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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/15/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 are amended.
Claims 2-7 are canceled.
Claims 1 and 8-10 are pending.
Response to Remarks
35 U.S.C. § 101
The previous rejections are withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
The previous rejections are withdrawn. However, new grounds of rejection have been made.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 8-10 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Lack of Antecedent Basis
Claim 1 recites "the transaction record of information tx is encrypted by a proposing participant node Np to form an encrypted data block" without proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is needed.
Claim 1 recites "the receiving validator nodes are configured to add to a blockchain the transaction of information tx; encrypted by means of a new transaction of information tx;’ to form an encrypted and marked datablock to provide a new transaction of information tx;’ which is forced to maintain a hash identifier which is the same as the tx; information transaction" without proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is needed.
Claim 10 recites "wherein the blockchain to which a validator node adds the new transaction of information tx’ contains blocks containing public information" without proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is needed.
Therefore, these claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 8-10 are also rejected per dependency upon a rejected claim.
Unclear Scope
Claim 1 recites "… wherein the blockchain system includes a plurality of proposing participant nodes; a plurality of destination participant nodes and a plurality of receiving validator nodes connected by a telecommunications network”. However, it is unclear whether the telecommunications network also constitutes the blockchain system or not. Also, it is unclear whether the recitation of “connected by a telecommunications network” limits only the “plurality of receiving validator nodes” or also limits the “plurality of proposing participant nodes” and “plurality of destination participant nodes”. Therefore, these claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim 1 recites "wherein a proposing participant node is configured to …”. However, it is unclear whether the recitation of “a proposing participant node” is included in the claimed “plurality of proposing participant nodes” or not. Therefore, these claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim 1 recites "the transaction record of information tx is encrypted by a proposing participant node Np to form an encrypted data block”. However, it is unclear whether the recitation of “a proposing participant node Np” is included in the claimed “plurality of proposing participant nodes” or not. Therefore, these claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim 1 recites "the receiving validator nodes are configured to add to a blockchain the transaction of information tx; encrypted by means of a new transaction of information tx;’ to form an encrypted and marked datablock to provide a new transaction of information tx;’ which is forced to maintain a hash identifier which is the same as the tx; information transaction”. However, it is unclear whether the two identical recitations of “a new transaction of information tx;’” are the same or not. Therefore, these claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim 1 recites “the receiving validator nodes are configured to mark the encrypted data block with at least one restricted tx information transaction, such that only …” and "the receiving validator nodes are configured to … consists of up to N transactions and at least one restricted tx information transaction”. However, it is unclear whether the two identical recitations of “at least one restricted tx information transaction” are the same or not. Therefore, these claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim 8 recites "wherein receiving validator nodes are configured to receive a request message for a restricted transaction execution from a proposing participant node, wherein at least one receiving validator node determines the destination participating nodes based on members entered in the particular preconfigured privacy group”. However, it is unclear whether these recitations are included in the claimed “plurality of proposing participant nodes” and “plurality of receiving validator nodes” or not. Therefore, these claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim 9 recites "wherein the request message for a restricted transaction execution received by receiving validator nodes, in addition to transaction data proposed by a proposing participant node, comprises metadata regarding a privacy context for which the restricted transaction is executed”. However, it is unclear whether these recitations are included in the claimed “plurality of proposing participant nodes” and “plurality of receiving validator nodes” or not. Therefore, these claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim 10 recites " wherein the blockchain to which a validator node adds the new transaction of information tx’ contains blocks containing public information”. However, it is unclear whether this recitation is included in the claimed “plurality of receiving validator nodes” or not. Therefore, these claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 13USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989) and MPEP 2173.02 (III)(B) which states “Examiners should bear in mind that "[a]n essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.”
Claims 8-10 are also rejected per dependency upon a rejected claim.
Prior Art Rejection of Claim Rejected as Indefinite
The claims present a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claims, thus it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In reSteele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims. See MPEP 2173.06(II).
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“Mastering Bitcoin” by Andreas M. Antonopoulos.
US 2018/0183768 A1 to Lobban et al. discloses: Systems and methods for privacy in distributed ledger transactions are disclosed. In one embodiment, in an information processing apparatus comprising at least one computer processor for a first node in a computer network comprising a plurality of nodes, a method for generating a key directory in a network comprising a plurality of nodes may include: (1) advertising a public key for a first node to the other nodes; (2) receiving public key information from each of the plurality of nodes; and (3) generating a public key directory that associates each node in the computer network with its public key.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ari Shahabi whose telephone number is (571)272-2565. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00.
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, John W Hayes can be reached at 571-272-6708. 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.
/ARI SHAHABI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697