DETAILED ACTION
This is an office action on the merits in response to the communication filed on 8/27/2026.
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 .
Claims’ Status
Claims 2 and 14 are canceled. Claims 1, 13, and 20 are amended. Claim 21 is a new claim. Claims 1, 3-13, and 15-21 are pending and are considered in this office action.
Response to Arguments
101
Applicant’s arguments regarding 101 rejection have been fully considered, however, they are not persuasive. Applicant argues, on pgs.10-11 of Arguments/Remarks, that the claims present a technical improvement. Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the claims address a problem of adding unregistered phone number to a blockchain transaction, but this is rather a business improvement. The claim simply improves the process of registering a new phone number on a blockchain, which includes generating a cryptographic salt; computing an account address using the cryptographic salt; etc. By implementing the current computation, a unregistered phone number is able to conduct a blockchain transaction; it is rather more towards efficiency of a business process "it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int'l V. IBG, 921 F.3d1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology." MPEP 2106.05(a) (II).
However, the newly added claim 21 contains 101 eligibility subject matter.
103
Applicant’s argument is moot in light of a new art and new grounds of rejection due to amended claims.
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, 3-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1 (The Statutory Categories): Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? MPEP 2106.03
Per Step 1, Claim 1 is drawn to a method; claim 13 is drawn to an apparatus; claim 20 is drawn to a non-transitory computer readable medium which are all within the four statutory categories (i.e., a process).
Independent claim 1 recites: (claims 13 and 20 being similar in scope):
Claim 1:
receiving a request to transfer a quantity of blockchain unit to an unregistered phone number; creating a cryptographic custody of the quantity of blockchain unit for the unregistered phone number to access, the cryptographic custody associated with a blockchain address that has a record of holding the quantity of the blockchain unit and with a cryptographic signing key corresponding to a signer of the blockchain address, wherein creating the cryptographic custody comprises:
deterministically calculating, based on the unregistered phone number, the blockchain address of an autonomous program protocol by generating a cryptographic salt based on the unregistered phone number and computing the blockchain address using the cryptographic salt and a blockchain address generator, wherein the blockchain address generator computes the blockchain address prior to activation of the autonomous program protocol at the blockchain address, and
creating cryptographic signing key material corresponding to the signer of a smart account wallet;
transmitting a notification to the unregistered phone number for access of the cryptographic custody, the notification comprising a URL;
receiving an indication that a device associated with the unregistered phone number has interacted with the URL; and
causing a transmission of the cryptographic signing key material to the device to enable the device to have cryptographic control over the autonomous program protocol to access the quantity of blockchain unit.
Step 2A Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? MPEP 2106.04
The limitations, as drafted, constitute a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers 1) fundamental economic principles or practices by mitigating risk; 2) commercial interaction by agreements in the form of contracts, under the Certain methods of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. The abstract idea, recited above, includes: receiving a request to transfer a quantity of blockchain unit to an unregistered phone number; creating a cryptographic custody of the quantity of blockchain unit for the unregistered phone number to access, “the cryptographic custody associated with a blockchain address that has a record of holding the quantity of the blockchain unit and with a cryptographic signing key corresponding to a signer of the blockchain address, wherein creating the cryptographic custody comprises; transmitting a notification to the unregistered phone number for access of the cryptographic custody, the notification comprising a URL; receiving an indication that a device associated with the unregistered phone number has interacted with the URL; and causing a transmission of the cryptographic signing key material to the device to enable the device to have cryptographic control over the autonomous program protocol to access the quantity of blockchain unit. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of limitations commercial interactions, but for the recitation of generic computer components, it falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – 1) fundamental economic principles or practices by mitigating risk; 2) commercial interaction by agreements in the form of contracts, grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? MPEP 2106.04.
The recited computing elements (claim 13: one or more processors; claim 20: one or more non-transitory computer-readable medium) are recited at a high-level of generality, i.e. as generic computing element performing generic computer functions such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). 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 or provide significantly more, since it amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, as set forth in MPEP 2106.05(f).
The other additional positive elements: “deterministically calculating, based on the unregistered phone number, the blockchain address of an autonomous program protocol by generating a cryptographic salt based on the unregistered phone number and computing the blockchain address using the cryptographic salt and a blockchain address generator, wherein the blockchain address generator computes the blockchain address prior to activation of the autonomous program protocol at the blockchain address, and creating cryptographic signing key material corresponding to the signer of a smart account wallet;” in claim 1, cannot integrate the exception into a practical application because the steps are conventional that one of ordinary skilled in the art would use these steps to register an unregistered phone number onto a new transaction.
Accordingly, these additional claim elements, alone and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because (1) they do not effect improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)); (2) they do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition (see the Vanda memo); (3) they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)); (4) they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); (5) they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designated to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and the Vanda memo). Therefore, per Step 2A, Prong Two, the claim is directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B (The Inventive Concept): Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? MPEP 2106.05.
Step 2B of the eligibility analysis concludes that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner carries over the analysis from Step 2A related to the generic computing elements being no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional claim elements are simply linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use” are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, are carried over for further analysis in Step 2B.
When the independent claims are considered as a whole, as a combination, the claim elements noted above do not amount to any more than they amount to individually. The operations appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense, i.e. a processors; a blockchain unit; an electronic device; a digital wallet application; cryptographic signing key material; etc. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. Therefore, it is concluded that the elements of the independent claims are directed to one or more abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. (MPEP 2106.05)
Further, Step 2B of the analysis takes into consideration all dependent claims as well, both individually and as a whole, as a combination:
Claims 2-9 and 11-12 are further directed to additional abstract ideas because the steps performed are simply narrowing the scope of the abstract idea of claim 1 since their individual and combined significance is still not significantly more than the abstract concept at the core of the claimed invention. For example, claim 3 describes generating a cryptographic salt and precomputing the blockchain address; claim 4 describes applying a server secret key and generating the cryptographic salt based on the server secret key; claim 5 on performing compliance check; claim 6 describes what the compliance check entails; etc, which all of the limitation are narrowing the steps performed in claim 1.
Claim 10 is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention, these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not significantly more than the abstract concept at the core of the claimed invention. Claim 10 describes that the blockchain unit is a stablecoin. Moreover, the claims in the instant application do not constitute significantly more also because the claims or claim elements only serve to implement the abstract idea using computer components to perform computing functions (Enfish, see MPEP 2106.05(a)). The other dependent claims, claim 15-19 are similar in scope to the claim 3-12 are also rejected for the same reasons provided above.
The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified in the independent claims as an abstract idea. The fact that the associated computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility. In sum, the additional elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not heavier than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application do not amount to significantly more either. (see MPEP 2106.05)
In sum, claims 1, 3-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 3 and 15 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 1 and 13 each recites the broad recitation “….by generating a cryptographic salt based on the unregistered phone number and computing the blockchain address using the cryptographic salt and a blockchain address generator, wherein the blockchain address generator computes the blockchain address prior to activation of the autonomous program protocol at the blockchain address”, but claim 3 and 15 each also recites “wherein determining the blockchain address based on the unregistered phone number comprises: generating a cryptographic salt based on the unregistered phone number; and precomputing, prior to the blockchain address being activated on a blockchain, the blockchain address by using a blockchain address generator” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 2, 5, 8, 13, 14, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being obvious over Deluca et al. (US20260105440A1) in view of Ebrahimi et al. (US20190182042A1) in view of Spector et al. (US20190356481A1), and further in view of Cronkright et al. (US20240205218A1).
With respect to claim 1, 13, and 20
Deluca teaches the limitations:
receiving a request to transfer a quantity of blockchain unit to an unregistered phone number ([0042], FIG. 3 is a flow chart illustrating an embodiment of a process for transferring a crypto asset to a recipient identified by a personal identifier. Using the process of FIG. 3, a blockchain crypto asset can be transferred to a recipient without knowledge of the recipient's blockchain wallet address by resolving the personal identifier to a blockchain identifier using an on-chain resolution directory. In the event the personal identifier does not resolve to a blockchain identifier, a temporary holding wallet is created for the crypto asset and the recipient can claim the newly created wallet with the transferred crypto asset; see also [0016], The on-chain resolution of personal contact information is disclosed. For example, using the disclosed techniques and systems, a non-blockchain personal identifier, such as an email address or phone number, can be resolved to a blockchain identifier such as a blockchain wallet address.);
creating a cryptographic custody of the quantity of blockchain unit for the unregistered phone number to access, the cryptographic custody associated with a blockchain address that has a record of holding the quantity of the blockchain unit….([0061], At 601, a new temporary blockchain wallet is generated. For example, a new blockchain wallet with a corresponding blockchain wallet address is created on a blockchain network. In various embodiments, the private and public key of the new wallet are stored securely by the crypto wallet and access to the wallet is limited. For example, the private key and wallet address can be managed and stored by a key management module of a crypto wallet, such as key management module 215 of FIG. 2), wherein creating the cryptographic custody comprises:
deterministically calculating, based on the unregistered phone number, the blockchain address of an autonomous program protocol by generating ([0038], If no blockchain wallet address resolves for the recipient's personal identifier, contact information resolution module 219 can create a new temporary blockchain wallet with a corresponding blockchain wallet address and transfer the crypto asset to the newly created wallet.; see also [0016-0017], The on-chain resolution of personal contact information is disclosed. For example, using the disclosed techniques and systems, a non-blockchain personal identifier, such as an email address or phone number, can be resolved to a blockchain identifier such as a blockchain wallet address…. Due to the public nature of the on-chain resolution directory, the personal identifier is first converted to a masked unique identifier, such as a unique identifier for a blockchain wallet, that is calculated using a one-way hash function. For example, a masked unique identifier can be calculated by performing a one-way hash using at least the recipient personal identifier as the input. In some embodiments, the input to the one-way hash function is a combination of the recipient personal identifier and information based on the sender…In some embodiments, a calculated masked unique identifier, which does not reveal the recipient's personal identifier, is used to resolve the recipient's blockchain wallet address using an on-chain resolution directory. For example, an on-chain resolution directory that is both secure and public utilizes masked unique identifiers instead of each user's personal identifier to index corresponding blockchain identifiers. A recipient's personal identifier is resolved to the correct blockchain wallet address by using the on-chain resolution directory with the associated masked unique identifier of the recipient's personal identifier.); wherein the blockchain address generator computes the blockchain address prior to activation of the autonomous program protocol at the blockchain address ([0040], In some embodiments, contact information resolution module 219 resolves a personal identifier to a blockchain identifier by first determining a masked unique identifier for the personal identifier. For example, contact information resolution module 219 can apply a one-way hash function to the personal identifier to calculate a masked unique identifier that does not reveal the personal identifier. Using an on-chain resolution dictionary, contact information resolution module 219 can retrieve a registered blockchain wallet address using the calculated masked unique identifier as an index or lookup key. … In the event there is no blockchain wallet address registered for the personal identifier, contact information resolution module 219 can create a temporary blockchain wallet to temporarily hold the crypto asset until the wallet and/or asset can be claimed by the recipient.)
Deluca doesn’t explicitly disclose, but Ebrahimi teaches:
([0121], Once all three data pieces—(ID metadata, Email, Phone #) have been collected, verified, hashed, and stored on disk with the record that has been indexed with the given ShoCardID, the embodiment provides the means to create a Salt, which is a long, unique random number (e.g., a GUID) and will be used to generate the dynamic password.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Deluca with the teaching of Ebrahimi as they relate to system of transferring digital assets between devices. One of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have modified the system of hashing unique identifier for a blockchain wallet in Deluca, to include a method of using a cryptographic salt for hashing as taught by Ebrahimi for the predicated result of securely transfer a digital asset to the unregistered number.
Deluca in view of Ebrahimi don’t explicitly disclose, but Spector teaches:
the cryptographic custody…….and with a cryptographic signing key corresponding to a signer of the blockchain address ([0121], Using Bitcoin as an example, the Qredo server creates a Bitcoin transaction that is addressed to the wallet address designated in the intended beneficiary's identity declaration, again which could be an Identity Document within IPFS. As will be evident by the description below, the transaction that is addressed to this specific wallet address is unrelated to the custodial account wallet address. The benefit of this action is to preserve the privacy of the intended beneficiary receiving control over the custodial account's wallet. This happens because the transaction to that wallet address conveys information, which is imperceptible to any external viewer, that enables the intended beneficiary to create the master seed key to the Shared HD Wallet, whereupon the intended beneficiary obtains the private key from the Shared HD Wallet, adds it to their existing private key and create the custodial account's wallet private key; see also [0008], In this case, the unlocking script requires possession of the two secret data items described earlier; the beneficiary's private key (to make a digital signature to be verified), and the shared secret key.)
creating cryptographic signing key material corresponding to the signer of a smart account wallet ([0108], The intended beneficiary's app or software package uses the shared secret key to re-create the Shared HD Wallet. (304). Obtaining the first key in the wallet as the private key, it adds this private key to its existing private key using Elliptic Curve addition. The resulting private key (306) is the private key required to onward spend the funds/assets within the custodial account wallet.);
causing a transmission of the cryptographic signing key material to the device to enable the device to have cryptographic control over the autonomous program protocol to access the quantity of blockchain unit ([0075], when the Qredo custody server processes the order, it includes a step to create the redeem script that ultimately appears in the transaction data block once the beneficiary creates a transaction spending onward the Bitcoin to another address. The redeem script itself is based upon the redemption policy given by principal in the policy document. It is a means of proving ownership of the beneficiary private key and the shared secret key. However, additional conditions could be included. The Qredo server has to create the hash of the shared secret key and has to somehow convey the shared secret key to the beneficiary when the beneficiary is authorized to obtain the asset.);
The portion of the limitation which recites “to enable the device to have cryptographic control over the autonomous program protocol to access the quantity of blockchain unit” is merely a recited intended use. This portion is given no patentable weight because the limitation, or portion thereof, does not claim the function(s) as being positively recited actions or functions, and/or it does not add any meaning or purpose to the associated manipulative step(s). See MPEP 2103 C and 2111.04. Simply because the limitation recites something as being “for … [performing a specific functionality]”, etc. does not mean that the functions are required to be performed, or are actually performed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Deluca/ Ebrahimi with the teaching of Spector as they relate to system of transferring digital assets between devices. One of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have modified the combined systems of Deluca/ Ebrahimi, for example transferring digital assets between two devices in Deluca, to include a method of sending cryptographic signing key material to a device for access to the blockchain unit as taught by Spector for the predicated result of securely transfer a digital asset to the unregistered number.
Deluca in view of Ebrahimi in view of Spector don’t explicitly disclose, but Cronkright teaches:
transmitting a notification to the unregistered phone number for access of the cryptographic custody, the notification comprising a URL ([0217], In some examples, a verified user (e.g., a verifier or client) initiates a new transaction (e.g., FIGS. 15A-15C) with an unregistered user. The verified user may direct the transaction to the unregistered user via any appropriate contact information (e.g., using an email, a phone number, by sharing a link, or any other means to direct the unregistered user to the system).);
receiving an indication that a device associated with the unregistered phone number has interacted with the URL ([0217], At schematic view 2200, after the unregistered user selects the link sent by the verified user (or otherwise selects the transaction offered by the verified user), the user device 102A displays (e.g., on the display screen 230) an introduction image 2210.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Deluca/Ebrahimi/Spector with the teaching of Cronkright as they relate to system of transferring digital assets between devices. One of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have modified the combined systems of Deluca/Ebrahimi Spector, for example transferring digital assets between two devices in Deluca, to include a method of transmitting a notification to the unregistered phone number as taught by Cronkright for the predicated result of securely transfer a digital asset to the unregistered number.
With respect to claim 5 and 17
The combination of Deluca, Ebrahimi, Spector, and Cronkright teaches the limitations of claim 1 and 13 respectively. Deluca further teaches: performing compliance check of the unregistered phone number prior to creating the cryptographic custody ([0068], At 703, a request to claim the temporary blockchain wallet is received. For example, a potential and unverified recipient will request ownership of the temporary blockchain wallet and at 703, the request is received. In some embodiments, the request is received by the crypto wallet that currently owns the temporary blockchain wallet. In some embodiments, the request is made to claim ownership of only the crypto asset held by the temporary blockchain wallet and not for additional ownership of the temporary blockchain wallet. In various embodiments, the notification sent at 701 can include a token that can be used to help verify the recipient's identity. The token can be included in the request received at 703 to help confirm that the requester has the same identity as the recipient of the notification request sent at 701.)
With respect to claim 8 and 19
The combination of Deluca, Spector, and Cronkright teaches the limitations of claim 1 and 13 respectively. Cronkright further teaches: registering the unregistered phone number as a blockchain custodian of the quantity of blockchain unit ([0170], The process 1200 begins at step 1202 where a new user of the secure transaction system 100 downloads the ST App 220 to the user's mobile communication device 102A and launches or activates the ST App 220 on the registering user's mobile communication device 102A (e.g., as described with respect to steps 672 and 674 of the user authentication process 620 illustrated in FIG. 6C). As described above with respect to FIG. 8A, the launch or activation of the ST App 220 on the mobile communication device 102A of an unregistered user displays the home screen 800, including a selectable GUI element a “Create New Account” GUI element 802.)
Claims 3, 4, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being obvious over Deluca et al. (US20260105440A1) in view of Ebrahimi et al. (US20190182042A1) in view of Spector et al. (US20190356481A1) in view of Cronkright et al. (US20240205218A1).
With respect to claim 3 and 15
The combination of Deluca, Ebrahimi, Spector, and Cronkright teaches the limitations of claim 1 and 13 respectively. Deluca further teaches: wherein determining the blockchain address based on the unregistered phone number comprises: generating ([0038], If no blockchain wallet address resolves for the recipient's personal identifier, contact information resolution module 219 can create a new temporary blockchain wallet with a corresponding blockchain wallet address and transfer the crypto asset to the newly created wallet.; see also [0016-0017], The on-chain resolution of personal contact information is disclosed. For example, using the disclosed techniques and systems, a non-blockchain personal identifier, such as an email address or phone number, can be resolved to a blockchain identifier such as a blockchain wallet address…. Due to the public nature of the on-chain resolution directory, the personal identifier is first converted to a masked unique identifier, such as a unique identifier for a blockchain wallet, that is calculated using a one-way hash function. For example, a masked unique identifier can be calculated by performing a one-way hash using at least the recipient personal identifier as the input. In some embodiments, the input to the one-way hash function is a combination of the recipient personal identifier and information based on the sender…In some embodiments, a calculated masked unique identifier, which does not reveal the recipient's personal identifier, is used to resolve the recipient's blockchain wallet address using an on-chain resolution directory. For example, an on-chain resolution directory that is both secure and public utilizes masked unique identifiers instead of each user's personal identifier to index corresponding blockchain identifiers. A recipient's personal identifier is resolved to the correct blockchain wallet address by using the on-chain resolution directory with the associated masked unique identifier of the recipient's personal identifier.)
precomputing, prior to the blockchain address being activated on a blockchain, the blockchain address by using a blockchain address generator ([0040], In some embodiments, contact information resolution module 219 resolves a personal identifier to a blockchain identifier by first determining a masked unique identifier for the personal identifier. For example, contact information resolution module 219 can apply a one-way hash function to the personal identifier to calculate a masked unique identifier that does not reveal the personal identifier. Using an on-chain resolution dictionary, contact information resolution module 219 can retrieve a registered blockchain wallet address using the calculated masked unique identifier as an index or lookup key. … In the event there is no blockchain wallet address registered for the personal identifier, contact information resolution module 219 can create a temporary blockchain wallet to temporarily hold the crypto asset until the wallet and/or asset can be claimed by the recipient.)
With respect to claim 4 and 16
The combination of Deluca, Ebrahimi, Spector, and Cronkright teaches the limitations of claim 3 and 15 respectively. Ebrahimi further teaches: wherein generating the cryptographic salt comprises: applying a server secret key to a version of the unregistered phone number, the server secret key associated with a server; and generating the cryptographic salt based on the server secret key applying to the version of the unregistered phone number so that the cryptographic salt is deterministic with respect to the server ([0063-0064], Once all of the identity factors are identified, hashed, and stored, the back-end server 200 generates the Salt. In one embodiment, the Salt is a random number. The Salt is one of the portions of the split key, dynamic password (DPKEY). At 323, the Salt is returned to the client device 101 for purposes of generating the dynamic password…In particular, at 324 the client device generates a combined string of all the identity factors, which is the other portion of the split key, and the Salt. There is a predefined order to the identify factors and Salt in the combined string. That is, the combined string may include hashes of one or more identity factors, and the Salt. In one embodiment, the combined string includes clear forms of verified identity factors, such as email and phone number. One example of a combined string includes clear forms of verified identity factors, and hashed forms of additional identity factors. For example, the combined string may be defined as: “<email><phone number><hash-string #1><hash-string #2> . . . <hash-string #3><Salt>”. Although the dynamic password is generated from one combined string of identity factors and Salt, other embodiments may generate the dynamic password using one or more strings of identity factors and/or Salt.)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being obvious over Deluca et al. (US20260105440A1) in view of Ebrahimi et al. (US20190182042A1) in view of Spector et al. (US20190356481A1) in view of Cronkright et al. (US20240205218A1) in view of Prabdial et al. (US20260134423)
With respect to claim 6
The combination of Deluca, Ebrahimi, Spector, and Cronkright teaches the limitations of claim 5. The combination doesn’t explicitly disclose, but Prabdial teaches: wherein the compliance check comprises performing one or more of a SIM-swap detection, a SIM age check, or a carrier auth ([0010], Therefore, the HSS of a telecommunications network can use the security of the UICC or SIM to provide a verifiable identity of the wallet on the ledger. It also provides a means for generating payments for any transactions (e.g., using a billing system of the telecommunications network). This enables secure interactions with other devices or entities that are registered with the system (in a similar way))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Deluca/Ebrahimi/Spector/ Cronkright with the teaching of Prabdial as they relate to system of transferring digital assets between devices. One of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have modified the combined systems of Deluca/Ebrahimi/Spector/ Cronkright, for example transferring digital assets between two devices in Deluca, to include a method of performing compliance check such as sim-swap detection as taught by Prabdial for the predicated result of securely transfer a digital asset to the unregistered number.
Claim 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being obvious over Deluca et al. (US20260105440A1) in view of Ebrahimi et al. (US20190182042A1) in view of Spector et al. (US20190356481A1) in view of Cronkright et al. (US20240205218A1), and further in view of Mukherji et al. (US20240428237A1)
With respect to claim 7 and 18
The combination of Deluca, Ebrahimi, Spector, and Cronkright teaches the limitations of claim 1 and 13 respectively. The combination doesn’t explicitly disclose, but Mukherji teaches: wherein the cryptographic signing key material includes a shard of the cryptographic signing key in a multi-party computation ([0012], Additionally, or alternatively, a wallet application may support multi-party computation (MPC) techniques such that the wallet application has access to a portion (e.g., shard) of a private key. In some cases, the user may send and receive messages and perform transactions via a messaging service. However, in some cases, a user may not send or receive messages and perform transactions on a wallet application supporting transactions of digital assets such as crypto tokens or non-fungible tokens.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Deluca/Ebrahimi/Spector/ Cronkright with the teaching of Mukherji as they relate to system of transferring digital assets between devices. One of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have modified the combined systems of Deluca/Ebrahimi/Spector/ Cronkright, for example transferring digital assets between two devices in Deluca, to include a shard of the cryptographic signing key in a multi-party computation as taught by Mukherji for the predicated result of securely transfer a digital asset to the unregistered number.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being obvious over Deluca et al. (US20260105440A1) in view of Ebrahimi et al. (US20190182042A1) in view of Spector et al. (US20190356481A1) in view of Cronkright et al. (US20240205218A1), and further in view of Corcillo et al. (US11790334B1)
With respect to claim 9
The combination of Deluca, Ebrahimi, Spector, and Cronkright teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Cronkright further teaches: determining whether phone number is linked to an asset management server ([0218], For example, when the verified user initiates the transaction with the unregistered user, the verified user provides a phone number (or other identifying information) of the unregistered user. The system verifies that the unregistered user accessing the validation screen 2310 has access to the phone number, in this case, via a phone call or a text message (e.g., an SMS or MMS message).)
The combination doesn’t explicitly disclose, but Corcillo teaches:…. selecting settlement path from: (a) external off-ramp, (b) an omnibus crypto account, or (c) an embedded non-custodial wallet (see col.5 ln61- col.6 ln12 This intent is broadcast as a semantic message to seek an institutional system to engage in the resource transfer, e.g., to exchange fiat currency for in-kind cryptographic tokens such as stablecoins or other tokenized assets (e.g., non-fungible tokens, or “NFTs”) or vice versa. Stablecoins, as leveraged as part of resource transfer, are available via a plurality of different blockchains, and bitcoin is configurable for settlement using a variety of solutions, such as Lightning (LBTC) …. As described above, the communication protocol supports an “on-ramp” scenario and an “off-ramp” scenario.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Deluca/Ebrahimi/ Spector/Cronkright with the teaching of Corcillo as they relate to system of transferring digital assets between devices. One of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have modified the combined systems of Deluca/Ebrahimi/ Spector/Cronkright, for example transferring digital assets between two devices in Deluca, to include a method of selecting settlement path from external off-ramp as taught by Corcillo for the predicated result of securely transfer a digital asset to the unregistered number.
With respect to claim 10
The combination of Deluca, Ebrahimi, Spector, and Cronkright teaches the limitations of claim 1. The combination doesn’t explicitly disclose, but Corcillo teaches: wherein the blockchain unit is a stablecoin (see col.16 ln20- ln25, The user input 304 includes parameters to be implemented as part of a resource transfer to a digital wallet (block 802). The user input 304, for instance, specifies a resource amount 306 and a resource type 308, e.g., a type of cryptographic tokens from a particular blockchain system 106 such as stablecoins or other tokenized assets.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Deluca/Ebrahimi/ Spector/Cronkright with the teaching of Corcillo as they relate to system of transferring digital assets between devices. One of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have modified the combined systems of Deluca/Ebrahimi/Spector/Cronkright, for example transferring digital assets between two devices in Deluca, to include a method of using stablecoin as taught by Corcillo for the predicated result of securely transfer a digital asset to the unregistered number.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being obvious over Deluca et al. (US20260105440A1) in view of Ebrahimi et al. (US20190182042A1) in view of Spector et al. (US20190356481A1) in view of Cronkright et al. (US20240205218A1), and further in view of Gupta et al. (US20150046331A1)
With respect to claim 11
The combination of Deluca, Ebrahimi, Spector, and Cronkright teaches the limitations of claim 1. The combination doesn’t explicitly disclose, but Gupta teaches: wherein the request to transfer the quantity of blockchain unit is from a first user from a first country and the unregistered phone number is associated with a second user from a second country so that a transfer is a cross-border transfer ([0023], Pursuant to some embodiments, both domestic and cross-border transactions are supported, including but not limited to: (1) Registered to Registered—Domestic and cross-border P2P transfers between two registered consumers, and (2) Registered to Unregistered—Domestic P2P transfers from a registered consumer to an unregistered consumer.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Deluca/Ebrahimi/ Spector/Cronkright with the teaching of Gupta as they relate to system of transferring digital assets between devices. One of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have modified the combined systems of Deluca/Ebrahimi/ Spector/Cronkright, for example transferring digital assets between two devices in Deluca, to include a method of conducting cross-border transaction between registered and unregistered users as taught by Gupta for the predicated result of securely transfer a digital asset to the unregistered number.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being obvious over Deluca et al. (US20260105440A1) in view of Ebrahimi et al. (US20190182042A1) in view of Spector et al. (US20190356481A1) in view of Cronkright et al. (US20240205218A1), and further in view of Bimolaksono et al. (US20240202820A1)
With respect to claim 12
The combination of Deluca, Ebrahimi, Spector, and Cronkright teaches the limitations of claim 1. The combination doesn’t explicitly disclose, but Bimolaksono teaches: wherein accessing to the blockchain address includes accessing a bank-embedded wallet ([0087], At block 518, the verification service 215 determines whether the currency type between the fiat money 103 and the CBDC associated with the CBDC wallet address 112 matches. For example, the CBDC wallet address 112 can be associated with a central bank 107 that issues a first type of currency (e.g., US dollar), and the fiat money 103 can be issued by a central bank 107 that issues a second type of currency (e.g., euro).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Deluca/Ebrahimi/ Spector/Cronkright with the teaching of Gupta as they relate to system of transferring digital assets between devices. One of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have modified the combined systems of Deluca/Ebrahimi/ Spector/Cronkright, for example transferring digital assets between two devices in Deluca, to include a method of linking blockchain address to a bank-embedded wallet as taught by Bimolaksono for the predicated result of securely transfer a digital asset to the unregistered number.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being obvious over Deluca et al. (US20260105440A1) in view of Ebrahimi et al. (US20190182042A1) in view of Spector et al. (US20190356481A1) in view of Cronkright et al. (US20240205218A1), and further in view of Liu et al. (US20210119781A1)
With respect to claim 21
The combination of Deluca, Ebrahimi, Spector, and Cronkright teaches the limitations of claim 1. The combination doesn’t explicitly disclose, but teaches: wherein the cryptographic signing key material comprises a plurality of shards of the cryptographic signing key ([0026], In an example implementation, the method includes at least one of: generating a message signing private key (S310 shown in FIG. 3); encrypting the message signing private key to generate ciphertext (e.g., S320); splitting the ciphertext into shards (e.g., S330); optionally securing the shards (e.g., S340) (e.g., by encrypting each shard to generate encrypted shards). A signing request (e.g., that identifies a message, and a public key for the message signing private key) can be received (e.g., S410 shown in FIG. 4) from a client. In response to identifying the private key for the signing request as part of a reusable cold key (RuCK) pair (e.g., at S420), α-shards (message signing key shards) are accessed (e.g., S430).), and wherein at least one of the plurality of shards is withheld from a computing server used to create the cryptographic signing key material (see at least [0074]), wherein a number of the plurality of shards accessible to the computing server is fewer than a threshold number of shards required to reconstruct the cryptographic signing key ([0032], Second, access to the private signing key can be restricted by: limiting access to encrypted shares of the private key, and distributing keys, passphrases (needed to recover the private key), and/or shards thereof among a plurality of discrete hardware devices such that no single hardware device has access to all information needed to reconstruct the private signing key.)
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL, necessitated by amendment. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YIN Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-1094 or yin.choi@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30 - 5:30pm 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 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YIN Y CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 3699 9/8/2026
/NILESH B KHATRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
