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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 4 and 11 were previously canceled.
Claims 1 and 8 are independent claims.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, and 12-14 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Referring claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103, Applicant’s arguments (see Remarks, pages 4-6) to respective independent claim 1 (similar to independent claim 8) have been fully considered, but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Please see the rejections set forth below for details.
Examiner has full latitude to interpret each claim feature/limitation in the broadest reasonable sense(s) (see MPEP 2111 – Claim Interpretation). The Examiner will reference prior art using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. In this case, since the claim(s) does not require any particular “base key”; hence, the hash value, the key is published to key blockchain of Hofstee (pars. [0030, 33, and 52]), and the keys are generated using a seed selected from the ledger including the dynamic metadata via the key generation module of Baek (pars. [0026-28, and 30-31]) should be matched as broadest reasonable interpretation.
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, 5-10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popov et al., US Pub. No. 2021/0342427 A1 (hereinafter as “Popov”) in view of Hofstee et al, US Pub. No. 2020/0169425 A1 (hereinafter as “Hofstee”), and further in view of Baek et al., US Pub. No. 2021/0143995 A1 (hereinafter as “Baek”).
Regarding claim 1, Popov teaches: A method for initiating a simultaneous start of block formation to a distributed ledger in a distributed ledger network (Fig. 13; and para. [0038]), the method comprising:
transmitting, by a first computing device of the distributed ledger network, a first hash for a first block of transactions to a plurality of second computing devices in the distributed ledger network for validation, wherein the first hash is based on at a hash of a header of a previous block (paras. [0083], [0184]-[0185] and Fig. 13: information about the new block may be transmitted to the first electronic device 210, the second electronic device 220, and the third electronic device 230 participating in the blockchain 300 as nodes wherein the blockchain 300 include blocks 1350, 1360, and 1370 and each block associates with hashes 1351, 1361, and 1371 of the previous block header and consensus is achieved between the nodes by a majority agreement among full nodes that have performed verification);
receiving, by the first computing device of the distributed ledger network, from a majority of the plurality of second computing devices in the distributed ledger network, validation of the first hash indicating consensus of the first block of transactions (paras. [0083]-[0084], [0183]-[0184]: a consensus is achieved between the nodes by a majority agreement among full nodes that have performed verification, the behavior data may be added to the blockchain 300 as a new block wherein the block associated with hash value);
posting, by the distributed ledger network, the first block of transactions to the distributed ledger (paras. [0083]-[0084]: The behavior data submitted to the blockchain 300 may be added to the blockchain 300 as a new block);
generating, by the first computing device of the distributed ledger network, a second hash for a second block of transactions to be added to the distributed ledger based on the block header of the first block, generated by the distributed ledger network (see Fig. 13 and para. [0184]: 1360 = second block, 1364 = second hash value which is based on the block header of the first block); and
transmitting, by the first computing device of the distributed ledger network, the second hash to the plurality of second computing devices in the distributed ledger network for validation thereof (paragraph [0058], [0084]: new block may be transmitted to the first electronic device 210, the second electronic device 220, and the third electronic device 230 participating in the blockchain 300 as nodes and when a consensus is achieved between at least one full node through verification, and the behavior data is added to the blockchain 300 as a new block).
Popov does not explicitly teach: “after the first block of transactions has achieved consensus and after the posting of the first block of transactions to the distributed ledger, generating, by the distributed ledger network, a base key for provision to the first computing device based on a timestamp of the first block of transactions being added to the distributed ledger;” and “receiving, by the first computing device of the distributed ledger network, the base key generated by the distributed ledger network.”
In the same field of endeavor, Hofstee teaches that blockchain members reach consensus before data is added/published to the blockchain, and once consensus is reached on the hash value, the key is published to key blockchain (detail in par. [0052]); hence, Hofstee teaches limitations after the first block of transactions has achieved consensus and after the posting of the first block of transactions to the distributed ledger, generating, by the distributed ledger network, a base key for provision to the first computing device (Fig. 4, element 406, e.g., adding/generating new block into blockchain; and pars. [0030]: once blockchain programs reach consensus, the public key is added to key blockchain 136, [0033]: entries/transactions are added to key blockchain through blockchain programs that reached consensus, and [0052]: once consensus is reached on the hash value, the key is published to key blockchain 136).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of Hofstee into the teachings of Popov because the teachings of Hofstee would have provided the above indicated limitations for allowing a skill artisan in motivation to perform publishing the key to key blockchain, once consensus is reached on the hash value as validation (Hofstee: pars. [0030-33, and 52]).
Popov and Hofstee do not explicitly teach the limitation that generating, by the distributed ledger network, a base key for provision to the first computing device based on a timestamp of the first block of transactions being added to the distributed ledger.
In the same field of endeavor (i.e., data processing), Baek teaches that blockchain-based automatic key generation using values in the distributed ledger, and block metadata contains the created time of the block, wherein the block metadata, including block-created time, as a key-generation seed generating, by the distributed ledger network; hence, Baek teaches: a base key for provision to the first computing device based on a timestamp of the first block of transactions being added to the distributed ledger (Abstract: blockchain-based cryptographic key generation leverages existing values locally available within a distributed ledger; Fig. 3, and pars. [0017]: dynamic metadata derived from shared ledgers is used as a seed to generate the key, [0020]: key generation module selects a seed value from dynamic metadata stored within the ledger and generates a key, [0021-22], [0026]: block metadata contains the created time of the block, [0028]: block metadata is used as a seed for key generation, and [0031-0032]: keys are generated using a seed selected from the ledger, and the block metadata is considered as a potential seed, and using the seed, a key or key pair is generated); and
receiving, by the first computing device of the distributed ledger network, the base key generated by the distributed ledger network (Fig. 1, and pars. [0030]: share secrets key in the present system 100, [0031]: outputs a key 180 generated using the seed value, and [0021] via broadcasting technique).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of Baek into the teachings of Popov and Hofstee because the teachings of in combined teachings of Baek with using block metadata, including block-created time, as a key-generation seed for generating the key as base key into the teachings of Hofstee including the key is published to key blockchain, once consensus is reached on the hash value for allowing a skill artisan in motivation to creating the cryptographic key generation adding key to block of blockchain after the consensus validation is reached/achieved for more secured to prevent unauthorized entity or other hostile entities from accessing information stored within the distributed ledger (Baek: Abstract, pars. [0019-21]).
Regarding claim 2, Popov teaches: “receiving, by a first computing device, a validation of the second hash for the second block of transactions” (Fig. 13, and paras. [0084], and [0184-188]: for generating second hash/hash value using the hash function and Merkle tree and validating the second hash for the second block).
Regarding claim 3, Hofstee and Baek, in combination, teaches: “wherein the validation is based on a consensus of the plurality of second computing devices, the consensus being based on the plurality of second computing devices verifying the base key.” (Hofstee: pars. [0033 and 52] such that once consensus is reached on the hash value, the key is published to key blockchain 136; and Baek: see pars. [0020], [0031-32] such that key generation module is implemented instructions to generate key using a seed selected from the ledger; and pars. [0026 and 28] such that block metadata contains the created time of the block; and the block metadata is used as a seed for key generation).
Regarding claim 5, Popov and Baek, in combination, teach: “wherein the base key is further generated by a formula programmed into a protocol of the distributed ledger network.” (Popov: para. [0184] teaches the hash function, which is a type of formula programmed use to generate codes; and Baek: par. [0026] teaches “a blockchain contain blocks 139 B0, B1, and B2. B0 is the first block in the blockchain 133, the genesis block. Each block 139 has a respective header, which is a cryptographic hash of all of a plurality of transactions in the block 139 as well as an equivalent hash from the previous block 139”)
Regarding claim 6, Popov and Baek, in combination, teach: “wherein the first block of transactions immediately precedes the second block of transaction on the distributed ledger” (Popov: Fig. 13: as shown the first block immediately precedes the second block on the distributed ledger/blockchain; and Baek: Fig. 6, and par. [0026]: a blockchain contain blocks 139 B0, B1, and B2. B0 is the first block in the blockchain 133, the genesis block).
Regarding claims 7, Hofstee teaches: “wherein the base key is part of a block header for the second block of transactions” (see par. [0029]: updates a header portion of the selected file with the signed hash value received from timestamp program 122.)
Claims 8-10, and 12-14 are rejected in the analysis of above claims 1-3, 5-7; and therefore, the claims are rejected on that basis.
Prior Arts
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275,277 (CCPA 1968)); Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessica N. Le whose telephone number is (571)270-1009. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 am - 5:30 pm (EST).
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, SHERIEF BADAWI can be reached on (571) 272-9782. 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.
/Jessica N Le/Examiner, Art Unit 2169
/SHERIEF BADAWI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2169
Prosecution Insights