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 (IDS) submitted on 12/02/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 12/02/2025 has been entered. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 5-20 have been/remained canceled. Claims 1-4 and 21-24 remain pending in the application.
Applicant amendments to the Claims have overcome the objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 09/10/2025. The objection has been withdrawn in view of the amended Claims.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s arguments, on page 4-15 of the remark filed on 12/02/2025, on the newly amended limitations of independent claim 1: “wherein each miner system of the plurality of miner systems performs micro-hashing on a distinct set of data and transmits a separate, distinct subset of the set of hashes, wherein an at least one separate, distinct subset of the set of hashes comprises at least two leaf nodal values of the Merkle tree and at least one associated non-leaf nodal value of the Merkle tree, and wherein the at least one separate, distinct subset corresponds to a distinct portion of the group of blockchain transactions; and.”, arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Pages 16 that the cited references fail to teach wherein each miner system of the plurality of miner systems performs micro-hashing on a distinct set of data and transmits a separate, distinct subset of the set of hashes, wherein an at least one separate, distinct subset of the set of hashes comprises at least two leaf nodal values of the Merkle tree and at least one associated non-leaf nodal value of the Merkle tree, and wherein the at least one separate, distinct subset corresponds to a distinct portion of the group of blockchain transactions; and. Applicant’s interpretation of the reference has been noted; however, examiner respectfully disagrees. Chen teaches on Par. (0027-0033) micro-hashing by slicing hash data and transmitting that slice and evidence data. Chen teaches a separate and distinct subset of the set of hashes by hash values of first, second third and fourth hash values that are sliced corresponding to different evidence data. Chen further discloses on Par. (0027-0030) Merkle tree data and eight leaf nodes associated with hash and sliced hash data. Xu then teaches on Par. (127-0133) input hash values that are split and portioned and a group of blockchain transactions that correspond to it.
Applicant further argues on page 8 that Chen fails to teach wherein at least one separate subset of the set of hashes comprises at least two leaf nodal values of a Merkle tree. Applicant’s interpretation of the reference has been noted; however, examiner respectfully disagrees. Chen teaches a separate and distinct subset of the set of hashes by hash values of first, second third and fourth hash values that are sliced corresponding to different evidence data. Chen further discloses on Par. (0027-0030) Merkle tree data and eight leaf nodes associated with hash and sliced hash data. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regards to Claim 1, the applicant recites the limitation “distinct subset corresponds to a distinct portion”, this is a typographically error and possible antecedent basis. Applicant suggests the claim should read “distinct subset of the set of hashes”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 and 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nandakumar et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200201964, hereinafter referred to as “Nandakumar”) and Chen et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210152332, hereinafter referred to as “Chen”) further in view of Xu et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200322159, hereinafter referred to as “Xu”)
In regards to Claim 1, Nandakumar teaches a method of validating blockchain transactions in a blockchain environment, comprising: (Par. (0040); validating group of blockchain transactions)
receiving, by an accumulator device, a set of hashes from a plurality of miner systems, (Par. (0075); receiving set of chameleon hashes that differ from auxiliary data hash) (Par. (0091); receiving the chameleon hash different from set of auxiliary data hash), (Par. (0005-0011); chameleon and auxiliary hash are obtained and provided for verification), (Par. (0065); miners associated with transaction and hash that is committed to blockchain) (Figure 2 labels 202, 204,208; plurality of nodes in blockchain)
wherein the set of hashes corresponds to a group of blockchain transactions conducted via a computer network in the blockchain environment, (Par. (0040); group of blockchain storage transaction corresponding to hashes), (Par. (0044);sequence of N transactions corresponding to each linked hash)
constructing, by the accumulator device, the Merkle tree using the received set of hashes. (Par. (0078); a chameleon Markle tree is created from hash values associated with the source files and segmented chameleon hashes)
Nandakumar does not explicitly teach and comprises a set of nodal values of a Merkle tree, wherein each miner system of the plurality of miner systems performs micro-hashing on a distinct set of data and transmits a separate, distinct subset of the set of hashes, wherein at least one separate, distinct subset of the set of hashes comprises at least two leaf nodal values of the Merkle tree and at least one associated non-leaf nodal value of the Merkle tree, and wherein the at least one separate, distinct subset corresponds to a distinct portion of the group of blockchain transactions; and
Wherein Chen teaches and comprises a set of nodal values of a Merkle tree, ((Par. (0027-0030); slice of hash data corresponding to eight leaf nodes and plurality of hash data of Merkle tree data)
wherein each miner system of the plurality of miner systems performs micro-hashing on a distinct set of data and transmits a separate, distinct subset of the set of hashes, (Par. (0027-0033); each blockchain node stores and transmit a slice of hash data/evidence data), (Par. (0007-0010) separate subset of the set of hashes (hash data corresponding to evidence data that is sliced into first second third and fourth evidence data with hash record), (Par. (0037-0041); each processor generates evidence data and corresponding slice with hash data that is transmitted and compared with verification result)
wherein at least one separate, distinct subset of the set of hashes comprises at least two leaf nodal values of the Merkle tree and at least one associated non-leaf nodal value of the Merkle tree, and (Par. (0027-0030); the transmitted slice of hash data corresponding to eight leaf nodes and plurality of hash data and Merkle tree data)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nandakumar to incorporate the teaching of Chen to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of hash base verification using Merkle Trees, with the motivation of utilizing subset of hashes the system if less susceptible to vulnerabilities and compromise due to the complexity of multiple hash values. This discourages attackers attempting to predict and tamper with data because of the various subgroups and subset of hashes hat must match for authenticity and in return the central processing units use less computing power and less energy processing because only the values constructed from the Merkle tree can be verified. This helps maintain the integrity of the system as a whole. (Chen Par. (0030-0034))
Nandakumar and Chen do not explicitly teach at least one associated non-leaf nodal value of the Merkle tree, wherein the at least one separate, distinct subset corresponds to a distinct portion of the group of blockchain transactions; and
Wherein Xu teaches at least one associated non-leaf nodal value of the Merkle tree, (Par. (0020-0027); non-leaf node with hashes and concatenation corresponding to Merkle tree B), (Par. (0097-0100; non-leaf nodes with string values corresponding to Merkle tree and partitioning of subset of hashes by partitioning)
wherein the at least one separate, distinct subset corresponds to a distinct portion of the group of blockchain transactions; and (Par. (0130-0133); the input values of the hash that are split and partitioned are included in the blockchain transaction), (Par. (0127-0130); distinct portion of group of transaction (transaction records with pointers, MHT root, timestamp, nonce etc.; hash is distinct portion of transaction)), (Par. (0147-0150); at least one separate subset corresponds to a distinct portion (hashes are updated and split with new values that correspond to transactions)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nandakumar and Chen to incorporate the teaching of Xu to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of micro-hashing, Merkle tree computation and blockchain technologies, with the motivation of including non-leaf nodal values and subset of hashes in groups of transactions to assure user in blockchain that the integrity will be protected and the data and proofs will be securely stored. (Xu Pr. (0003-0005))
In regards to Claim 3, the combination of Nandakumar, Chen and Xu teach the method of claim 1, Nandakumar further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein each hash of the received set of hashes represent a separate nodal Merkle values of the Merkle tree. ((Par. (0075); receiving set of chameleon hashes that differ from auxiliary data hash) (Par. (0091); receiving the chameleon hash different from set of auxiliary data hash), (Par. (0005-0011); chameleon and auxiliary hash are obtained and provided for verification), (Par. (0065); miners associated with transaction and hash that is committed to blockchain) (Figure 2 labels 202, 204,208; plurality of nodes in blockchain), Figure 1D labels V4, A1, U2, M1; Merkle values (Merkle tree with Merkle hash values V1 (chameleon hash) and U2 (auxiliary hash) that correspond to hashing two distinct groups source file segments and auxiliary data segments),
In regards to Claim 4, the combination of Nandakumar, Chen and Xu teach the method of claim 1, Nandakumar further teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising identifying a hashing algorithm specified by the blockchain environment. (Par. (0089-0090); hashing function corresponding to blockchain), (Par.(0068-0070); hashing algorithm)
In regards to Claim 21, the combination of Nandakumar and Bortnikov teach the method of claim 1, Nandakumar further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the accumulator device is a server. (Par. (0144-0147); accumulator device (blockchain modules with servers that hold copies and story query data and submitted transactions)
In regards to Claim 22, the combination of Nandakumar and Bortnikov teach the method of claim 1, Nandakumar further teaches the method of claim 21, wherein the server is a virtual machine. (Par. (0095); virtual machines included in blockchain layers with modules and servers)
In regards to Claim 23, the combination of Nandakumar and Bortnikov teach the method of claim 1, Xu further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the group of blockchain transactions includes an at least one cryptographic coinage transaction. (Par. (0127-0129): transaction corresponding to fee and spending of miners that is stored in the cryptographic blockchain)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nandakumar and Chen to incorporate the teaching of Xu for the reasons discussed in independent claim 1 stated above.
In regards to Claim 24, the combination of Nandakumar and Bortnikov teach the method of claim 1, Nandakumar further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the group of blockchain transactions includes an at least one smart contract. (Par. (0065 and 0095-0096); blockchain transactions handled via smart contract)
Claims 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nandakumar et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200201964, hereinafter referred to as “Nandakumar”) Chen et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210152332, hereinafter referred to as “Chen”) and Xu et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200322159, hereinafter referred to as “Xu”) further in view of Sarin et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200160326, hereinafter referred to as “Sarin”)
In regards to Claim 2, the combination of Nandakumar, Chen and Xu do not explicitly teach assigning a group of the blockchain transactions as inputs to at least one miner system of the miner systems.
Wherein Sarin teaches assigning a group of the blockchain transactions as inputs to at least one miner system of the miner systems. (Par. (0029).”; assigning a group of the blockchain transactions ( reassigning levels of plurality of transactions inputted into blockchain storage))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nandakumar, Chen and Xu to incorporate the teaching of Sarin to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of blockchain technologies, with the motivation of assigning a group of transactions as inputs in the miner system this is important because by delegating or assigning multiple groups of transactions to deters away from the uses of hardware’s such as GPU and ASIC that are expensive, by assigning groups of transactions, CPU’s can be utilized and use less computational power and the validation process can be even more effective. This promotes credibility in the network and establishes efficiency and trust. (Sarin Par. (0002))
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Uhr; Joon Sun (U.S Pub. No. 20180330349) “METHOD FOR PAYING COST OF IOT DEVICE BASED ON BLOCKCHAIN AND MERKLE TREE STRUCTURE RELATED THERETO, AND SERVER, SERVICE PROVIDING TERMINAL, AND DIGITAL WALLET USING THE SAME”. Considered this reference because it addressed the similar concept of Merkle trees and hashing algorithms.
HARRAS; Roland (U.S Pub. No. 20160366102) “METHOD FOR SAVING DATA WITH MULTI-LAYER PROTECTION, IN PARTICULAR LOG-ON DATA AND PASSWORDS”. Considered this application because it relates to the swapping of random bits
Richardson; James J. (U.S Pub. No. 20230199677) “LOCALIZATION USING REPEATED TRANSMISSIONS OF ELECTROMAGNETIC SIGNALS FOR MOBILE AD HOC NETWORKS”. Considered this application because it addressed the similar concept of using nodes to lessen computational power and energy during verification.
Conclusion
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 HASSAN A HUSSEIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3554. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am-5pm.
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, Eleni Shiferaw can be reached on (571)272-3867. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-y.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/H.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2497
/BRYAN F WRIGHT/Examiner, Art Unit 2497