DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant’s Communication received 09/28/2021 for application number 17/449,161. The Office hereby acknowledges receipt of the following and placed of record in file: ADS, Abstract, Claims, Specification, Oath/Declaration, Drawings, IDS, and Certified Copy of Foreign Priority Application.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on an application No. DE10/20202132453, filed with the Federal Republic of Germany on 10/20/2020.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On pages 2 and 9, line 26 and line 14, respectively, “for example” should read “, for example,” (emphasis added)
On page 3, line 25, “(MPC) require on” should read “(MPC), require, on” (emphasis added)
On page 3, line 26, “one hand a” should read “one hand, a” (emphasis added)
On page 4, line 10, “because as a result the” should read “because, as a result, the” (emphasis added)
On page 4, line 11, “and thus the” should read “and, thus, the” (emphasis added)
On page 4, line 13, “the method according” should read “the method, according” (emphasis added)
On page 4, line 14, “invention is that” should read “invention, is that” (emphasis added)
On pages 5 and 7, line 6 and line 21, respectively, “as [0,1[“ should read as [0,1]” (emphasis added)
On page 6, line 22, “disclosure (12)” should read “disclosure (process 12)” (emphasis added)
On page 7, line 9, “to a fifth” should read “to a fourth value and a fifth” (emphasis added)
On page 9, line 17, “of Figure 2” should read “of Figure 6” (emphasis added)
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5-6, and 8-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
On claims 1, 8, and 9, line 9, line 11, and line 9, respectively, “in the data structure, the” should read “in the data structure, a” (emphasis added)
On claims 1, 8, and 9, line 11, line 13, and line 11, respectively, “committing to the same” should read “committing to a same” (emphasis added)
On claims 1, 8, and 9, line 15, line 17, and lines 13-14, respectively, “of the values disclosed” should read “value disclosed” (emphasis added)
On claim 5, line 2, “is [0,1[“ should read “is [0,1]” (emphasis added)
On claim 6, line 3, “data structures of the” should read “data structures of a” (emphasis added)
On claim 6, line 4, “managed, which include the data structure, and” should read “managed, and” (emphasis added)
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 1-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under the Alice Framework Step 1, claim 1 recites a method for generation of a pseudo-random number sequence and, therefore, is a process, where a process is one of four statutory categories that Congress deemed to be appropriate subject matter for a patent.
Under Step2A prong 1, claim 1 recites
A method for generation of a pseudo-random number sequence by a plurality of participants of a state channel, the method comprising the following steps:
committing by each of the participants, in a data structure managed on the state channel, to at least a number of at first hidden values that corresponds to a number of participants;
respectively repeatedly disclosing, by each participant of the participants in the data structure, the number of values last committed to by the participant, and committing to the same number of further at first hidden values;
determining a member of the sequence by a relation that includes, for each of the participants, at least one of the values disclosed by the participant.
The first two steps identified above fall within the “Mental Steps” grouping of abstract ideas (see pages 1-9 including Figure 1). In Applicant’s specification, they describe a scenario with 3 participants that appears to record 21 values in 7 rounds. This simple example of the algorithm disclosed in the specification falls within the scope of claim 1 and is evidence that the steps outlined in the claim can be performed mentally. The remaining step of determining is directed to mathematical relations as evidenced by dependent claims 2 and 3. Accordingly, the claim is directed to recite an abstract idea.
Under step 2A prong 2, the claim recites the following additional elements: in a data structure managed on the state channel and by each participant of the participants in the data structure. However, the additional elements of “in a data structure managed on the state channel” and “by each participant of the participants in the data structure” are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activities, i.e., selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. The additional elements do not, individually or in combination, integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim is not integrated into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step2B, claim 1 does not include additional elements that, individually or in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “in a data structure managed on the state channel” and “by each participant of the participants in the data structure” are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activities, i.e., selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) which states that the courts have recognized computer functions such as “storing and retrieving information in memory” as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as an insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under the Alice Framework Step 1, claim 2 recites a method for generation of a pseudo-random number sequence and, therefore, is a process, where a process is one of four statutory categories that Congress deemed to be appropriate subject matter for a patent.
Under Step2A prong 1, claim 2 recites
The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the relation includes an arithmetic operation.
The above underlined limitations are related to performing generation of a pseudo-random number sequence which amounts to processing mathematical relationships/calculations and falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas (see pages 1-9 including Figure 1). Accordingly, the claim is directed to recite an abstract idea.
Under step 2A prong 2, the claim does not recite any additional elements that, individually or in combination, integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim is not integrated into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step2B, claim 2 does not include additional elements that, individually or in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under the Alice Framework Step 1, claim 3 recites a method for generation of a pseudo-random number sequence and, therefore, is a process, where a process is one of four statutory categories that Congress deemed to be appropriate subject matter for a patent.
Under Step2A prong 1, claim 3 recites
The method as recited in claim 2, wherein the operation is an addition.
The above underlined limitations are related to performing generation of a pseudo-random number sequence which amounts to processing mathematical relationships/calculations and falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas (see pages 1-9 including Figure 1). Accordingly, the claim is directed to recite an abstract idea.
Under step 2A prong 2, the claim does not recite any additional elements that, individually or in combination, integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim is not integrated into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step2B, claim 3 does not include additional elements that, individually or in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under the Alice Framework Step 1, claim 4 recites a method for generation of a pseudo-random number sequence and, therefore, is a process, where a process is one of four statutory categories that Congress deemed to be appropriate subject matter for a patent.
Under Step2A prong 1, claim 4 recites
The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the relation has a codomain within a specified interval.
The above underlined limitations are related to performing generation of a pseudo-random number sequence which amounts to processing mathematical relationships/calculations and falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas (see pages 1-9 including Figure 1). Accordingly, the claim is directed to recite an abstract idea.
Under step 2A prong 2, the claim does not recite any additional elements that, individually or in combination, integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim is not integrated into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step2B, claim 4 does not include additional elements that, individually or in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under the Alice Framework Step 1, claim 5 recites a method for generation of a pseudo-random number sequence and, therefore, is a process, where a process is one of four statutory categories that Congress deemed to be appropriate subject matter for a patent.
Under Step2A prong 1, claim 5 recites
The method as recited in claim 4, wherein the relation is real-valued and the interval is [0,1[.
The above underlined limitations are related to performing generation of a pseudo-random number sequence which amounts to processing mathematical relationships/calculations and falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas (see pages 1-9 including Figure 1). Accordingly, the claim is directed to recite an abstract idea.
Under step 2A prong 2, the claim does not recite any additional elements that, individually or in combination, integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim is not integrated into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step2B, claim 5 does not include additional elements that, individually or in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under the Alice Framework Step 1, claim 6 recites a method for generation of a pseudo-random number sequence and, therefore, is a process, where a process is one of four statutory categories that Congress deemed to be appropriate subject matter for a patent.
Under Step2A prong 1, claim 6 recites
The method as recited in claim 1, wherein:
on the state channel, a plurality, corresponding to the number of participants, of data structures of the same type are managed, which include the data structure, and
the disclosure of the values by the participants in the data structures takes place in a sequence that differs between the data structures.
The above underlined limitations are related to performing generation of a pseudo-random number sequence which amounts to mental steps. In Applicant’s specification, they describe a scenario with 3 participants that appears to record 21 values in 7 rounds. A simple scenario where two groups of three participants are tracked would therefore fall within the scope of the limitations of claim 6 and is therefore evidence that the claimed process could reasonably be performed mentally. Accordingly, the claim is directed to recite an abstract idea.
Under step 2A prong 2, the claim recites the following additional elements: a plurality of data structures of the same type are managed and takes place in a sequence that differs between the data structures. However, the additional elements of “a plurality of data structures of the same type are managed” and “takes place in a sequence that differs between the data structures” are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activities, i.e., selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. The additional elements do not, individually or in combination, integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim is not integrated into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step2B, claim 6 does not include additional elements that, individually or in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a plurality of data structures of the same type are managed” and “takes place in a sequence that differs between the data structures” are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activities, i.e., selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) which states that the courts have recognized computer functions such as “storing and retrieving information in memory” as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as an insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under the Alice Framework Step 1, claim 7 recites a method for generation of a pseudo-random number sequence and, therefore, is a process, where a process is one of four statutory categories that Congress deemed to be appropriate subject matter for a patent.
Under Step2A prong 1, claim 7 recites
The method as recited in claim 6, wherein:
the sequence of the participants is regulated for each of the data structures, or
the sequence of the participants is arbitrary.
The above underlined limitations are related to performing generation of a pseudo-random number sequence which amounts to mental steps. The claim is directed to a scenario where the ordering of participant responses is regulated or arbitrary. A person performing the claimed process mentally could specify rules to the participants and follow those rules mentally. Accordingly, the claim is directed to recite an abstract idea.
Under step 2A prong 2, the claim recites the following additional elements: is regulated for each of the data structures and is arbitrary. However, the additional elements of “is regulated for each of the data structures” and “is arbitrary” are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activities, i.e., selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. The additional elements do not, individually or in combination, integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim is not integrated into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step2B, claim 7 does not include additional elements that, individually or in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “is regulated for each of the data structures” and “is arbitrary” are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activities, i.e., selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) which states that the courts have recognized computer functions such as “storing and retrieving information in memory” as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as an insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium on which is stored a computer program to perform the methods of claim 1, and is rejected accordingly.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites a device configured to perform the methods of claim 1, and is rejected accordingly.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright et al. (US12288042 B2), hereinafter Wright, and in view of Floersch, K. (NPL - "Learning Solidity Part 2: Commit-Reveal Voting"), hereinafter Floersch, and in view of Yildiz, M. (NPL - "Economic Application of Game Theory Chapter 12 - Repeated Games"), hereinafter Yildiz.
Regarding claim 1, Wright teaches
A method for generation of a pseudo-random number sequence [Wright, col.7, lines 7-14, random number sequence SR as a pseudo-random number sequence] by a plurality of participants [Wright, col.8, lines 28-31, players as participants] of a state channel [Wright, col.6, lines 50-56, Bitcoin transaction as a state channel], the method comprising the following steps:
a data structure managed on the state channel [Wright, cols.2 & 6, lines 1-5 and lines 19-24 & lines 50-56, respectively, block of a blockchain as a data structure];
determining a member of the sequence by a relation [Wright, col.8, lines 60-67, RN as a member of the sequence and the RN formula as a relation].
However, Wright does not teach
committing to at least a number of at first hidden values;
respectively repeatedly disclosing the number of values last committed, and committing to the same number of further at first hidden values;
In the analogous art of the commitment scheme in commit-reveal voting, Floersch teaches
committing to at least a number of at first hidden values [Floersch, pg.4, commit step in the Virtual commit-reveal voting figure as committing and a unique hash for a vote as an at first hidden value];
disclosing the number of values last committed [Floersch, pgs.4 & 12, reveal step as disclosing].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Wright and Floersch before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the commit-reveal scheme of Floersch to modify the secret-sharing scheme for the blockchain lottery of Wright, where the commit-reveal scheme prevents voters basing their judgements on votes that have already been casted [Floersch, pg.2]; therefore, the scheme would prevent biasing for each participant within the blockchain lottery.
However, Wright, and in view of Floersch, does not teach
respectively repeatedly disclosing values, and committing to the same number of further at first hidden values;
In the analogous art of repeated games applied in economic problems, Yildiz teaches
respectively repeatedly disclosing values [Yildiz, pgs.199-200, recalled previous plays in repetitions of a stage game as respectively repeatedly disclosing values], and committing to the same number of further at first hidden values [Yildiz, pg.199, T being the set of all possible dates as committing to the same number of further at first hidden values];
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Wright, Floersch, and Yildiz before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the repeated games of Yildiz to modify the blockchain lottery of Wright, where the blockchain lottery is a repeated game to allow participants to take into account of actions in the current situation and implications for the future; thus, the use of repeated games prevent participants from being irrational when considering their current situations [Yildiz, pg.199].
Regarding claim 2, Wright, as modified in view of Floersch and Yildiz, teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Further, Wright teaches wherein the relation includes an arithmetic operation [Wright, col.8, lines 60-67, the RN formula as an arithmetic operation].
Regarding claim 3, Wright, as modified in view of Floersch and Yildiz, teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 as stated above. Further, Wright teaches wherein the operation is an addition [Wright, col.8, lines 60-67, the summation in the RN formula as an addition].
Regarding claim 4, Wright, as modified in view of Floersch and Yildiz, teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Further, Wright teaches wherein the relation has a codomain with a specified interval [Wright, col.8, lines 25-26, {0, N-1} as a codomain with a specified interval].
Regarding claim 5, Wright, as modified in view of Floersch and Yildiz, teaches all of the limitations of claim 4 as stated above. Further, Wright teaches wherein the relation is real-valued and the interval is [0,1[ [Wright, col.8, lines 25-26, {0, N-1} as a real-valued interval and as, in the simplest case, [0,1]].
Regarding claim 6, Wright, as modified in view of Floersch and Yildiz, teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Further, Wright teaches wherein:
on the state channel, a plurality, corresponding to the number of participants, of data structures of the same type are managed, which include the data structure [Wright, col.2, lines 1-5, blocks chained together in a blockchain as a plurality of data structures of the same type], and
the disclosure of the values by the participants in the data structures takes place in a sequence that differs between the data structures [Wright, col.6, lines 62-67, hashes being treated unrelated as disclosure of values differs between data structures, where hashes are inside data structures].
Regarding claim 7, Wright, as modified in view of Floersch and Yildiz, teaches all of the limitations of claim 6 as stated above. Further, Wright teaches wherein:
the sequence of the participants is regulated for each of the data structures, or
the sequence of the participants is arbitrary [Wright, col.7, lines 1-7, possibility to take a hash value, or some function of it, and treat it as a single random number as the sequence of the participants being regulated or arbitrary].
Regarding claim 8, Wright teaches
A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium on which is stored a computer program [Wright, col.5, lines 31-36, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium as a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium and stored executable instructions as a stored computer program] for generation of a pseudo-random number sequence [Wright, col.7, lines 7-14, random number sequence SR as a pseudo-random number sequence] by a plurality of participants [Wright, col.8, lines 28-31, players as participants] of a state channel [Wright, col.6, lines 50-56, Bitcoin transaction as a state channel], the computer program, when executed by a computer, causing the computer to perform the following steps:
The remainder of claim 8 repeats the same limitations as recited in claim 1 and is rejected accordingly.
Regarding claim 9, Wright teaches
A device [Wright, col.14, lines 45-59, a computing device as a device] configured to generate a pseudo-random number sequence [Wright, col.7, lines 7-14, random number sequence SR as a pseudo-random number sequence] by a plurality of participants [Wright, col.8, lines 28-31, players as participants] of a state channel [Wright, col.6, lines 50-56, Bitcoin transaction as a state channel], the device configured to:
The remainder of claim 9 repeats the same limitations as recited in claim 1 and is rejected accordingly.
Conclusion
Applicant is reminded that in amending a response to a rejection of claims, the patentable novelty must be clearly shown in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited and the objections made. Applicant must also show how the amendments avoid such references and objections. See 37 CFR §1.111(c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jerrod T Batu whose telephone number is (571) 270-0454. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday (10:00AM to 4:00PM) ET.
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, Andrew T Caldwell can be reached at (571)272-3702. 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.
/JERROD T BATU/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2182
(571) 270-0454
/ANDREW CALDWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2182
Prosecution Insights