Patent Application 18455398 - CONVERTING BRIDGED TOKENS TO NATIVE TOKENS ON A

Title: CONVERTING BRIDGED TOKENS TO NATIVE TOKENS ON A BLOCKCHAIN

Application Information

Invention Title: CONVERTING BRIDGED TOKENS TO NATIVE TOKENS ON A BLOCKCHAIN
Application Number: 18455398
Submission Date: 2025-05-12T00:00:00.000Z
Effective Filing Date: 2023-08-24T00:00:00.000Z
Filing Date: 2023-08-24T00:00:00.000Z
National Class: 705
National Sub-Class: 066000
Examiner Employee Number: 91149
Art Unit: 3698
Tech Center: 3600

Rejection Summary

102 Rejections: 0
103 Rejections: 1

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

Office Action Text

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 filed 11/13/2024 was considered. An initialed copy of the Form PTO-1449 is enclosed herewith.

Acknowledgements
This Office Action is in response to the amendment received on 08/24/2023.
Claims 1-23 were newly introduced.
Claims 1-23 are pending.
Claims 1-23 were examined.

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.

Claims 1-8, 10-19 and 21-23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nemethi et al. (US 11,880,836 B1) in view of Multichan.org (NPL 2023, listed in PTO-892 as reference "U").

With respect to claims 1, 12 and 23, Nemethi et al. teach a processing system, comprising: a memory having executable instructions stored thereon; and one or more processors; a non-transitory computer-readable medium; and a processor-implemented method (Gated control for blockchain units) comprising:
pausing a token bridge between a first blockchain and a second blockchain (see col. 8 lines 24-44: “A gated wrapper autonomous program protocol 126 may be a type of token wrapper contract, which is a smart contract with executable programs running on blockchain virtual machines that lock up specific tokens and create, or mint, a new token type with new properties. The token wrapper contract may store tokens that the blockchain address owner has redeemed for its wrapped counterpart. The wrapper contract may mint new wrapped tokens to the holder's blockchain address according to a predetermined rule set specified in the gated wrapper autonomous program protocol 126. The blockchain address owner, or any other future owner of the wrapped token, can return the wrapped tokens to the gated wrapper autonomous program protocol 126 by having the wrapper contract to burn the wrapped token in exchange of the deposited token counterpart. By returning the wrapped tokens to the gated wrapper autonomous program protocol 126, the wrapped token owner can redeem the original tokens in exchange for the wrapped tokens according to the rule set. In some embodiments, the gated wrapped blockchain units 128 inherit properties from the original blockchain units 127. In addition, the gated wrapped blockchain units may often introduce novel functions or extend the current functions of the original blockchain units 127.”; col. 8 lines 45-52: “In various embodiments, a gated wrapper autonomous program protocol 126 may be used for a single type of blockchain unit 127 or multiple different types of blockchain units 127, depending on implementations. For example, in some embodiments, a gated wrapper autonomous program protocol 126 may be able to mint different wrapped tokens for different types of blockchain units 127 that are native on a blockchain 120.”; col. 8 lines 53-64: “In some embodiments, wrapped tokens may refer to a token that is held in a known location, such as the ledger of the gated wrapper autonomous program protocol 126 as collateral, and the wrapper is used as representative ownership of the underlying token that is held as collateral. A blockchain wrapper contract, which is an example of a gated wrapper autonomous program protocol 126, may be configured to access and lock approved blockchain tokens and create new blockchain tokens with new functionality embedded in the token's program. The wrapped tokens pattern can be applied to introduce custom functionality to an existing token.”; col. 8, line 65 to col. 9, line 10: “In some embodiments, wrapped tokens may be associated with a mechanism where the blockchain address owner wraps an existing token into a new wrapped token with additional functionalities. The translation between tokens and wrapped tokens can be reversible. Users can redeem the wrapper for the underlying token or generate wrapped tokens by providing the requisite token from which it is created. By way of example, a native token of the Ethereum blockchain, ETHER, may be locked into a wrapper contract in return for wrapped Ether, an equivalent token that conforms to prevalent industry standards, allowing it to be used in contexts where ETHER is not easily supported. Wrapped Ether can be redeemed for ETHER and vice versa.”; col. 9, line 60 to col. 10, line 6: “In some embodiments, the functions of the gated wrapper autonomous program protocol 126 may also include freezing gated wrapped blockchain units 128. For example, an administrator of the gated wrapper autonomous program protocol 126 may cause the gated wrapper autonomous program protocol 126 to freeze or lock a gated wrapped blockchain unit 128. To prevent misuse, a gated wrapped blockchain unit 128 that is frozen may be stopped from being wrapped, unwrapped, or interacting with. Freezing requirements may be part of the gating requirements or can be executed using the administrator's private keys. Misuse or abuse of the gated wrapper autonomous program protocol 126 or the gated wrapped blockchain units 128, regardless of intent, can trigger freezing.”; col. 10 lines 7-25: “In some embodiments, the functions of the gated wrapper autonomous program protocol 126 may also include timed requirements on gated wrapped blockchain units 128. A blockchain address that does not meet the gating requirements cannot interact with the gated wrapped blockchain units 128, even for the gated wrapped blockchain units 128 that somehow end up at the blockchain address. As such, the transfer of gated wrapped blockchain units 128 to such a blockchain address can create transactions that are forever in an unfinalized state. To avoid this type of unused blockchain units, the gating requirements can include a time frame or block height for transacted gated wrapped blockchain units 128. In case the time requirements have not been met, the state or function of these gated wrapped blockchain units 128 can change. This change of state or function can include but is not limited to burning, freezing, or making ineligible transactions, returning to the sender's blockchain address, re-minting to the sender's blockchain address, or another type of state or function change”);
validating that a quantity of a bridged token has remained unchanged since a freeze time at which the token bridge was paused; (see col. 12, line 46 to col. 13, line 12: “Gating requirements may take different forms and are of various natures for different purposes such as compliance, access control, identity verification, etc. In some embodiments, gating requirements may specify who has the agency to interact with a blockchain unit on the blockchain 120 and the precise manner of interaction. Alternatively, or additionally, gating requirements may include discoverable blockchain resources on the blockchain network. Alternatively, or additionally, gating requirements may be related to a blockchain address's interaction with an autonomous program protocol 122. For example, gating requirements may include the transaction history of the blockchain address, the transaction history of certain tokens or a variation of tokens owned and controlled by the blockchain address, the history of the token required for locking in the contract, verification for on-chain fraud or sanctions transactions or historical activity such as hacks, exploits, sanction lists. Alternatively, or additionally, gating requirements may also be related to the blockchain address receiving gated wrapped blockchain units 128. For example, gating requirements may include the transaction history of the blockchain address, the transaction history of certain tokens or a variation of tokens owned and controlled by the blockchain address, the history of the token required for locking in a gated wrapper autonomous program protocol 126, verification for on-chain fraud or sanctions transactions or historical activity such as hacks, exploits, and sanction lists. Alternatively, or additionally, gating requirements may include changes in the usage behavior of a blockchain address. Alternatively, or additionally, gating requirements may be token-related and include a subset of tokens owned or controlled by the blockchain address interacting with a gated wrapper autonomous program protocol 126 to prevent tainted tokens from being locked up.”; col. 21 lines 27-34: “Similar to the process 200, while the process 300 shown in FIG. 3C is illustrated with the initial wrapping process, the same gating process may be used for transfer of the gated wrapped blockchain units 128 to another blockchain address and withdrawal of the original blockchain units 127. For example, for exchange or withdrawal, the user may initiate an exchange or withdrawal request. The gated wrapper autonomous program protocol 126 verifies the possession of the DAO soulbound NFT 335 through inquiring the DAO soulbound NFT protocol 330. Afterwards, the user may send the gated wrapped blockchain units 128 to another blockchain address or may return a quantity of the gated wrapped blockchain unit 128 with a corresponding quantity of the original blockchain unit 127”);
based on validating that the quantity of the bridged token has remained unchanged since the freeze time, converting the bridged token to a native token existing on the second blockchain. (see col. 16 lines 18-40: “In some embodiments, the blockchain unit wrapping process 200 uses various functionalities to limit interaction and verify gating requirements. By way of example, the blockchain unit wrapping process 200 may implement the gated wrapper autonomous program protocol 126 with lock and mint/burn functionality and an additional NFT gating requirement to limit interactions of the gated wrapper autonomous program protocol 126. For example, the gated wrapper autonomous program protocol 126 may include a deposit and lock function on the original blockchain unit 127. Any original blockchain unit 127 that is deposited to the gated wrapper autonomous program protocol 126 to exchange as a gated wrapped blockchain unit 128 is locked with the gated wrapper autonomous program protocol 126. As part of the process to lock the original blockchain unit 127 in custody with the gated wrapper autonomous program protocol 126, the gated wrapper autonomous program protocol 126 may use mint functions to generate gated wrapped blockchain units 128. In the case a redemption request is processed, the gated wrapper autonomous program protocol 126 may use burn functions to burn the gated wrapped blockchain unit 128 to return the original blockchain unit 127 in custody.”; col. 18 lines 4-16: “While the process 200 shown in FIG. 2 is illustrated with the initial wrapping process, the same gating process may be used for the exchange of gated wrapped blockchain units 128 and withdrawal of the original blockchain units 127. For example, for exchange or withdrawal, at step 248, the user initiates the exchange or withdrawal request. The gated wrapper autonomous program protocol 126 verifies the possession of the NFT through inquiring the NFT autonomous program protocol 210. Afterward, the user may send the gated wrapped blockchain units 128 to another blockchain address or may return a quantity of the gated wrapped blockchain unit 128 to receive a corresponding quantity of the original blockchain unit 127”).

Although Nemethi et al. disclose a gated wrapper autonomous program protocol 126 including various functionalities such as mint, burn, deposit, and verification (see col. 8 lines 6-23), Nemethi et al. do not explicitly disclose a method, system and medium comprising: adjusting minting privileges on the second blockchain such that a designated user is granted privileges to control token minting on the second blockchain and no other users are allowed to control token minting on the second blockchain. With respect to the BRI of the claims, Examiner notes claims 1, 12 and 23 recite “such that...”. “Such that” merely states the result of a limitation in the claim and adds nothing to the patentable or substance of the claim. “Such that” does not have patentable weight (see Texas Instruments Inc. v. International Trade Commission 26, USPQ2d 1010 (Fed Cir 1993); Griffin v. Bertina, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed Cir 2002); Amazon.com Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com Inc., 57 USPQ2d 1747 (CAFC 2001).

However, Multichain.org discloses a method, system and medium (Multichain) comprising:
adjusting minting privileges on the second blockchain such that a designated user is granted privileges to control token minting on the second blockchain and no other users are allowed to control token minting on the second blockchain; (see The wrapped asset token contract AnyswapV5ERC20 on the destination chain, which is a superset of the standard ERC20 type of contract, only allows MPC nodes network to mint assets. No other address is allowed to mint, to prevent a non-equivalence between assets held by the SMPC address and those wrapped assets created. For this reason, some common asset types are not suitable for Bridges, including elastic supply (or rebase) tokens).

Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the cross-chain bridge exclusive minting as disclosed by Multichain.org in the method, system and medium of Nemethi et al., the motivation being to prevent a non-equivalence between assets held by the SMPC address and those wrapped assets created (see Multichain.org, page 10).

With respect to claims 2 and 13, the combination of Nemethi et al. and Multichain.org teaches all the subject matter of the method and system as described above with respect to claims 1 and 12. Furthermore, Nemethi et al. disclose a method and system wherein pausing the token bridge between the first blockchain and the second blockchain comprises: locking a quantity of extant tokens on the first blockchain and a corresponding quantity of extant bridged tokens on the second blockchain; and finalizing pending transactions using the bridged token on the first blockchain and the second blockchain (see col. 9, line 60 to col. 10, line 6: “In some embodiments, the functions of the gated wrapper autonomous program protocol 126 may also include freezing gated wrapped blockchain units 128. For example, an administrator of the gated wrapper autonomous program protocol 126 may cause the gated wrapper autonomous program protocol 126 to freeze or lock a gated wrapped blockchain unit 128. To prevent misuse, a gated wrapped blockchain unit 128 that is frozen may be stopped from being wrapped, unwrapped, or interacting with. Freezing requirements may be part of the gating requirements or can be executed using the administrator's private keys. Misuse or abuse of the gated wrapper autonomous program protocol 126 or the gated wrapped blockchain units 128, regardless of intent, can trigger freezing.”; col. 10 lines 7-25: “In some embodiments, the functions of the gated wrapper autonomous program protocol 126 may also include timed requirements on gated wrapped blockchain units 128. A blockchain address that does not meet the gating requirements cannot interact with the gated wrapped blockchain units 128, even for the gated wrapped blockchain units 128 that somehow end up at the blockchain address. As such, the transfer of gated wrapped blockchain units 128 to such a blockchain address can create transactions that are forever in an unfinalized state. To avoid this type of unused blockchain units, the gating requirements can include a time frame or block height for transacted gated wrapped blockchain units 128. In case the time requirements have not been met, the state or function of these gated wrapped blockchain units 128 can change. This change of state or function can include but is not limited to burning, freezing, or making ineligible transactions, returning to the sender's blockchain address, re-minting to the sender's blockchain address, or another type of state or function change.”).

With respect to claims 3 and 14, the combination of Nemethi et al. and Multichain.org teaches all the subject matter of the method and system as described above with respect to claims 1 and 12. Furthermore, Multichain.org disclose a method and system further comprising: retrieving, from the first blockchain and the second blockchain, transaction records related to transactions using the bridged token; calculating a quantity of extant tokens on the first blockchain based on the transaction records retrieved from the first blockchain; calculating a quantity of extant bridged tokens on the second blockchain based on the transaction records retrieved from the second blockchain; and verifying that the quantity of extant tokens on the first blockchain matches the quantity of extant bridged tokens on the second blockchain (see The SMPC nodes perform several functions in linking an origin blockchain with a destination blockchain, completely autonomously and without human intervention :- (a) When a new bridge between two blockchains is created, the SMPC nodes generate the Decentralized Management Account whose address is used to send assets to. These assets are held securely whilst cross-chain assets are minted on the destination chain. This address is only controlled by the SMPC nodes and not by human or any other Externally Owned Address. (b) Also, when a new bridge between two blockchains is created, the SMPC nodes connect to a new smart contract on the destination chain for Wrapped Assets. This contract can be created by third party or the Multichain team. It is used to mint new tokens on the destination chain, or to burn them when assets are redeemed to their origin chain. This contract is either AnyswapV5ERC20.sol, or a contract adapted from this to include custom code required by a project, such as transaction tax etc. (c) The MPC nodes monitor the Decentralized Management Account. When a new asset arrives there, it triggers the Wrapped Asset smart contract on the destination chain to mint tokens. (d) If assets are redeemed, the Wrapped Asset smart contract is triggered by the MPC nodes to burn the tokens. The MPC nodes then release the assets from the Decentralized Management Account and send them to the user on the origin chain.).

With respect to claims 4 and 15, the combination of Nemethi et al. and Multichain.org teaches all the subject matter of the method and system as described above with respect to claims 3 and 14. Furthermore, Nemethi et al. disclose a method and system wherein converting the bridged token to the native token is further based on verifying that the quantity of extant tokens on the first blockchain matches the quantity of extant bridged tokens on the second blockchain (see col. 17, line 27 to col. 18, line 3: “FIG. 2 illustrates an interaction flow in the blockchain unit wrapping process 200, in accordance with some embodiments. While the process 200 is described as blocks and steps, in some embodiments, the blocks and steps do not necessarily need to occur and do not need to occur in the order described. Also, one or more steps may be combined. At step 240, the administrator 220 selects the NFT autonomous program protocol 210 to serve as the gating requirement. For example, the gated protocol admin 220 may select the blockchain address of the NFT autonomous program protocol 210, 0xab . . . cd, as the verification proof mechanism for accessing autonomous program protocol 124. At step 242, the administrator 220 may deploy the gated wrapper autonomous program protocol 126 with the address of the NFT autonomous program protocol 210 as the gating mechanism. At step 246, the NFT autonomous program protocol 210 issues an NFT to the user blockchain address, 0x12 . . . 34. The user blockchain address will be required to meet the gating requirements of gated wrapper autonomous program protocol 126. At step 248, the user, with the user blockchain address, may initiate a deposit request to the gated wrapper autonomous program protocol 126. At step 250, the gated wrapper autonomous program protocol 126 may invoke the gating function. For example, the gated wrapper autonomous program protocol 126 may direct a request to the NFT protocol blockchain address, 0xab . . . cd, to check the balance of the user blockchain address, 0x12 . . . 34 at the NFT autonomous program protocol 210 to determine whether the NFT is associated with the user blockchain address, 0x12 . . . 34. If the BalanceOf( ) function's returned answer is not zero, the transaction is successful. At step 252, after verifying the gating requirement that is represented by the possession of the NFT, the user 230 is allowed to deposit a certain quantity of the blockchain unit 127 to the gated wrapper autonomous program protocol 126. The quantity of blockchain unit 127 is locked up in the deposit function of the gated wrapper autonomous program protocol 126. At step 254, the gated wrapper autonomous program protocol 126 mints a corresponding quantity (e.g., 1:1 ratio, or slightly lower than 1:1 because of the payment of transaction fee) of the gated wrapped blockchain unit 128 to the user blockchain address, 0x12 . . . 34.”; col. 18 lines 4-16: “While the process 200 shown in FIG. 2 is illustrated with the initial wrapping process, the same gating process may be used for the exchange of gated wrapped blockchain units 128 and withdrawal of the original blockchain units 127. For example, for exchange or withdrawal, at step 248, the user initiates the exchange or withdrawal request. The gated wrapper autonomous program protocol 126 verifies the possession of the NFT through inquiring the NFT autonomous program protocol 210. Afterward, the user may send the gated wrapped blockchain units 128 to another blockchain address or may return a quantity of the gated wrapped blockchain unit 128 to receive a corresponding quantity of the original blockchain unit 127.”).

With respect to claims 5 and 16, the combination of Nemethi et al. and Multichain.org teaches all the subject matter of the method and system as described above with respect to claims 1 and 12. Furthermore, Nemethi et al. disclose a method and system further comprising: validating a contract defining the bridged token against one or more reference contracts, wherein converting the bridged token to the native token is further based on validating the contract (see col. 23 lines 5-15: “In some embodiments, one or more additional or alternative requirements may be used. For example, any decentralized exchange smart contracts that interact with the verified wrapper smart contract 506 may be required to have DAO NFT and are part of the gating requirements of the verified wrapper smart contract 506. Additionally, or alternatively, any DAO soulbound NFTs may contain a validity metadata that represents the address owner's live account at one of DAO issuers. This validity represents that the issued proof meets the requirements set by the DAO.”).

With respect to claims 6 and 17, the combination of Nemethi et al. and Multichain.org teaches all the subject matter of the method and system as described above with respect to claims 1 and 12. Furthermore, Nemethi et al. disclose a method and system further comprising: based on failing to validate that the quantity of the bridged token has remained unchanged since the freeze time, restoring minting privileges to other users on the second blockchain and unpausing the token bridge between the first blockchain and the second blockchain (see col. 10 lines 7-25: “In some embodiments, the functions of the gated wrapper autonomous program protocol 126 may also include timed requirements on gated wrapped blockchain units 128. A blockchain address that does not meet the gating requirements cannot interact with the gated wrapped blockchain units 128, even for the gated wrapped blockchain units 128 that somehow end up at the blockchain address. As such, the transfer of gated wrapped blockchain units 128 to such a blockchain address can create transactions that are forever in an unfinalized state. To avoid this type of unused blockchain units, the gating requirements can include a time frame or block height for transacted gated wrapped blockchain units 128. In case the time requirements have not been met, the state or function of these gated wrapped blockchain units 128 can change. This change of state or function can include but is not limited to burning, freezing, or making ineligible transactions, returning to the sender's blockchain address, re-minting to the sender's blockchain address, or another type of state or function change.”).

With respect to claims 7 and 18, the combination of Nemethi et al. and Multichain.org teaches all the subject matter of the method and system as described above with respect to claims 1 and 12. Furthermore, Multichain.org disclose a method and system wherein adjusting minting privileges on the second blockchain comprises: revoking at least minting privileges from parties other than the designated user; and granting zero-allowance minting privileges to a designated token burning entity (see The SMPC nodes perform several functions in linking an origin blockchain with a destination blockchain, completely autonomously and without human intervention :- (a) When a new bridge between two blockchains is created, the SMPC nodes generate the Decentralized Management Account whose address is used to send assets to. These assets are held securely whilst cross-chain assets are minted on the destination chain. This address is only controlled by the SMPC nodes and not by human or any other Externally Owned Address. (b) Also, when a new bridge between two blockchains is created, the SMPC nodes connect to a new smart contract on the destination chain for Wrapped Assets. This contract can be created by third party or the Multichain team. It is used to mint new tokens on the destination chain, or to burn them when assets are redeemed to their origin chain. This contract is either AnyswapV5ERC20.sol, or a contract adapted from this to include custom code required by a project, such as transaction tax etc. (c) The MPC nodes monitor the Decentralized Management Account. When a new asset arrives there, it triggers the Wrapped Asset smart contract on the destination chain to mint tokens. (d) If assets are redeemed, the Wrapped Asset smart contract is triggered by the MPC nodes to burn the tokens. The MPC nodes then release the assets from the Decentralized Management Account and send them to the user on the origin chain).

With respect to claims 8 and 19, the combination of Nemethi et al. and Multichain.org teaches all the subject matter of the method and system as described above with respect to claims 7 and 18. Furthermore, Nemethi et al. disclose a method and system wherein the designated token burning entity comprises a smart contract associated with the token bridge (see col. 8 lines 24-44: “A gated wrapper autonomous program protocol 126 may be a type of token wrapper contract, which is a smart contract with executable programs running on blockchain virtual machines that lock up specific tokens and create, or mint, a new token type with new properties. The token wrapper contract may store tokens that the blockchain address owner has redeemed for its wrapped counterpart. The wrapper contract may mint new wrapped tokens to the holder's blockchain address according to a predetermined rule set specified in the gated wrapper autonomous program protocol 126. The blockchain address owner, or any other future owner of the wrapped token, can return the wrapped tokens to the gated wrapper autonomous program protocol 126 by having the wrapper contract to burn the wrapped token in exchange of the deposited token counterpart. By returning the wrapped tokens to the gated wrapper autonomous program protocol 126, the wrapped token owner can redeem the original tokens in exchange for the wrapped tokens according to the rule set. In some embodiments, the gated wrapped blockchain units 128 inherit properties from the original blockchain units 127. In addition, the gated wrapped blockchain units may often introduce novel functions or extend the current functions of the original blockchain units 127.”).

With respect to claims 10 and 21, the combination of Nemethi et al. and Multichain.org teaches all the subject matter of the method and system as described above with respect to claims 1 and 12. Furthermore, Nemethi et al. disclose a method and system wherein converting the bridged token to a native token existing on the second blockchain comprises executing one or more update operations defined in a smart contract to convert the bridged token to the native token (see col. 16 lines 18-40: “In some embodiments, the blockchain unit wrapping process 200 uses various functionalities to limit interaction and verify gating requirements. By way of example, the blockchain unit wrapping process 200 may implement the gated wrapper autonomous program protocol 126 with lock and mint/burn functionality and an additional NFT gating requirement to limit interactions of the gated wrapper autonomous program protocol 126. For example, the gated wrapper autonomous program protocol 126 may include a deposit and lock function on the original blockchain unit 127. Any original blockchain unit 127 that is deposited to the gated wrapper autonomous program protocol 126 to exchange as a gated wrapped blockchain unit 128 is locked with the gated wrapper autonomous program protocol 126. As part of the process to lock the original blockchain unit 127 in custody with the gated wrapper autonomous program protocol 126, the gated wrapper autonomous program protocol 126 may use mint functions to generate gated wrapped blockchain units 128. In the case a redemption request is processed, the gated wrapper autonomous program protocol 126 may use burn functions to burn the gated wrapped blockchain unit 128 to return the original blockchain unit 127 in custody.”; col. 18 lines 4-16: “While the process 200 shown in FIG. 2 is illustrated with the initial wrapping process, the same gating process may be used for the exchange of gated wrapped blockchain units 128 and withdrawal of the original blockchain units 127. For example, for exchange or withdrawal, at step 248, the user initiates the exchange or withdrawal request. The gated wrapper autonomous program protocol 126 verifies the possession of the NFT through inquiring the NFT autonomous program protocol 210. Afterward, the user may send the gated wrapped blockchain units 128 to another blockchain address or may return a quantity of the gated wrapped blockchain unit 128 to receive a corresponding quantity of the original blockchain unit 127.”).

With respect to claims 11 and 22, the combination of Nemethi et al. and Multichain.org teaches all the subject matter of the method and system as described above with respect to claims 1 and 12. Furthermore, Nemethi et al. disclose a method and system wherein converting the bridged token to a native token existing on the second blockchain comprises burning tokens on the first blockchain corresponding to the bridged token on the second blockchain (see col. 16 lines 18-40: “In some embodiments, the blockchain unit wrapping process 200 uses various functionalities to limit interaction and verify gating requirements. By way of example, the blockchain unit wrapping process 200 may implement the gated wrapper autonomous program protocol 126 with lock and mint/burn functionality and an additional NFT gating requirement to limit interactions of the gated wrapper autonomous program protocol 126. For example, the gated wrapper autonomous program protocol 126 may include a deposit and lock function on the original blockchain unit 127. Any original blockchain unit 127 that is deposited to the gated wrapper autonomous program protocol 126 to exchange as a gated wrapped blockchain unit 128 is locked with the gated wrapper autonomous program protocol 126. As part of the process to lock the original blockchain unit 127 in custody with the gated wrapper autonomous program protocol 126, the gated wrapper autonomous program protocol 126 may use mint functions to generate gated wrapped blockchain units 128. In the case a redemption request is processed, the gated wrapper autonomous program protocol 126 may use burn functions to burn the gated wrapped blockchain unit 128 to return the original blockchain unit 127 in custody.”; col. 18 lines 4-16: “While the process 200 shown in FIG. 2 is illustrated with the initial wrapping process, the same gating process may be used for the exchange of gated wrapped blockchain units 128 and withdrawal of the original blockchain units 127. For example, for exchange or withdrawal, at step 248, the user initiates the exchange or withdrawal request. The gated wrapper autonomous program protocol 126 verifies the possession of the NFT through inquiring the NFT autonomous program protocol 210. Afterward, the user may send the gated wrapped blockchain units 128 to another blockchain address or may return a quantity of the gated wrapped blockchain unit 128 to receive a corresponding quantity of the original blockchain unit 127.”).

Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
A thorough prior art search was performed. Claims 9 and 20 are potentially allowable in view of the prior art of record. Even though the recited elements are well known when evaluated individually, the combination of steps/functions of the claim appears to be allowable. As a courtesy to Applicant, Examiner proposes an amendment to claims 1, 7 and 9, in order to avoid the intended use language of the term “such that” and incorporating the subject matter of claims 7 and 9 into claim 1, as follows:

Claim 1. (Currently Amended) A processor-implemented method, comprising:
pausing a token bridge between a first blockchain and a second blockchain;
adjusting minting privileges on the second blockchain by:
granting a designated user exclusive privileges to control token minting on the second blockchain and revoking at least minting privileges from parties other than the designated user; and
granting zero-allowance minting privileges to a designated token burning entity.

validating that a quantity of a bridged token has remained unchanged since a freeze time at which the token bridge was paused;

based on validating that the quantity of the bridged token has remained unchanged since the freeze time, converting the bridged token to a native token existing on the second blockchain [.] ;

revoking zero-allowance minting privileges from the designated token burning entity subsequent to converting the bridged token.

Claim 7 (Canceled)
Claim 9. (Canceled)

Examiner suggests amending the subject matter of independent claims 12 and 23 to be commensurate in scope to claim 1 above, in addition to cancelation of claims 18 and 20, which correspond to claims 7 and 9. Examiner notes that further consideration and search might be required upon presentation of rewritten claims, especially if the amendments diverge from the scope of the proposed amendments.

Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:

Patent Literature
Mayerchak et al. (US 2024/0202679 A1) disclose bridging blockchains, including “lock and mint” bridges lock assets on a source blockchain and mint assets on the destination blockchain chain.
Kaplan et al. (US 2023/0018175 A1) disclose secure and trustworthy bridge for transferring assets across networks with different data architecture, including locking operations mint the second assets using a first account-based command containing a second address deterministically created from the first mnemonic address.
Padmanabhan et al. (US 2023/0367776 A1) disclose distributed metadata definition and storage in a database system for public trust ledger smart contracts, including an owner of the smart contract may implement a rule pausing trading of all tokens minted by a designated smart contract.
Jackson et al. (US 2020/0143471 A1) disclose decentralized blockchain oracle price discovery platform with bi-directional quotes, including Sharing a blockchain token across blockchains by locking tokens on one blockchain in order to mint them on another chain, then burning the tokens to remove the lock at a later time.
Gangal (US 2020/0328892 A1) discloses root-of-trust blockchain verification, including awarding prospective miners with mining privileges or excluding from mining based on any desired factors or assessment of risk.
Beller et al. (US 2023/0334470 A1) disclose blockchain interoperability system for native asset creation, including functionalities of a delegate, including reporting events on the host blockchain and/or other blockchains to a user, sending messages signed by the user and the delegate to another target blockchain, ensuring that the target blockchain has sufficient gas (e.g., the fee minted on the target blockchain to pay a mining computing device that achieves a proof-of-work or proof-of-stake) token liquidity to process the message.
Shetty et al. (US 2024/0146554 A1) disclose systems and methods for tokenizing assets via blockchain-to-blockchain bridge using underlying assets held at a triparty agent or custodian, including a tokenization agent computer program that is configured to receive a first instruction from the client computer program to mint first tokens for a client asset, to encumber the client asset on the custody ledger, to create a balance of the first tokens for the client asset on a first distributed ledger, to receive a second instruction to lock and mint the first tokens to a second distributed ledger as second tokens, to receive verification from the custodian or triparty agent that the first tokens are locked on the lock ledger, to instruct the blockchain bridge computer program to mint second tokens to a client address on the second distributed ledger, to receive a third instruction to return the second tokens to the first distributed ledger, to execute a public burn of the second tokens on the second distributed ledger, and to instruct the custodian or triparty agent to unlock the first tokens and move the first tokens to the first distributed ledger.
Forson (US 2023/0401580 A1) discloses system and method for identity management, including a policy of minting and burning tokens to ensure the balance is maintained..
Jakobsson et al. (US 2023/0006976 A1) disclose systems and method for providing security against deception and abuse in distributed and tokenized environments, including a watchful bridge can facilitate bridging in a multi-layer blockchain, where the bridge is the connection between a layer-1 blockchain and a layer-2 blockchain.
Dusek (US 2023/0205784 A1) discloses action ordering, including achieve consensus while preventing front running attacks where a node with leader or mining privileges is able to order transactions in a blockchain in a way that benefits the leader or mining node or places a new transaction based on pending transactions to earn a profit..

Non-Patent Literature

E. Marstein et al. (NPL 2023, listed in PTO-892 as page 1, reference "V") disclose Implementing Secure Bridges: Learnings from the Secure Asset Transfer Protocol, including configuring permissions to mint and burn assets in asset smart contracts.
Patrick McCorry et al (NPL , listed in PTO-892 as page 1, reference "W") disclose SoK: Validating Bridges as a Scaling Solution for Blockchains, including Burn and mint liquidity.
Merrill et al. (NPL 2019, listed in PTO-892 as page 1, reference "X") disclose Lock and Load: A Model for Free Blockchain Transactions through Token Locking, including a token-locking reward model.
Cronje (NPL 2021, listed in PTO-892 as page 2, reference "U") disclose AnyswapV5ERC20.sol, including the function revokeMinter(address _auth).
Zhaojun-sh (NPL 2022 , listed in PTO-892 as page 2, reference "V") disclose Update AnyswapV6ERC20.sol, including balance checks for transferring the value of an AnyswapV6ERC20 token from account (`from`) to account (`to`).
OpenZepellin (NPL 2023, listed in PTO-892 as page 2, reference "W") disclose Access control, including using AccessControl in an ERC20 token to define a 'minter' role.
Llamarisk (NPL , listed in PTO-892 as page 2, reference "X") disclose Cross-Chain Gauges & Ecosystem Assessment: Multichain, including details of Multichain as a hybrid bridge, using the classic lock-and-mint model (used by most bridges) in combination with liquidity pools using the router. It’s also a hybrid in terms of on- and off-chain components.

Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDUARDO D CASTILHO whose telephone number is (571)270-1592. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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.

/EDUARDO CASTILHO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3698