. For example, in some embodiments, each transaction may be associated with a fee (e.g., gas) for having the transaction recorded);
generating a second transaction comprising: the sending address, the receiving address, the transaction amount, updated replay protection data, and the updated transaction fee (Gauthier: Paragraph(s) 0390, 0137, 0251, 0254, 0322-0325, as stated above);
signing the second transaction with a digital signature (Gauthier: Paragraph(s) 0131, 0382, 0385-0386 teach(es) blockchains often require some digital signature scheme to assert the authenticity of propagated messages and, to date, digital signatures based on elliptic curves, such as Schnorr signatures, EdDSA or ECDSA are the preferred ones, due to both those protocols' speed and resulting size); …; and
broadcasting the second transaction to the blockchain network, wherein locking the transaction database record ensures that only one broadcast attempt is active for the transaction at a time (Gauthier: Paragraph(s) 0137, 0139 teach(es) the staking subnet is leveraged for the Sybil resistance of the certificate-recording system, requiring participants to lock a TOPOS amount (staking requirement) in order to join the certificate-recording system; all these operations may be dependent on a token and causal reliable broadcast (that the TCE implements) is sufficient to implement a cryptocurrency, even in the case where the reliable broadcast protocol implements an inflation mechanism. In some embodiments, the features and functionalities of the staking subnet may be implemented as a certificate-recording system, whether it is the same certificate-recording system used in the interoperable subnet system or a different certificate-recording system).
However, Gauthier does not explicitly teach unlocking the transaction database record.
Gutierrez-Sheris from same or similar field of endeavor teaches unlocking the transaction database record (Gutierrez-Sheris: Paragraph(s) 0345, 0399 teach(es) In order to stabilize the price of that token some human or algorithmic intervention must be performed— for instance, by purchasing tokens in exchange for the peg asset, or by selling tokens in exchange for the peg asset, or by creating or destroying tokens, or by locking up or unlocking tokens).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Gauthier to incorporate the teachings of Gutierrez-Sheris for unlocking the transaction database record.
There is motivation to combine Gutierrez-Sheris into Gauthier because Gutierrez-Sheris’s teachings of unlocking tokens would facilitate to prevent double-spend attacks (Gutierrez-Sheris: Paragraph(s) 0157, 0334, 0345, 0399).
Regarding Claim 22, the combination of Gauthier and Gutierrez-Sheris teaches all the limitations of claim 21 above; and Gauthier further teaches wherein determining the updated transaction fee comprises: querying the blockchain network to obtain an estimated transaction fee; and … (Gauthier: Paragraph(s) 0390, 0137, 0251, 0254, as stated above with respect to claim 21).
However, the combination of Gauthier and Gutierrez-Sheris does not explicitly teach modifying the estimated transaction fee based on a multiplier.
Gutierrez-Sheris from same or similar field of endeavor teaches modifying the estimated transaction fee based on a multiplier (Gutierrez-Sheris: Paragraph(s) 0348-0349, 0346 teach(es) a target may be set for what the average token fee should be for adding records or to perform work on the blockchain (i.e. the blockchain “fee-for-service”). This target may be fixed over the whole time period that the blockchain network is operating, but it would better be defined as a function of the current block height, so that the target average fee-for-service can vary over time).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the combination of Gauthier and Gutierrez-Sheris to incorporate the teachings of Gutierrez-Sheris for modifying the estimated transaction fee based on a multiplier.
There is motivation to combine Gutierrez-Sheris into the combination of Gauthier and Gutierrez-Sheris because Gutierrez-Sheris’s teachings of gas fees would facilitate operating the blockchain network (Gutierrez-Sheris: Paragraph(s) 0346, 0348-0349).
Regarding Claim 23, the combination of Gauthier and Gutierrez-Sheris teaches all the limitations of claim 22 above; however the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the multiplier is based on a multiplier used for a prior broadcast or rebroadcast of the transaction.
Gutierrez-Sheris further teaches wherein the multiplier is based on a multiplier used for a prior broadcast or rebroadcast of the transaction (Gutierrez-Sheris: Paragraph(s) 0348-0349, 0346, as stated above with respect to claim 22).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the combination of Gauthier and Gutierrez-Sheris to incorporate the teachings of Gutierrez-Sheris for wherein the multiplier is based on a multiplier used for a prior broadcast or rebroadcast of the transaction.
There is motivation to combine Gutierrez-Sheris into the combination of Gauthier and Gutierrez-Sheris because Gutierrez-Sheris’s teachings of gas fees would facilitate operating the blockchain network (Gutierrez-Sheris: Paragraph(s) 0346, 0348-0349).
Regarding Claim 24, the combination of Gauthier and Gutierrez-Sheris teaches all the limitations of claim 21 above; and Gauthier further teaches wherein the updated transaction fee is greater than a transaction fee associated with the first transaction (Gauthier: Paragraph(s) 0254 teach(es) the interoperable subnet system or the certificate-recording system may also implement cross-subnet fees. Cross-subnet fees may be required to be paid in order for the requested operation to be executed on the receiving subnet by the subnet's validators).
Regarding Claim 25, the combination of Gauthier and Gutierrez-Sheris teaches all the limitations of claim 21 above; and Gauthier further teaches wherein the updated replay protection data comprises a transaction nonce identical to a nonce of the first transaction (Gauthier: Paragraph(s) 0387 teach(es) The blocks may each include a hash of the prior blockchain, a nonce, and a plurality of transactions (e.g., a first transaction, a second transaction, etc.)).
Regarding Claim 26, the combination of Gauthier and Gutierrez-Sheris teaches all the limitations of claim 21 above; and Gauthier further teaches wherein the blockchain network accepts only one of the first transaction or the second transaction based on the transaction nonce (Gauthier: Paragraph(s) 0390 teach(es) in generating the hash of prior block, a node may randomly combine a version of the prior block with a random nonce to generate a hash. The generated hash is somewhat of a random number due to the random nonce. The node compares the generated hash with the criteria of the blockchain system to check if the criteria are met (e.g., whether the generated hash starts with a certain number of zeroes in the hash). If the generated hash fails to meet the criteria, the node tries another random nonce to generate another hash. The process is repeated for different nodes in the blockchain network until one of the nodes finds a hash that satisfies the criteria. The nonce that is used to generate the satisfactory hash is the nonce 764. The node that first generates the hash may also select what transactions that are broadcasted to the blockchain network are to be included in the block).
Regarding Claim 28, the combination of Gauthier and Gutierrez-Sheris teaches all the limitations of claim 21 above; and Gauthier further teaches wherein validating that the first transaction is operable further comprises verifying that the digital signature is operable on the blockchain network (Gauthier: Paragraph(s) 0093, 0131 teach(es) the certificates, digital signatures and proofs of validity that may be used in an interoperable subnet system using discussions of specific examples of components of an interoperable subnet system).
Regarding Claim 29, the combination of Gauthier and Gutierrez-Sheris teaches all the limitations of claim 21 above; however the combination does not explicitly teach wherein querying the blockchain network is performed after a predetermined time period following broadcasting of the first transaction.
Gutierrez-Sheris further teaches wherein querying the blockchain network is performed after a predetermined time period following broadcasting of the first transaction (Gutierrez-Sheris: Paragraph(s) 0197 teach(es) In the known proof-of-work consensus systems, the bulk of computational resources are spent on solving the proof-of-work problem. Calculating the proof of work creates a delay, but this delay is treated as a feature rather than a flaw by these systems. The difficulty of the proof-of-work is targeted to a specific time delay between blocks, and difficulty is adjusted in order to sync to that time delay).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the combination of Gauthier and Gutierrez-Sheris to incorporate the teachings of Gutierrez-Sheris for wherein querying the blockchain network is performed after a predetermined time period following broadcasting of the first transaction.
There is motivation to combine Gutierrez-Sheris into the combination of Gauthier and Gutierrez-Sheris because Gutierrez-Sheris’s teachings of time delay from proof-of-work would facilitate consensus systems (Gutierrez-Sheris: Paragraph(s) 0197).
Regarding Claim 30, the combination of Gauthier and Gutierrez-Sheris teaches all the limitations of claim 21 above; and Gauthier further teaches wherein locking the transaction database record blocks execution of additional broadcast commands for the transaction while the transaction database record is locked (Gauthier: Paragraph(s) 0137, 0261-0262, as stated above with respect to claim 1).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gauthier in view of Gutierrez-Sheris, as applied to claim 21 above, and in further view of Basu (US 20230261870 A1).
Regarding Claim 27, the combination of Gauthier and Gutierrez-Sheris teaches all the limitations of claim 21 above; however the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the updated replay protection data comprises at least one of: a timestamp, or a block hash.
Basu further teaches wherein the updated replay protection data comprises at least one of: a timestamp, or a block hash (Basu: Paragraph(s) 0043 teach(es) a nonce will be chosen to be an incrementing number or time stamp which is used to prevent replay attacks).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the combination of Gauthier and Gutierrez-Sheris to incorporate the teachings of Basu for wherein the updated replay protection data comprises at least one of: a timestamp, or a block hash.
There is motivation to combine Basu into the combination of Gauthier and Gutierrez-Sheris because Basu’s teachings of a time stamp for nonce would facilitate to prevent replay attacks (Basu: Paragraph(s) 0043).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Williams (US 20220327529 A1) teaches Advanced Transactional Protocols And Ecosystem For Smart Contract Authoring And Deployment, including lock, unlock, gas fee, nonce, and replay attacks.
Long (US 20210035098 A1) teaches Methods And Systems For Micropayment Support To Blockchain Incentivized, Decentralized Data Streaming And Delivery, including nonce, replay attacks, transaction fee, and gas fee.
Agrawal (US 20190164153 A1) teaches Blockchain System For Confidential And Anonymous Smart Contracts, including replay, lock, unlock, and nonce.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAY LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3309. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5pm EST.
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 at (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.
/CLAY C LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights