The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 6-7, 15, 17-19, 24, 26, 31-33, and 35-39 are canceled.
Claims 1, and 34 are independent claims and are amended.
Claims 1-5, 8-14, 16, 20-23, 25, 27-30, and 34 are pending in this application and are presented for examination on merits.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. GB2002303.2 on 02/19/2020
, and which is related to 371 of PCT/IB2021/050365 filed
on 01/19/2021.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5, 8-14, 16, 20-23, 25, and 27-30 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the limitation of “A method of operating a distributed database implemented in a layered network wherein the distributed database is a not a blockchain, the layered network comprising a core layer comprising one or more core nodes, one or more intermediate layers each comprising one or more intermediate layer nodes, and one or more outer layers each comprising one or more outer layer nodes; wherein each …” appears a typo error. Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
Claims 2-5, 8-14, 16, 20-23, 25, and 27-30 are also objected because of dependency to claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8-14, 16, 20-23, 25, 27-30, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitations of "the database" in lines 17-18, and 20, which are unclear whether to be the same as or different from “the distributed database” in lines 1-2. As result, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
*** Similar above rejections are applied to independent claim 34 at lines 24-25, and 27, respectively.
Claims 2--5, 8-14, 16, 20-23, 25, and 27-30 are also rejected because of dependency to claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5, 8-14, 16, 20-23, 25, 27-30, and 34 should be allowable if the claims are amended to overcome the above indicated claim objections and rejections.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1 (same as to claim 34, the prior art made of record, singularly or in combination, does not teach the combined limitations as considered a whole including the implemented a layered network in the preamble including: “wherein the distributed database is a not a blockchain, the layered network comprising a core layer comprising one or more core nodes, one or more intermediate layers each comprising one or more intermediate layer nodes, and one or more outer layers each comprising one or more outer layer nodes; wherein each of the core nodes is a node of a blockchain network, each node of the blockchain network being one or both of a blockchain storage node arranged to store a ledger of mined blocks of the blockchain or a mining node configured to mine blocks onto the blockchain, wherein the intermediate layer nodes are neither storage nodes which provide a ledger of mined blocks of any blockchain nor mining nodes which mine blocks onto any blockchain, wherein at least some of the intermediate layer nodes are database nodes of the distributed database, each database node storing at least part of the distributed database, and wherein at least some of the outer layer nodes are client nodes of the distributed database;” and “for each of the received update requests, determining whether the respective target entry is found in the part of the database stored at said first database node, and if so, making the update of the update request to the respective target entry in the part of the database stored at the first database node, and if not, forwarding the request to another of the database nodes which stores a part of the database including the respective target entry.”
The above indicated limitations are shown in the Applicant’s Figs. 3-7, 12-18, and 20; and specification at pages 23-37, 42-45, and 72-73.
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