Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application 17/566,615, filed on 12/30/2021 (or after March 16, 2013), is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA (First Inventor to File).
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.
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-3,5-7 are pending in this application.
Examiner acknowledges applicant’s amendment filed on 7/6/2025
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 12/30/2021 are acceptable for examination purpose.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for CHINA foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CHINA application # 202110031642.8 01 filed on 1/11/2021.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 USC (a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(d) and 41.202(e). Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/6/2025 with respect to claims 1-3,5-7 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, for examiner’s response, see discussion below:
35 USC § 112
At page 8-9, under 112:, examiner noted applicant’s remarks
Examiner’s response:
In view of applicant’s amendment to the claim 1, the rejection under 35 USC § 112 is hereby withdrawn, however, claim 3,6-7 rejected under 35 USC § 112 because claims 3,6-7 not amended in removing “step numbers”, while claim 3,5,7 steps particularly “out-degree” is inconsistent with the amended claim 1 “in-degree and out-degree”. Applicant may consider amend claim 3,6-7 without step numbers to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims, in response to this office action. See MPEP § 600
35 USC § 101
At page 9-10, applicant argues:
current claim 1 of the instant invention not only realizes the unique primary key block coding of spatial data and speeds up the indexing speed, but also retains the elevation information through multi-dimensional coding, enlarges the amount of information, and improves the space data utilization efficiency. In addition, the BlockNet proposed by the present invention breaks the bottleneck that conventional blockchain technology can only store linear data, improves the dimension of stored data, and broadens the application scenarios of blockchain technology. The proposed BlockNet information modification and update plan, while ensuring data security, it makes it possible to dynamically update data on the blockchain, and its application in spatial data greatly improves the security of data mapping and storage procedures. At the same time, this model is applied to the division index of geographic three- dimensional space, data utilization scene space and data storage network space, providing a multi-dimensional and reliable experimental environment that is highly fitted to the real layer for theoretical research based on the virtual layer.
To those skilled in the art, the above functions are a great improvement to the related technical field, which integrates the abstract idea of the instant invention into a practical application
Examiner’s response:
Examiner submits that the pending claims (as amended 7/6/2025) should pass the test set forth in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published on January 7, 2019 (84 Fed. Reg. 50), as updated October 2019, referred to herein as the PEG 2019. Applicant will focus on Prong Two of Step 2A, in evaluating the pending claims using this section of the test set forth in the PEG 2019
As explained in the 2019 PEG, the evaluation of Prong Two of Step 2A requires the use of the considerations (e.g. improving technology, effecting a particular treatment or prophylaxis, implementing with a particular machine, etc.) identified by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit, to ensure that the claim as a whole “integrates [the] judicial exception into a practical application [that] will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” These considerations are set forth in the 2019 PEG, MPEP 2106.05(a) through (c), and MPEP 2106.05(e) through (h). Note, a specific way of achieving a result is not a stand-alone consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. However, the specificity of the claim limitations is relevant to the evaluation of several considerations including the use of a particular machine, particular transformation and whether the limitations are mere instructions to apply an exception. If the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application based upon evaluation of these considerations, the additional limitations impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, and the claim is eligible at Step 2A.
For example, if the additional limitations as amended 7/6/2025 (“for a data demand node, broadcasting a row-column index corresponding to a current scene position to neighboring nodes;
for adjacent nodes, finding a BlockNet location of a current scene resource by the row-column index:
traversing quad direction nodes in block information of the current location, getting and loading data of the quad direction nodes, so as to realize the chain search; and
sending corresponding scene resources to the data demand node”) do not provide “improvement to another technology or technical field”, for example , broadcasting a row-column index, finding a BlockNet location, traversing quad direction nodes…… merely manipulating data structure, encompasses mental observations or evaluations, under broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations mental process user/actor that constitute certain methods of organizing and/or manipulating data structure activity but for the recitation of generic computer component(s) and/or general-purpose computer processor to implement the abstract idea. As discussed, the claims as amended (7/6/2025) the broadest reasonable interpretation of above steps is that those steps fall within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
Taking the claim 1 76/6/2025) elements separately, the functions performed in claim 1 by the generically recited for a data demand node, broadcasting a row-column index corresponding to a current scene position to neighboring nodes;
for adjacent nodes, finding a BlockNet location of a current scene resource by the row-column index:
traversing quad direction nodes in block information of the current location, getting and loading data of the quad direction nodes, so as to realize the chain search, well-understood, routine, and conventional functions previously known to the industry. See e.g., Intellectual Ventures 1 LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838F.3d 1307,1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (determining that receiving, processing, and sending data are well-known, generic computer-implemented steps). For example, claim 1 does not purport to improve the functioning of the data nodes, broadcasting, neighboring nodes etc., amounts to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components performing routine computer functions. That is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 573 US at 225-26; see also Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372,1378 (Fed.Cir.2017) (sequence of receiving, analyzing, modifying, generating, displaying, and transmitting data recited an abstraction)
Examiner applies above arguments to claim 2-3,5-7 depend from claims 1, as such, the pending claims fail Prong Two of Step 2A-2B of the PEG 2019. Therefore, examiner maintains rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
At page 11-13, claim 1, applicant argues:
The cited prior art Ricotta, Merriman separately or in combination do not suggest or make any mention whatsoever of the difference subject features and unexpected result as claimed in the currently amended claim 1-3,5-7 instant invention (p-13)
Ricotta et al., are only suitable for secure and decentralized storage of one-dimensional liner data, facing the requirements of two-dimensional data security storage mapping, it is necessary to design another data storage model
According to claim 1 of the instant invention, a two-dimensional data-oriented block storage scheme — BlockNet is provided: in the BlockNet storage model, there is not only a sequential connection relationship between blocks, which is different from the conventional blockchain that each node has only one in-degree and one out-degree. Each node in the BlockNet has multiple in-degrees and multiple out-degrees. After the network widespread gene propagation, the generated BlockNet model will have strong robustness and tensile properties, so as to realize the characteristics of non-tensile and deformation of BlockNet.
Merriman et al. uses hashing coding for determining exact location results, but the hash component of Merriman et al. is configured to generate a single dimension hash value from multi-dimension location inputs.
Different from the blockchain propagation synchronization mechanism, the instant invention avoids the repeated update paradox caused by the two-way hash
propagation mechanism, proves the one-way propagation principle, and establishes the gene propagation mechanism. It is proposed to select the concept of source block for radiation propagation test, so as to explore the propagation rules in different scenarios and establish the propagation standard applied to the combination of 3D hash geocoding.
Therefore, it would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Ricotta with the disclosure of Merriman to achieve all the features of the instant invention. To persons skilled in the art, the differences of the instant invention are unobvious (p-13)
Examiner’s response:
The prior art of Ricotta is directed to accessing information in a blockchain, particularly accessing data stored in various blocks of the blockchain defining data structure where each block having header maintains specific “hash” representing not only type of data, but also organized and stored (Ricotta: Abstract, fig 1, 0044) may be identical to instant specification fig 4. The prior art of Ricotta teaches blockchain element 100 that identifies similar blockchains that including linking multiple blocks uniquely identified with respective hash value, while maintaining header data structure information, prior art of Ricotta teaches blockchain allows the blocks element 102 to search, retrieve data for example block header element 104 may be used in defining selection criteria that verifies data block(s) with respect to uniquely identifies the respective node(s) and propagating access security data stored in data blocks element 202 identical to instant specification page 17 propagation control process (Ricotta: fig 1, 0032,0036, 0045-0046, fig 2-3). The prior art of Ricotta teaches data structure that maintains not only hash values associated with the data block, but also index identifying the position of the data block and metadata attributes indicating update and/or data modification including timestamp element 204, further blockchain element 100 is in a database typically database management executes the query to identify “block” that meets the criteria and data stored in a table (Ricotta: 0041-0042,0045-0046)
PNG
media_image1.png
286
286
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The prior art of Merriman et al., is directed to determining exact location of search hash values i.e., computing location hash value in a multi-dimensional data (Abstract). The prior art of Merriman teaches geospatial ordering data in a two-dimensional value with respect to hash value (Merriman: 0005,0007), further transforming location, distance generating hash value of point of interest in a multi-dimensional data (Merriman: 0011)
It is however, noted that Ricotta does not teach “mapping method for spatial data”, “two-dimensional Hash geographic coding”, “when using a three-dimensional logic distance calculation algorithm to judge a three-dimensional logic distance, latitude and longitude codes and elevation codes of two target blocks are carried out XOR operations, and then results of the two XOR operations are calculated by an Euclidean distance to obtain the three-dimensional logical distance;
wherein in view of a multi-center situation occurring in a process of mapping spherical data to three-dimensional data, a spherical multi-source translation projection method is used to first map the spherical data to a three-dimensional space with a random starting point, find a spatial geometric center of a multi-target point, and perform a three- dimensional data translation conversion, in such a manner that a three-dimensional spatial data center is aligned with the spatial geometric center”
On the other hand, Merriman disclosed “mapping method for spatial data” (Merriman: 0005-0006, 0068 – Merriman teaches geospatial data associated with geohash values and further supports spatially indexed data, as such spatial data also known as geospatial or geographic data that refers geographical location); “two-dimensional Hash geographic coding” (Merriman: 0005,0029-0030, fig 3 – Merriman teaches two dimensional data for example that including latitude, longitude representing single geospatial hash value, further Merriman teaches geohashing of the location data for respective records and locations with similar geohash values having similar distance from a given point).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention hash encoding of multi-dimensioned data particularly hash value representing location information of Merriman et al., into access data assets stored in other blocks of blockchain particularly associated with security permissions of Ricotta et al., because both Ricotta, Meriman, teaches hash values particularly dynamically determine hash data ( Ricotta: Abstract; Meriman: Abstract), it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute one method for the other particularly location information associated with the stored in database particularly considering multi-dimensioned location information transforming into required dimensioned value (Meriman: 0033), further allows to compute distance between boundary point location and satisfying distance threshold (Meriman: 0007-0008), thus improves overall quality and reliability of the system. The exemplary rationales that may support prima facie conclusion of obviousness includes (F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art-KSR, 550 US at 398.
It is however, noted that Ricotta, Merriman do not teach “in-degree and out-degree control mechanisms”, “traversing quad direction nodes in block information of the current location, getting and loading data of the quad direction nodes, so as to realize the chain search”. On the other hand, Winarski disclosed “in-degree and out-degree control mechanisms” (Winarski: 0059-0061 – Winarski teaches Merkle B-tree data structure defining number of levels of data objects and the defined threshold level decides whether in-degree or out degree of data object stored levels).
Winarski teaches “traversing quad direction nodes in block information of the current location, getting and loading data of the quad direction nodes, so as to realize the chain search” (Winarski: fig 10A-10E, 0090-0092 – Winarski teaches multi-dimensional data array blockchain and blockchain HASH digest in B-block created, paired object and one of the data pointer for each paired object may be traversing block level and/or direction, i.e, navigating B-tree structure where each node divides a space into multiple quadrants in a specific order)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention big data blockchains with merkle trees of Winarski into users of Ricotta, Merriman because all the prior arts of Ricotta, Merriman, and Winaraski teaches hash values particularly dynamically determine hash data (Ricotta: Abstract; Meriman: Abstract and Winaraski: fig 2-4), it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute one method for the other particularly identifying nodes from large number of data objects to blockchain using Merkel B-tree computing array of hash divides spaces into multiple subregions, thereby search is narrowed to a specific desired hash object (Winarsaki: 0004). The exemplary rationales that may support prima facie conclusion of obviousness includes (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention- -KSR, 550 US at 398.
Examiner applies above arguments to Claims 2-3,5-7 depend from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
the following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1-3,5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, (as amended 7/6/2025) limitation(s) do not reasonably describe in the specification “in-degree and out-degree” control mechanisms; “row-column index corresponding to a current scene position to neighboring nodes”. in reviewing of instant specification (as filed on 12/20/2021) instant application specification merely suggest row and column index of the block in the two-dimensional array in performing BlockNet gene propagation (spec: page 14-17) but NOT ’row-column index corresponding to a current scene position to neighboring nodes’, It is further noted that specification failed to reasonably describe above cited limitations. The limitation “in-degree and out-degree” is a relative term that makes the claim indefinite, and therefore, claim 1 lack a written description of the claim limitations
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.
Claim 1 (as amended 7/6/2025) recites the limitation, it is unclear what is meant by “in-degree and out-degree” control mechanisms; “row-column index corresponding to a current scene position to neighboring nodes”, “row-column index corresponding to a current scene position to neighboring nodes”, lack of written description of the limitations. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC 112(b)
claim 3,6-7 are rejected because claim limitation(s) with “step numbers”. applicant may amend claims 3,6-7 without step numbers , to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims, in response to this office action. See MPEP § 600
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.
Claim 1-3,5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1-3,5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, hereinafter 2019 PEG.
Step 1. In accordance with Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is noted that the method of claims 1-7 is directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter and therefore satisfy Step 1.
Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A prong one of the 2019 PEG, the limitations reciting the abstract idea are highlighted in the limitations directed to additional elements as set forth in exemplary claim 1
“building a BlockNet gene propagation mechanism based on characteristics of BlockNet storage space data firstly, and then designing propagation round number control and in-degree and out-degree control mechanisms
designing a BlockNet information update scheme for data modification and update requirements in spatial data storage scenarios,
for a data demand node, broadcasting a row-column index corresponding to a current scene position to neighboring nodes;
for adjacent nodes, finding a BlockNet location of a current scene resource by the row-column index:
traversing quad direction nodes in block information of the current location, getting and loading data of the quad direction nodes, so as to realize the chain search; and
sending corresponding scene resources to the data demand node;
wherein for the partition index of three-dimensional spatial data, elevation data is added on a basis of original two-dimensional Hash geographic coding, and a data index conversion suitable for multi-level division is performed; when using a three-dimensional logic distance calculation algorithm to judge a three-dimensional logic distance, latitude and longitude codes and elevation codes of two target blocks are carried out XOR operations, and then results of the two XOR operations are calculated by an Euclidean distance to obtain the three-dimensional logical distance;
wherein in view of a multi-center situation occurring in a process of mapping spherical data to three-dimensional data, a spherical multi-source translation projection method is used to first map the spherical data to a three-dimensional space with a random starting point, find a spatial geometric center of a multi-target point, and perform a three-dimensional data translation conversion, in such a manner that a three- dimensional spatial data center is aligned with the spatial geometric center”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation merely data structure but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example in-degree and out-degree control mechanisms, data demand node, three-dimensional spatial data, spherical multi-source translation projection, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular data structure environment (three dimensional, two-dimensional) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(h)
The limitation when using a three-dimensional logic distance calculation algorithm to judge a three-dimensional logic distance………… calculated by an Euclidean distance to obtain the three-dimensional logical distance, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer component(s) such as by the processor. That is, other than reciting “by a processor”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by a processor” language, “calculating”, in the context of this claim limitation encompasses the user thinking logic distance, latitude, longitude and the combination. The recited “calculating” step clearly a mathematical and/or equation, and the using distance calculation algorithm. Thus, the claim recites a mathematical calculation as well as calculation algorithm fall within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A prong two of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to a mapping spherical data to three-dimensional data, perform a three- dimensional data translation conversion…….appears mere data gathering. However, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular three-dimensional logic distance calculation algorithm to judge a three-dimensional logic distance………… calculated by an Euclidean distance to obtain the three-dimensional logical distance fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Furthermore, although these elements have been fully considered, they are directed to the use of generic computing elements. As explained in grouping, examiner considered the limitations together as a single abstract idea, rather than as a plurality of separate abstract ideas to be analyzed individually. See MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. As explained above, claim limitations fall within the same grouping of abstract ideas (i., calculation algorithm and/or mathematical concepts), these limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea.
Since the analysis of Step 2A prong one and prong two results in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitations are directed to BlockNet security organization storage at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitations on the scope of the claim. In addition instant specification fig 1-5, page 7, page 11-18 describe mere data gathering using generic algorithm (mere software routines) generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention, which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo. Further, See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("Just as Diehr could not save the claims in Alice, which were directed to 'implement[ing] the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer', it cannot save O/P's claims directed to implementing the abstract idea of price optimization on a generic computer.") (citations omitted). See also, Affinity Labs of Texas LLC v. DirecTV LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257-1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of a GUI does not make a claim patent-eligible); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("the interactive interface limitation is a generic computer element".)
The additional elements are broadly applied to the abstract idea at a high level of generality ("similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claims in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer,") as explained in MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and they operate in a well-understood, routine, and conventional manner.
MPEP § 2106.05 (d)(II) sets forth the following:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g. at a high level of generality) as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec...; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC...; OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc... ; buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc...;
Performing repetitive calculations, Flook ... ; Bancorp Services v. Sun Life...;
Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp...; Ultramercial... ;
Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc...;
Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank...; and
A web browser's back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc...
Courts have held computer-implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amount to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 2-3,5-7 depend from claim 1, claims 2-3,5-7 are rejected on that basis because claims 2-3,5-7 have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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.
Claims 13,5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ricotta et al., (hereafter Ricotta), US Pub. No. 2020/0389309 published Dec, 2020 Merriman et al., (hereafter Merriman), US Pub. No. 2012/0226889 published Sep,2012 in view of Winarski, US Pub. No. 2020/0394181 published Dec, 2020
As to claim 1, Ricotta teaches a system which including “ A BlockNet security organization storage data, comprising steps of (fig 1, ,element 100 – blockchain, 0033, fig 11, - Ricotta teaches multiple blocks stored in blockchain, protected by security permissions, organizing stored data mapped with respect to security, further it is noted that “BlockNet is a blockchain interoperability protocol, and blockchain element 100 in a decentralized manner (Ricotta: 0033) corresponds to BlockNet)
“building a BlockNet gene propagation mechanism based on characteristics of BlockNet storage space data firstly, and then designing propagation round number control mechanisms” (Ricotta: fig 1, 0032,0036, 0045-0046, fig 2-3 – Ricotta teaches blockchain element 100 that identifies similar blockchains that including linking multiple blocks uniquely identified with respective hash value, while maintaining header data structure information, prior art of Ricotta teaches blockchain allows the blocks element 102 to search, retrieve data for example block header element 104 may be used in defining selection criteria that verifies data block(s) with respect to uniquely identifies the respective node(s) and propagating access security data stored in data blocks element 202 identical to instant specification page 17 propagation control process)
PNG
media_image2.png
279
604
media_image2.png
Greyscale
“designing a BlockNet information update scheme for data modification and update requirements in spatial data storage scenarios” (Ricotta: 0041-0042,0045-0046 – Ricotta teaches data structure that maintains not only hash values associated with the data block, but also index identifying the position of the data block and metadata attributes indicating update and/or data modification including timestamp element 204, further blockchain element 100 is in a database typically database management executes the query to identify “block” that meets the criteria and data stored in a table);
“for a data demand node, broadcasting a index corresponding to a current scene position to neighboring nodes” (Ricotta: fig 1, 0039,0041 – Ricotta teaches B-tree data structure particularly binary search tree index, a fractal tree index with respect to each node, while header stores each block ID, block uniquely labels to identify one or more entities of neighbor nodes)
“for adjacent nodes, finding a BlockNet location of a current scene resource by the index” (Ricotta: fig 16-17, 0109-0113 – Ricotta teaches one or more nodes collect data of the blocknet location particularly providing and retrieving data from the module 1706 looking at the slice of the adjacent node(s) data);
PNG
media_image1.png
286
286
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“sending corresponding scene resources to the data demand node” (Ricotta: fig 17, 0116-0118)
“wherein for the partition index of three-dimensional spatial data, elevation data is added on a basis of original Hash,(Ricotta: Abstract), and a data index conversion suitable for multi-level division is performed” (Ricotta: fig 1, 0032 – Ricotta teaches indeed header information particularly associated with hash values and related block index data identified, further index distribution generates multi-level blocks);
It is however, noted that Ricotta does not teach “mapping method for spatial data”, “two-dimensional Hash geographic coding”, “when using a three-dimensional logic distance calculation algorithm to judge a three-dimensional logic distance, latitude and longitude codes and elevation codes of two target blocks are carried out XOR operations, and then results of the two XOR operations are calculated by an Euclidean distance to obtain the three-dimensional logical distance;
wherein in view of a multi-center situation occurring in a process of mapping spherical data to three-dimensional data, a spherical multi-source translation projection method is used to first map the spherical data to a three-dimensional space with a random starting point, find a spatial geometric center of a multi-target point, and perform a three- dimensional data translation conversion, in such a manner that a three-dimensional spatial data center is aligned with the spatial geometric center”
On the other hand, Merriman disclosed “mapping method for spatial data” (Merriman: 0005-0006, 0068 – Merriman teaches geospatial data associated with geohash values and further supports spatially indexed data, as such spatial data also known as geospatial or geographic data that refers geographical location); “two-dimensional Hash geographic coding” (Merriman: 0005,0029-0030, fig 3 – Merriman teaches two dimensional data for example that including latitude, longitude representing single geospatial hash value, further Merriman teaches geohashing of the location data for respective records and locations with similar geohash values having similar distance from a given point),
PNG
media_image3.png
303
196
media_image3.png
Greyscale
“when using a three-dimensional logic distance calculation algorithm to judge a three-dimensional logic distance, latitude and longitude codes and elevation codes of two target blocks are carried out XOR operations, and then results of the two XOR operations are calculated by an Euclidean distance to obtain the three-dimensional logical distance” (Merriman: 0009,0013,0032-0033, 0038, 0046, fig 1 – Merriman teaches calculate the distance and distance threshold of the position for the indentation boundary coordinates, further identifies location within a distance from a point of interest, based on a respective hash value and determines the range. The prior art of Merriman teaches multi-dimensional location information into a single dimension value for example fig 1, element 104 stored in the database that including latitude and longitude, i.e., multi dimensioned location information transformed into single dimensioned value and optimizing the processing of location based distance, further it is noted that Merriman teaches calculating distance between two segments using cartesian coordinates of the points, for example processing in transformation process defining the equation with respect to x,y location in a set of location values in a multi-dimensional “Cartesian space” (0046, fig 2) corresponds to Euclidean distance
PNG
media_image4.png
309
191
media_image4.png
Greyscale
“wherein in view of a multi-center situation occurring in a process of mapping spherical data to three-dimensional data, a spherical multi-source translation projection method is used to first map the spherical data to a three-dimensional space with a random starting point, find a spatial geometric center of a multi-target point, and perform a three- dimensional data translation conversion, in such a manner that a three-dimensional spatial data center is aligned with the spatial geometric center”( Merriman: 0035,0069,0077,0080 – Merriman teaches defining the location based request may be identification boundary intersects a circle on the given location with a radius equal to a given distance supporting various shapes performing the transformation)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention hash encoding of multi-dimensioned data particularly hash value representing location information of Merriman et al., into access data assets stored in other blocks of blockchain particularly associated with security permissions of Ricotta et al., because both Ricotta, Meriman, teaches hash values particularly dynamically determine hash data ( Ricotta: Abstract; Meriman: Abstract), it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute one method for the other particularly location information associated with the stored in database particularly considering multi-dimensioned location information transforming into required dimensioned value (Meriman: 0033), further allows to compute distance between boundary point location and satisfying distance threshold (Meriman: 0007-0008), thus improves overall quality and reliability of the system.
It is however, noted that Ricotta, Merriman do not teach “in-degree and out-degree control mechanisms”, “traversing quad direction nodes in block information of the current location, getting and loading data of the quad direction nodes, so as to realize the chain search”. On the other hand, Winarski disclosed “in-degree and out-degree control mechanisms” (Winarski: 0059-0061 – Winarski teaches Merkle B-tree data structure defining number of levels of data objects and the defined threshold level decides whether in-degree or out degree of data object stored levels).
Winarski teaches “traversing quad direction nodes in block information of the current location, getting and loading data of the quad direction nodes, so as to realize the chain search” (Winarski: fig 10A-10E, 0090-0092 – Winarski teaches multi-dimensional data array blockchain and blockchain HASH digest in B-block created, paired object and one of the data pointer for each paired object may be traversing block level and/or direction, i.e, navigating B-tree structure where each node divides a space into multiple quadrants in a specific order)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention big data blockchains with merkle trees of Winarski into users of Ricotta, Merriman because all the prior arts of Ricotta, Merriman, and Winaraski teaches hash values particularly dynamically determine hash data (Ricotta: Abstract; Meriman: Abstract and Winaraski: fig 2-4), it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute one method for the other particularly identifying nodes from large number of data objects to blockchain using Merkel B-tree computing array of hash divides spaces into multiple subregions, thereby search is narrowed to a specific desired hash object (Winarsaki: 0004)
As to claim 2, the combination of Ricotta, Meriman and Winarsaki disclosed:
“wherein: the BlockNet gene propagation mechanism is constructed according to the characteristics of the BlockNet storage space data, which comprises specific steps of: (Ricotta: fig 1, 0032,0036)
“selecting a starting node of BlockNet construction” (Ricotta: fig 1, 0039) ; and
“performing Hash coding propagation on quad-connecting regional nodes, wherein a next node calculates a hash value of nodes pointing thereto by SHA256;(Ricotta: 0072, SHA 256 corresponds to Ricotta’s calculating hash values using SHA256)
in application scenarios of virtual reality comprise specific steps of:
“ performing multi-scale partition coding of scene data (Ricotta: 0076-0077,0076,0082)
and
“using spherical translation projection to translate a position, and starting BlockNet storage construction from the selected center point” (Ricotta:0076-0077, 0084-0085)
“wherein after a BlockNet is constructed, a factor is calculated according to a quantity of propagation rounds of each node,” (Ricotta: fig 1, 0038-0039,0041-0042). On the other hand, Meriman disclosed “spatial data” (Merriman: 0005-0006, 0068), “3D Hash geographic coding” (Merriman: 0005,0029-0030, fig 3); “Step 2.2: selecting a center point according to a key area in the spatial data” (Merriman: 0039-0040)
As to Claim 3. the combination of Ricotta, Meriman and Winarsaki disclosed:
“wherein: in the multi-source gene propagation mechanism, designing the propagation round control and control mechanism comprises specific steps of” (Ricotta: 0045-0046, fig 2-3 :
“performing control of a quantity of propagation rounds: when there are multiple central points which need important description in a space scene, multiple source blocks are selected for propagation” (Ricotta: 0049-0054), and
“the quantity of the propagation rounds is used to control a propagation speed of each of the source blocks to keep the source blocks synchronized, wherein in an area during the construction of a BlockNet, there is a global variable which controls the quantity of the propagation rounds; the global variable is compared during each round of propagation” (Ricotta:0065-0066, 0070-0071) , and
“a block number belongs to the round before the propagation continues; similarly, by counting the quantity of the propagation rounds to which each block belongs, a global safety factor of the BlockNet is calculated, the in-out-degree control mechanism comprises steps of” (Ricotta: 0039-0040).
“Step 3.1: for all blocks, initializing in/out-degree status flags of a quad- connecting neighborhood to an in-degree” (Ricotta: 0042-0043);
“Step 3.2: when a block triggers a propagation operation, checking an in/out- degree status of a quad-connecting neighboring block, if the out-degree is detected, executing a Step 3.3, otherwise executing a Step 3.4” (Ricotta: 0044-0046);
“Step 3.3: stopping propagating in a detected direction, and setting an in/out- degree state tag of a corresponding direction as an in-degree” (Ricotta: 0050-0052); and
“Step 3.4: Mark the in/out-degree state of the corresponding direction as the out- degree, putting a corresponding direction node into a next round of a propagation list, and executing the Step 3.2” (Ricotta: 0059-0062)
Claim 4 (canceled)
As to claim Claim 5, the combination of Ricotta, Meriman and Winarsaki disclosed::
“wherein: a 3D Hash geographic design of the three- dimensional logical distance calculation algorithm is specifically as follows” (Meriman: 0014-0015,0032-0033):
a three-dimensional space comprising longitude, latitude, and height is divided and a data model is constructed to realize the spatial data” (Meriman: 0067-0069);
“the spatial data is divided into a multi-layer hexadecimal tree according to a longitude and latitude observation plane, and a corresponding code is added to each node at each layer, until a leaf node is divided into a smallest unit of granularity representing the spatial data, wherein a full hexadecimal index tree of the spatial data is constructed each leaf node represents a smallest latitude and longitude observation plane” (Meriman: 0060-0061, 0078);
“a division unit stores different levels of elevation information in a vertical direction, and then three- digit hexadecimal encoding is performed on the elevation information to generate vertical codes and latitude and longitude codes to form a three-dimensional Hash geographic coding” (Meriman: 0089-0092, 0095);
“when judging a 3D spatial distance, first different prefix latitude and longitude codes of two 3D Hash geographic coding are performed or a plane distance is calculated, and then XOR of a suffix elevation code is performed to get the vertical distance, and finally a spatial Euclidean distance is calculated by calculating the plane distance and the vertical distance” (Merriman: 0009,0013,0032-0033, 0038, 0046, fig 1).
As to Claim 6, the combination of Ricotta, Meriman and Winarsaki disclosed:
“wherein: a modification and update method of BlockNet data comprises specific steps of” (Ricotta: fig 1, Abstract)
“Step 5.1: when a data modification operation is triggered on a BlockNet, changing a data field of the block to be modified” (Ricotta: 0036-0037)
“Step 5.2: traversing blocks which the block to be modified points to, and recalculating hash values corresponding to the blocks” (Ricotta: 0036-0039); and
“Step 5.3: repeating the Step 5.2 until an edge is reached to end a recursive process” (Ricotta: 0033-0034) .
As to Claim 7, the combination of Ricotta, Meriman and Winarsaki disclosed:
wherein: the spherical multi-source translation projection method comprises specific steps of (Meriman: 0040-0041)
“Step 6.1: selecting a random space position as a center point for geometric mapping from a sphere to a space” (Meriman:0034-0035)
“Step 6.2: selecting several central areas” (Meriman: 0045-0046);
“Step 6.3: calculating spatial geometric centers of the central areas” (Meriman: 0047-0049); and
“Step 6.4: using the geometric center position obtained in the Step 6.3 as a center point to perform the geometric mapping from the sphere to the space again” (Meriman: 0066-0069,0077).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record
a. US Pub. No. 2020/0389309
b. US Pub. No. 2012/0226889
c. US Pub. No. 2020/0394181
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-5] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984) In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201,73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). >See also MPEP §2123.
In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon, if any, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
Authorization for Internet Communications
The examiner encourages Applicant to submit an authorization to communicate with the examiner via the Internet by making the following statement (from MPEP 502.03):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only be submitted via Central Fax (not Examiner's Fax), Regular postal mail, or EFS Web using PTO/SB/439.
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 Srirama Channavajjala whose telephone number is 571-272-4108. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:30 PM Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gorney, Boris, can be reached on (571) 270- 5626. The fax phone numbers for the organization where the 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free)
/Srirama Channavajjala/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights