DETAILED ACTION
A response was received on 26 November 2025. By this response, Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 26, 27, and 29 have been amended. No claims have been added or canceled. Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 26, 27, and 29 are currently pending in the present application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 26, 27, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. 103 (pages 17-20 of the present response) have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth below.
Applicant's arguments filed 26 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 26, 27, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to abstract ideas without significantly more, and with particular reference to amended independent Claim 1, and with reference to Step 2A, Prong One, Applicant argues that the human mind is not equipped to perform submitting a blockchain transaction and reduced-step and full-step hash values to blockchain nodes for storage or executing an approximate hash verification that includes execution of a hash function a first number of times, and the claim is therefore not directed to mental processes (pages 13-14 of the present response). However, the step of submitting the transaction and values was not considered to be part of the recited abstract ideas (i.e. mental processes). Further, execution of a hash function a number of times falls under the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts, which does not consider whether they can be performed in the mind. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). Although Applicant notes that examiners should consider whether a claim recites a mathematical concept or merely limitations that are based on or involve a mathematical concept (pages 13-14 of the present response), the steps of executing the hash function and generating the hashed identifier are actual calculations to be performed, and therefore these do explicitly recite a mathematical concept. It is further noted that only the steps of comparing the hash values and identifying whether they match were noted as mental processes. This only requires a simple comparison of two data values, which constitutes a mental process.
With respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, Applicant argues that the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application by quoting numerous portions of Claim 1 relating to reduced-step hashes and asserting that it provides an advantage of increasing computational efficiency and decreasing computational time by performing approximate hash verification instead of full-step hash verification (pages 14-16 of the present response, citing paragraphs 0062, 0068, and 0091 of the specification). However, it is noted that the claims still recite use of the full-step hash value as well as reciting additional hash generations (e.g. the generation of the hashed identifier), so it is not clear how this reduces the computational load or increases the speed due to needing to compute additional calculations. With respect to Step 2B, Applicant argues that the features of the claim as amended add specific limitations that are not well-understood, routine or conventional (pages 16-17 of the present response). However, Applicant has not pointed out or explained what those alleged features or limitations may be.
Therefore, for the reasons detailed above, the Examiner maintains the rejections as set forth below.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Independent Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended to recite “in a case where the reduced-step hash value does not match the local copy of the reduced-step hash value, identifying that that the first blockchain transaction is incorrectly recorded on the blockchain” or similar language. However, there does not appear to be any mention in the specification of an identification that a transaction is incorrectly recorded, and therefore, there is not clear antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter in the specification. For further detail, see below with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failure to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim Objections
The objections to Claims 1, 8, and 15 for informalities are NOT withdrawn because the amendments have raised new issues, as detailed below.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, lines 27 and 40, a colon should be inserted at the end of each line after “wherein”.
In Claim 8, line 18, “of” should be deleted after “executing”. In Claim 8, lines 23 and 37, a colon should be inserted at the end of each line after “wherein”.
In Claim 15, line 18, “of” should be deleted after “executing”. In Claim 8, lines 23 and 37, a colon should be inserted at the end of each line after “wherein”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The rejection of Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, and 26, 27, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to abstract ideas without significantly more is NOT withdrawn for the reasons detailed above.
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, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, and 26, 27, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Independent Claim 8 recites a method that includes submitting a first transaction and hash values to blockchain nodes, receiving a reduced-step hash value from a first blockchain node, executing an approximate hash verification by generating and comparing hash values and identifying that the first transaction is correctly or incorrectly recorded; and generating and submitting a hashed identifier of a second transaction. The steps of executing the hash function a particular number of times and generating the hashed identifier constitute mathematical calculations. These calculations constitute mathematical concepts, which are one of the groupings of abstract ideas set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). The steps of comparing the generated local copy of the first reduced-step hash value with the received second reduced-step hash value and identifying whether they match or not constitutes a mental process because it only requires a simple comparison of data. Mental processes are also one of the groupings of abstract ideas set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). Abstract ideas are judicial exceptions as per MPEP § 2106.04(I). See also Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank, International, et al, 573 U.S. 208, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014).
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there is no use or further action with respect to the verification/comparison. The only result is either identifying that the transaction is correctly or incorrectly recorded and submitting the hashed identifier. The identification is merely a necessary result of the comparison, and the submitting the hashed identifier is insignificant post-solution activity as per MPEP § 2106.05(g); nothing further is done with the identification that the first transaction was correctly or incorrectly recorded. Further, the steps of submitting the transaction and hash values constitute generic output of the result of the mathematical calculations, and receiving the hash value constitutes mere data gathering; these both amount to insignificant extra-solution activity as per MPEP § 2106.05(g). Submitting the hashed identifier for verification of the transaction data is also insignificant post-solution activity because the submission is merely a necessary output of the abstract generation of the hashed identifier, and the verification is not actually required to be performed. There is nothing in the claim that would result in a particular transformation, as per MPEP § 2106.05(c), nor does the claim require the use of the abstract idea in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture, as per MPEP § 2106.05(b). The recitations of the steps being performed by a processor and the method being “computer-implemented” constitute nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or a limitation to a particular technological environment, as per MPEP § 2106.05(f) and (h). There are no additional elements that apply or use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond merely linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. There is no further step taken beyond comparing the data and identifying a match that would result in a practical application of the abstract ideas. Therefore, the claim is not directed to a practical application of the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for similar reasons as detailed above with respect to the question of a practical application of the judicial exception. The steps of submitting the transaction and hashed identifier and receiving the hash value are claimed at a high level of generality and are generally directed to sending and receiving data over a network. These have been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), citing Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs, and buySAFE. Therefore, the claim as a whole, whether the functions are considered individually or as an ordered combination, is not directed to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Independent Claim 1 is directed to a system having functionality corresponding to the method of Claim 8 and recites abstract ideas for similar reasons. The recitation of the processor in Claim 1 is at a generic level and constitutes nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract ideas on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, the system claims are also not directed to significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Independent Claim 15 is directed to a computer-readable medium storing instructions for performing steps corresponding to the method of Claim 8, and recites abstract ideas for similar reasons. The recitation of the computer-readable medium constitutes nothing more than a mere instruction to implement the abstract ideas on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, the software claim is also not directed to significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Dependent Claims 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 14, 26, 27, and 29 only recite further details of the abstract idea, or additional insignificant extra-solution steps such as storing data in memory or displaying a message. These claims recite abstract ideas for the same reasons as the independent claim, and also are not directed to a practical application and do not add significantly more to the abstract ideas recited in the independent claims.
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claims as an ordered combination and as a whole, Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, and 26, 27, and 29 are determined to be directed to abstract ideas without a practical application and without significantly more, as detailed above. Therefore, based on the above analysis, the claimed inventions are not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 10, 11, 13-15, and 26-29 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite is NOT withdrawn, because not all issues have been addressed and/or because the amendments have raised new issues, as detailed below.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, and 26, 27, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended to recite “in a case where the reduced-step hash value does not match the local copy of the reduced-step hash value, identifying that that the first blockchain transaction is incorrectly recorded on the blockchain” or similar language. However, there does not appear to be any mention in the specification of an identification that a transaction is incorrectly recorded. Although Applicant points to Figure 4D and paragraphs 0057, 0061, 0095, 0100, 0115, 0126-0128, and 0161 of the specification for support of the claims as amended (page 12 of the present response), Figure 4D only shows the tree structure of reduced hashes, and although paragraphs 0095 and 0115 generally describe verifying that a transaction was recorded correctly, there does not appear to be any mention in the cited paragraphs or elsewhere in the specification of an identification that a transaction is incorrectly recorded. Therefore, there is not clear written description of the claimed subject matter in the specification.
Claims not explicitly referred to above are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected base claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, and 26, 27, and 29 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.
Claim 1 recites “a reduced-step hash value” and “a full-step hash value” in lines 11-12. Due to the amendments to the claim, it is no longer clear what these are hash values of. The claim further recites “the reduced-step hash value” in lines 25, 33, and 36. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the submitted reduced-step hash value, received reduced-step hash value, or local copy of the reduced-step hash value. The claim additionally recites “the full-step hash value of the first blockchain transaction” in lines 29-30. Although the claim previously recited a full-step hash value, there is not clear antecedent basis for this more detailed limitation. The claim also recites “a specific node” in line 45 and “each node” in line 49. It is not clear whether these nodes are intended to refer to blockchain nodes or other nodes. The claim further recites “the respective node” in line 50. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claim 4 recites “the submitted reduced-step hash value of the first blockchain transaction” in line 3. Although Claim 1 recited a reduced-step hash value that is submitted, there is not clear antecedent basis for this more detailed limitation in the claims.
Claim 8 recites “a reduced-step hash value” and “a full-step hash value” in line 10. Due to the amendments to the claim, it is no longer clear what these are hash values of. The claim further recites “the reduced-step hash value” in lines 22, 30, and 33. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the submitted reduced-step hash value, received reduced-step hash value, or local copy of the reduced-step hash value. The claim additionally recites “the full-step hash value of the first blockchain transaction” in lines 26-27. Although the claim previously recited a full-step hash value, there is not clear antecedent basis for this more detailed limitation. The claim also recites “a specific node” in line 42 and “each node” in line 45. It is not clear whether these nodes are intended to refer to blockchain nodes or other nodes. The claim further recites “the respective node” in line 46. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claim 11 recites “the submitted reduced-step hash value of the first blockchain transaction” in line 3. Although Claim 8 recited a reduced-step hash value that is submitted, there is not clear antecedent basis for this more detailed limitation in the claims.
Claim 15 recites “a reduced-step hash value” and “a full-step hash value” in lines 10-11. Due to the amendments to the claim, it is no longer clear what these are hash values of. The claim further recites “the reduced-step hash value” in lines 22, 30, and 33. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the submitted reduced-step hash value, received reduced-step hash value, or local copy of the reduced-step hash value. The claim additionally recites “the full-step hash value of the first blockchain transaction” in lines 26-27. Although the claim previously recited a full-step hash value, there is not clear antecedent basis for this more detailed limitation. The claim also recites “a specific node” in line 42 and “each node” in line 45. It is not clear whether these nodes are intended to refer to blockchain nodes or other nodes. The claim further recites “the respective node” in line 46. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite
Claim 27 recites “the submitted reduced-step hash value of the first blockchain transaction” in line 3. Although Claim 15 recited a reduced-step hash value that is submitted, there is not clear antecedent basis for this more detailed limitation in the claims.
Claims not specifically referred to above are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected base claim.
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, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, and 26, 27, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menon et al, US Patent Application Publication 2019/0394023, in view of Gopal et al, US Patent 8914641; Funk, US Patent 7363500; Suresh et al, US Patent Application Publication 2018/0006807; and Davies et al, US Patent 12034859 (cited in the previous Office action).
In reference to Claim 8, Menon discloses a method that includes submitting, to a blockchain node, a blockchain transaction that has yet to be committed (see paragraphs 0014-0016); receiving a recordation confirmation that the transaction has been committed to a blockchain ledger (paragraphs 0017-0018); and verifying whether the recordation is correct based on verification of the hash (paragraphs 0043-0044). However, Menon does not explicitly disclose submitting both a full-step hash and a reduced-step hash with the transaction, nor does Menon explicitly disclose verifying a reduced-step hash.
Gopal discloses a method in which a message to be stored in a block chain includes multiple hashes from multiple algorithms or strengths (see Figure 2A, step 215; column 4, lines 44-34; column 10, lines 4-7). Additionally, Funk discloses that a reduced number of iterations of a hash algorithm can give a partial hash, i.e. that a full verification is based on a full-step hash and an approximate verification is based on a reduced-step hash (column 5, lines 49-50, partial message digest, and lines 63-67, preliminary hash value is fewer iterations that the complete hash function) and Funk further discloses generating reduced-step and full-step hash values by hashing the input value a first and additional number of times, respectively (i.e. executing the hash function the first number of times and continuing to execute the hash function the additional number of times, see column 5, lines 63-67). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Menon to include multiple hashes in the message as taught by Gopal and for one of the hashes to be a reduced-step hash as taught by Funk, in order to allow flexibility within the system by providing multiple hash options (see Gopal, column 3, lines 17-43) and to help prevent attacks (see Funk, column 18, lines 3-17).
However, none of Menon, Gopal, or Funk explicitly discloses generating a hashed identifier of an output, and while Menon generally discloses a path of hashes from a specific node to a root (see paragraph 0035, Merkle tree), none of Menon, Gopal or Funk explicitly discloses a hashed identifier being based on a chain associated with a location including a path of hashes. Suresh discloses a method that includes generating a hashed identifier of an output associated with a second blockchain transaction based on a chain of reduced-step hash operations associated with a path , where each node on the path includes a reduced-step hash of data from child nodes, and submitting the hashed identifier to blockchain nodes for verification (paragraphs 0026, 0031, hashed identifier of output using reduced hashes; paragraph 0020, submitting to blockchain), and Davies further discloses a method that includes generating a hashed identifier based on a chain associated with a location including a path of hashes corresponding to a path from a specific node to a root node in the data structure where the specific node corresponds to the second transaction (column 23, line 18-column 24, line 26, Merkle tree of hashed transaction identifier; see also column 29, line 58-column 30, line 39, verification of transaction tree). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the method of Menon, Gopal, and Funk to include the verification of a hashed identifier of a transaction using reduced-step hash values as taught by Suresh in a path as taught by Davies, in order to reduce energy consumption (see Suresh, paragraph 0019) and in order to allow checking a field within a transaction without needing to obtain or having access to the full transaction (see Davies, column 18, lines 47-67).
In reference to Claim 10, Menon, Gopal, Funk, Suresh, and Davies further disclose that the hashes have the same length (Funk, column 5, lines 63-67).
In reference to Claim 11, Menon, Gopal, Funk, Suresh, and Davies further disclose a Merkle tree (Menon, paragraph 0035; Davies, column 23, line 18-column 24, line 26).
In reference to Claim 14, Menon, Gopal, Funk, Suresh, and Davies further disclose a notification of success (Menon, paragraph 0018, endorsement confirmation).
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 7 are directed to systems having functionality corresponding to the methods of Claims 8, 10, 11, and 14, respectively, and are rejected by a similar rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Claims 15, 26, 27, and 29 are directed to software implementations of the methods of Claim 8, 10, 11, and 14, respectively, and are rejected by a similar rationale.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zachary A Davis whose telephone number is (571)272-3870. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:30pm, Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Rupal D Dharia can be reached at (571) 272-3880. 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.
/Zachary A. Davis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492