DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Acknowledgment
This action is in response to the amendment filed on January 2, 2026. Claims 1-4, 13-18, 20-23 and 30-34 are currently pending. Claims 23 and 30-34 are withdrawn by Applicant’s election. Claims 5-12, 19 and 24-29 have been cancelled by Applicant. Claims 1-4, 13-18 and 20-22 have been fully examined.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the claim objection, the amendment overcomes the objection and the objection is withdrawn.
With respect to the 112(a) rejection, the examiner notes that, as confirmed by Applicant in the remarks, the claim limitations previously rejected under 112(a) are interpreted as mutually exclusive alternatives of each other, which in any given time only one of them is performed. Considering this claim interpretation, the rejection is withdrawn.
With respect to the 103 rejections, Applicant argues that the prior art of Weinflash does not teach “responsive to determining that the state of the account of interest is part of a plurality of states of accounts that are stored in the network device, retrieving the state from the plurality of states of accounts.” Applicant further argues that “Weinflash is not concerned with distributed ledger technology, does not operate as a resource constrained light client, and does not disclose a plurality of account states of accounts locally maintained as now recited in amended Claims 1 and 13.”
The examiner respectfully notes that Weinflash is relied on for teaching one claim limitation, while the rest of the claim limitations are taught by the first cited art of Karame (not argued by Applicant.) Karame in cited portions teaches distributed ledger technology, and operates as a resource constrained light client.
Therefore, since the DLT and DLT account database is taught by Karame, the second reference of Weinflash does not have to teach all the claim limitations again. The limitation Weinflash is relied on to teach is “responsive to determining that the state of the account of interest is part of a plurality of states of accounts that are stored in the network device, retrieving the state from the plurality of states of accounts.”
Weinflash, at least in [0036] teaches a system 110 (i.e., network device) that searches an account database 120 for an account information, and retrieves account information from the database 120: [0040]-[0045]).
In addition, with respect to Applicant’s argument that Weinflash “does not disclose a plurality of account states of accounts locally maintained as now recited in amended Claims 1 and 13,” the examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that account database 120 of Weinflash, is populated by plurality of accounts from multiple financial institutions (the account is part of a plurality of accounts): [0024]. In addition, the examiner notes that the present claims do not include a limitation that “accounts are maintained locally,” as suggested by Applicant.
Therefore, the combination of cited art still teaches the claim limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
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 1-3 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karame et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2018/0097779), in view of Weinflash et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2012/0330819.)
With respect to claims 1 and 13, Karame et al. teach:
determining whether a DLT state indicator is indicative of the state of the account of interest, (inquire account state from the blockchain state: [0034]-[0035])
wherein the DLT state indicator is a representation of a state of the DLT network that is trusted by the network device; (honest nodes: [0037])
wherein the DLT network is a blockchain network, defining a set of rules for valid transformation of a block Bn to block Bn+1, (protocols (i.e. rules) applied for valid transformation of full nodes to light nodes: FIG. 2, [0021]-[0025])
The examiner notes that the claim recitation “…DLT network is a blockchain network, defining a set of rules for valid transformation of a block Bn to block Bn+1,” is non-functional descriptive material that merely describes the DLT network, which is not a component of the claimed device. Therefore, the claim recitation does not further limit the scope of the claim. In addition, the claim recitation “rules for valid transformation…” merely describe the rules and is non-functional descriptive material and does not further limit the scope of the claim.
… the DLT state indicator is an identifier of a block that is trusted by the network device. (honest blockchain nodes:[0036]-[0037], [0076]-[0077])
The examiner notes that the content of an indicator does not affect other claimed features, unless it is further used in the claim. In other words, the fact that the state indicator is an identifier of a block that is trusted, has not been used or referred to in any other parts of the claims to have an effect on the claimed functions. Therefore, the claim amendment does not further limit the scope of the claim.
responsive to determining that the DLT state indicator is indicative of the state of the account of interest, retrieving the state of the account of interest based on the DLT state indicator; ([0034]-[0035])
responsive to determining that the DLT state indicator is not indicative of the state of the account of interest, (a type of blockchains do not have an account state: [0036])
determining a first set of one or more transactions that include the account of interest, (set of Unspent Transaction Outputs(UTXOs): [0036]-[0038])
executing the first set of transactions to obtain the state of the account of interest. (construct UTXO tree to retrieve account states: [0080]-[0082])
The examiner notes that the claim recitation “to obtain the state of…” indicated intended use of the executing and therefore does not further limit the scope of the claim, because the function “obtaining the state” is not positively recited as a function of the claim.
Karame et al. do not explicitly teach; however, Weinflash et al. teach:
responsive to determining that the state of the account of interest is part of a plurality of states of accounts that are stored in the network device, (system 110 (i.e., network device) searches database 120 for account information: [0036], account information includes account status: [0037], database 120 is populated by plurality of accounts from multiple financial institutions (the account is part of a plurality of accounts): [0024]).
retrieving the state from the plurality of states of accounts; (retrieve account information from the database 120: [0040]-[0045])
In addition, Weinflash et al. teach retrieving account information from another outside source, if the database does not include the information, (receive supplemental account information from a financial institution(i.e., a DLT): [0045])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to incorporate the locating and accessing account data using local and remote sources, as taught by Weinflash et al., into the determining an account state based on a ledger state as taught by Karame et al., in order to facilitate searching for and verifying account data. (Weinflash et al., Abstract, [0003])
With respect to claims 2 and 14, Karame et al. and Weinflash et al. teach the limitations of claims 1 and 13.
Moreover, Karame et al. teach:
receiving the first set of one or more transactions, where each transaction from the first set of transactions includes the account of interest. (set of Unspent Transaction Outputs(UTXOs): [0036]-[0038])
With respect to claims 3 and 15, Karame et al. and Weinflash et al. teach the limitations of claims 1 and 13.
Moreover, Karame et al. teach:
wherein each transaction from the first set of transactions includes the account of interest as at least one of an output and an input. (the value associated with the transaction is added to the light client's balance (i.e., output): [0030])
Claims 4 and 16-18 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karame et al., in view of Weinflash et al., further in view of Chenevich et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2002/0111886)
With respect to claims 4 and 16, Karame et al. and Weinflash et al. teach the limitations of claims 1 and 13.
Karame et al. and Weinflash et al. do not explicitly teach:
wherein executing the first set of transactions to obtain the state of the account of interest includes:
determining that execution of a transaction from the first set of transactions needs a state of a second account;
determining the state of the second account; and
using the state of the second account to complete the executing of the first set of transactions to obtain the state of the account of interest.
However, Chenevich et al. teach:
wherein executing the first set of transactions to obtain the state of the account of interest includes:
determining that execution of a transaction from the first set of transactions needs a state of a second account; ([0019], claim 1)
determining the state of the second account; (calculating the account status: [0019], [0051], Claim 1)
using the state of the second account to complete the executing of the first set of transactions to obtain the state of the account of interest. (execute transactions using account status: [0019], Claim 1)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to incorporate the execution of a set of transactions based on the status of different accounts, as taught by Chenevich et al. into the determining an account state based on a ledger state as taught by Karame et al., and Weinflash et al., in order to manage a transaction between accounts considering factors associated with accounts such as their status. (Chenevich et al.: Abstract, [0008])
The examiner notes that the claim recitation “to obtain the state of…” indicated intended use of the executing and therefore does not further limit the scope of the claim, because the function “obtaining the state” is not positively recited as a function of the claim.
With respect to claim 17, Karame et al., Weinflash et al. and Chenevich et al. teach the limitations of claim 16.
Moreover, Chenevich et al. teach
wherein to determine the state of the second account includes to:
determine whether the state of the second account is part of states of accounts stored in the network device; (account status is part of the core payment information: [0073])
responsive to determining that the state of the second account is part of the states of accounts stored in the network device, retrieve the state of the second account from the states of accounts. (data layer 84 contains payment information including accounts status: FIG. 4, [0075])
With respect to claim 18, Karame et al., Weinflash et al., and Chenevich et al. teach the limitations of claim 17.
Moreover, Karame et al. teach:
wherein to determine the state of the second account includes to:
responsive to determining that the state of the second account is not part of the states of accounts stored in the network device, determine whether the DLT state indicator is indicative of the state of the second account, (inquire account state from the blockchain state: [0034]-[0035])
responsive to determining that the DLT state indicator is indicative of the state of the account of interest, retrieve the state of the account of interest based on the DLT state indicator, ([0034]-[0035])
responsive to determining that the DLT state indicator is not indicative of the state of the account of interest, perform the following: (a type of blockchains do not have an account state: [0036])
determine a second set of one or more transactions that include the second account, (set of Unspent Transaction Outputs(UTXOs): [0036]-[0038])
execute the transactions to obtain the state of the second account. (construct UTXO tree to retrieve account states: [0080]-[0082])
The examiner notes that the claim recitation “to obtain the state of…” indicated intended use of the executing and therefore does not further limit the scope of the claim, because the function “obtaining the state” is not positively recited as a function of the claim.
With respect to claim 20, Karame et al., Weinflash et al., and Chenevich et al. teach the limitations of claim 19.
Moreover, Karame et al. teach:
wherein the network device has at least one of limited computing, networking, and storage resources. (light clients: [0034]-[0036])
With respect to claim 21, Karame et al., Weinflash et al., and Chenevich et al. teach the limitations of claim 19.
Moreover, Karame et al. teach:
wherein the network device is operative to run a light blockchain protocol. (light clients: [0034]-[0036])
With respect to claim 22, Karame et al., Weinflash et al., and Chenevich et al. teach the limitations of claim 19.
Moreover, Karame et al. teach:
wherein the first set of transactions is received from another network device operative to run a full blockchain protocol. (Full nodes: [0034]-[0038])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Metnick (US 2017/0186057,) teaches retrieving account information from an account database. Sharp (2016/0012465) teaches determining account status in a distributed ledger.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SIMA ASGARI whose telephone number is (571)272-2037. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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.
/SIMA ASGARI/Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights