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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on Oct. 09, 2019 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the claim amendments filed on December 01, 2025.
Claims 2, 4, 6, 13-33, 35-50, 52-53, 55, 63-91, 93, and 95-98 have been canceled
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-12, 34, 51, 54, 56-62, 92, and 94 are pending.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-12, 34, 51, 54, 56-62, 92, and 94 have been examined.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 7-12, 34, 51, 54, 56-62, 92, and 94, the rejection is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s arguments/remarks made in an amendment filed on December 01, 2025.
Applicant's arguments filed on December 01, 2025 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive due to the following reasons:
With respect to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant argues that: Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-12, 34, 51, 54, 56-62, 92, and 94 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being allegedly directed towards non-statutory subject matter. Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection for at least the following reasons.
Claims 1, 34, 92, and 94 have been amended to specify "the first reference thereby enabling forward traversal through the first and second chains of transactions; and the second reference thereby enabling backward traversal through the first and second chains of transactions".
This amendment finds basis in the application as filed, specifically in page 37, lines 28- 29 "alternatively, the chain reference 724 is to the first transaction in the preceding chain"; page 41, lines 16-18 "the use of the backwards references in the append transactions and the forward reference in the change-out transaction to the change-in transaction enables this forward traversal"; page 46, line 19 "the reference that bridges the two dust chains"; and page 51, lines 9-12 "two-way references allow a pair of transactions to signal its relationship with the other. Further, this allows the link between the two to be identified independently of the transaction taken as the starting point i.e. allowing forward and backward traversal in the case of a linear sequence of events or data items".
From these disclosures, it is evident that the first reference enables forward traversal through the first chain of transactions, from the first chain of transactions to the second chain of transactions, and through the second chain of transactions. It is also unambiguously derivable that the second reference enables backward traversal through the second chain of transactions, from the second chain of transactions to the first chain of transactions, and through the first chain of transactions.
Further, clause 63 (pages 70-71), and clause 76 (page 73) of the application as filed disclose methods of traversing forward/backward through respective sets of transactions.
The further amendment to claim 1, namely "a second blockchain transaction in a second chain of transactions", limits the claim by actively claiming the second blockchain transaction. This amendment finds basis throughout the application as filed, specifically Figure 7 and associated paragraphs which disclose a first transaction in a first chain and a second transaction in a second chain.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The reasoning for this rejection is the same as was laid out in the Office Action Final Rejection, dated 10/02/2025 (hereinafter, “Office Action”).
Additionally, under Step 2A: Prong 1, Examiner respectfully notes that claims 1, 34, 92, and 94, as amended, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of implementing data structure; without significantly more. The series of steps recited in claims 1, 34, 92, and 94, as amended, describe the abstract idea of implementing data structure, which correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity: fundamental economic principles. Furthermore, a computing device comprising a processor and memory do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea.
Moreover, Examiner respectfully notes that the claims are first analyzed in the absence of technology to determine if it recites an abstract idea. The additional limitations of technology are then considered to determine if it restricts the claim from reciting an abstract idea. In this case, and as discussed in the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, it is determined that the additional limitations of technology do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Furthermore, Examiner respectfully notes that the recited features in the limitations: “creating a second blockchain transaction to be an initial transaction in a second chain of transactions, creating a first blockchain transaction comprising: at least one input associated with an output from a latest transaction in the first chain of transactions, thereby establishing a spending relationship, and an output comprising a data payload including a first reference to the second blockchain transaction, wherein the first reference is an invariant reference and/or comprises a transaction id of the second blockchain transaction, submitting the second blockchain transaction to the blockchain, and submitting the first blockchain transaction to the blockchain, wherein the second blockchain transaction comprises an output comprising a data payload including a second reference to a transaction in the first chain of transactions that is previous to the latest transaction, wherein the first blockchain transaction and the second blockchain transaction are not linked by a spending relationship, thereby creating a break in a spending-dependent chain of transactions to overcome an ancestor limit of the blockchain, and the first reference thereby enabling forward traversal through the first and second chains of transactions; and the second reference thereby enabling backward traversal through the first and second chains of transactions” are simply making use of a computer and the computer limitations do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea as discussed below under Step 2A-Prong 1 of the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
For example, under Step 2A-Prong 1, Examiner considers each and every limitation to determine if the claim recites an abstract idea. In this case, it is determined that the claim recites an abstract idea and the additional limitations of a computing device does not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. The recited steps, as amended, are abstract in nature as there are no technical/technology improvements as a result of these steps. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea. Whether the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application by providing technical/technology improvements are considered under Step 2A-Prong 2.
Applicant argues that: [In rejecting the claims, the Examiner maintains that the subject matter of the claims does not result in computer functionality or technical improvement, as the computer is simply being used to input, process, and output data. However, with the amendments above, the claims specify that the first reference and second reference enable forward/backward traversal of the first and second chains of transactions. This feature actively claims the solution to the ancestor limit problem discussed in our previous response. In particular, by being able to fluidly traverse through the two chains as if they were a single chain, issues relating to processing limitations of existing transaction processing systems are resolved.
Additionally, and as discussed in our previous response, the dual solution of breaking the physical spending link to solve the ancestor limit while simultaneously creating a new logical reference link to maintain traversability is the core of the invention. It is an engineered improvement to the blockchain system itself, providing improved processing throughput, while enhancing data integrity. Accordingly, the claims are rooted in an improvement to computer technology and constitute "significantly more" than a mere abstract idea. By executing the claims, computers are able to traverse between multiple chains of transactions, a technical feat that was not previously possible.
Because the claims therefore provide a practical application the provides an improvement in the functioning of a computer (in fact, enabling a technical feature that was not previously possible), the claims recite statutory subject matter in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d). Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of the claims.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Under Step 2A: Prong II, Examiner respectfully notes that there is no improved technology in simply creating a second blockchain transaction…, creating a first blockchain transaction comprising: [data and data descriptions], wherein the second blockchain transaction comprises [data and data descriptions]. And with respect to the claim limitations, “wherein the first blockchain transaction and the second blockchain transaction are not linked by a spending relationship, thereby creating a break in a spending-dependent chain of transactions to overcome an ancestor limit of the blockchain and the first reference thereby enabling forward traversal through the first and second chains of transactions; and the second reference thereby enabling backward traversal through the first and second chains of transactions.” These claim limitations, just describing data and data structures without positively reciting any steps/functions performing overcoming an ancestor limit of the blockchain. The disclosed invention simply cannot be equated to improvement to technological practices or computers. There is no technical improvement at all. Instead, Applicant recites “creating a second blockchain transaction to be an initial transaction in a second chain of transactions, creating a first blockchain transaction comprising: at least one input associated with an output from a latest transaction in the first chain of transactions, thereby establishing a spending relationship, and an output comprising a data payload including a first reference to the second blockchain transaction, wherein the first reference is an invariant reference and/or comprises a transaction id of the second blockchain transaction, submitting the second blockchain transaction to the blockchain, and submitting the first blockchain transaction to the blockchain, wherein the second blockchain transaction comprises an output comprising a data payload including a second reference to a transaction in the first chain of transactions that is previous to the latest transaction, wherein the first blockchain transaction and the second blockchain transaction are not linked by a spending relationship, thereby creating a break in a spending-dependent chain of transactions to overcome an ancestor limit of the blockchain, and the first reference thereby enabling forward traversal through the first and second chains of transactions; and the second reference thereby enabling backward traversal through the first and second chains of transactions.” The recited features in the limitations do not result in computer functionality or technical improvement. Examiner respectfully notes that Applicant is simply using a computer to implement data structure to traverse through chains of transactions. The recited features in the limitations does not disclose a technical solution to technical problem, but simply a business solution. Specifically, the recited steps, as amended, are merely implementing data structure to traverse through chains of transactions (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) and does not result in computer functionality or technical improvement. Thus, Applicant has simply provided a business method practice of implementing data structure to traverse through chains of transactions, and no technical solution or improvement has been disclosed.
Moreover, there is no technology/technical improvement as a result of implementing the abstract idea. The recited limitations in the pending claims simply amount to the abstract idea of implementing data structure. There is no computer functionality improvement or technology improvement. The claim does not provide a technical solution to a technical problem. If there is an improvement, it is to the abstract idea and not to technology. Additionally, Examiner notes that it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the judicial exception itself (e.g., commercial interaction) is not an improvement in technology (See, MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)). Thus, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; and these arguments are not persuasive.
Furthermore, these steps, as amended, are recited as being performed by a processor and memory. The processor and memory are recited at a high level of generality, and are used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving, processing, and outputting data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Claims 1, 34, 92, and 94, as amended recites a processor and memory, which are simply used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong 1, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, the recitation of a processor and memory in the limitations merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. The claims, as amended, merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment; and thus, fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES). Claims 1, 34, 92, and 94, as amended, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, these arguments are not persuasive.
Under Step 2B, Examiner respectfully notes that all of Applicant's arguments have been reviewed, and the inventive concept cannot be furnished by a judicial exception. The improvements argued are to the abstract idea and not to technology. The technical limitations are simply utilized as a tool to implement the abstract idea without adding significantly more. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea, and hence these arguments are not persuasive. The presence of a computer does not make the claimed solution necessarily rooted in computer technology. Furthermore, Examiner notes that the courts have determined that [processing data] is well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of a computer when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Thus, the recited combination of steps in claims 1, 34, 92, and 94 operate in a well-understood, routine, conventional and generic way. As noted above, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of a processor and memory limitations are recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment.
Applying the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility here, and as explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements: a processor and memory, are at best mere instructions to “apply” the abstract idea, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements: a processor and memory, were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary for implementing data structure. The evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the claims’ limitations are recited at a high level of generality. These elements simply amount to implementing data structure to traverse through chains of transactions and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitation of a computer/processor to perform recited limitations, as amended, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO).
Hence, Examiner respectfully declines Applicant’s request to withdraw the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 7-12, 34, 51, 54, 56-62, 92, and 94.
With respect to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Regarding claims 1, 34, 92, and 94: Applicant argues: We additionally maintain that the examiner's obviousness analysis fundamentally fails to appreciate the complexity of the claimed invention. The claimed invention solves a pair of interacting technical problems. The first of these being the ancestor limit, which is solved by the counter-intuitive step of breaking the spending-dependent chain. This step, however, creates the second problem of a complete loss of the data log's traversability. The invention then solves this second problem by implementing a specific, non-obvious referencing system to re-establish a logical link across the physical spending gap. There is simply no suggestion in the prior art to undertake this complex, two-stage problem-solving process.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees, as they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, the reasoning for motivation to combine the references is the same as was laid out in the Office Action.
Furthermore, Applicant' s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3, 5, 7-12, 34, 51, 54, 56-62, 92, and 94 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection initiated by applicant' s amendment to the claims.
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, 3, 5, 7-12, 34, 51, 54, 56-62, 92, and 94 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of implementing data structure without significantly more.
Examiner has identified claim 92 as the claim that represents the claimed invention presented in independent claims 1, 34, 92, and 94.
In the instant case, claims 1, 3, 5, 7-12 and 94 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, claims 34, 51, 54 and 56-62 are directed to a method, and claim 94 is directed to A computing device comprising a processor and memory. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claim 92 is directed to a computing device comprising a processor and memory, the memory including executable instructions that, as a result of execution by the processor, causes the computing device to perform a series of steps: “creating a second blockchain transaction to be an initial transaction in a second chain of transactions, creating a first blockchain transaction comprising: at least one input associated with an output from a latest transaction in the first chain of transactions, thereby establishing a spending relationship, and an output comprising a data payload including a first reference to the second blockchain transaction, wherein the first reference is an invariant reference and/or comprises a transaction id of the second blockchain transaction, submitting the second blockchain transaction to the blockchain, and submitting the first blockchain transaction to the blockchain, wherein the second blockchain transaction comprises an output comprising a data payload including a second reference to a transaction in the first chain of transactions that is previous to the latest transaction, wherein the first blockchain transaction and the second blockchain transaction are not linked by a spending relationship, thereby creating a break in a spending-dependent chain of transactions to overcome an ancestor limit of the blockchain, and the first reference thereby enabling forward traversal through the first and second chains of transactions; and the second reference thereby enabling backward traversal through the first and second chains of transactions.” These series of steps describe the abstract idea of implementing data structure, which correspond to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”: fundamental economic principles. The computing device comprising a processor and memory do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, claim 92 recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of claim 92 such as a processor and memory are no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. Specifically, the processor and memory performs the steps or functions of: “creating a second blockchain transaction to be an initial transaction in a second chain of transactions, creating a first blockchain transaction comprising: at least one input associated with an output from a latest transaction in the first chain of transactions, thereby establishing a spending relationship, and an output comprising a data payload including a first reference to the second blockchain transaction, wherein the first reference is an invariant reference and/or comprises a transaction id of the second blockchain transaction, submitting the second blockchain transaction to the blockchain, and submitting the first blockchain transaction to the blockchain, wherein the second blockchain transaction comprises an output comprising a data payload including a second reference to a transaction in the first chain of transactions that is previous to the latest transaction, wherein the first blockchain transaction and the second blockchain transaction are not linked by a spending relationship, thereby creating a break in a spending-dependent chain of transactions to overcome an ancestor limit of the blockchain, and the first reference thereby enabling forward traversal through the first and second chains of transactions; and the second reference thereby enabling backward traversal through the first and second chains of transactions.” The additional elements listed above are all recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computing arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, claim 92 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
Claim 92 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of a processor and memory limitations are recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment. Thus, claim 92 is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Similar arguments can be extended to the independent claim 34 and hence, claim 34 is rejected on similar grounds as claim 92.
Claims 1 and 94 recite the abstract idea subject matter similar to that discussed above in connection with claim 92. The newly identified additional element of non-transitory computer-readable storage medium also fails to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea as it is no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. Thus, claims 1 and 94 are rejected on similar grounds as claim 92.
Regarding dependent claims 3, 5, 7-12, 51, 54, and 56-62
Claims 3 and 51 recite: wherein the first reference is based on an invariant feature of the e second blockchain transaction.
Claims 5 and 54 recite: wherein the second blockchain transaction comprises at least one input and the first reference is based on at least one of the at least one input to the second blockchain transaction.
Claim 7 recites: wherein the data payload based on the second reference is stored in an output of the blockchain transaction.
Claims 8 and 57 recite: wherein the second reference comprises a transaction id of the first blockchain transaction.
Claims 9 and 58 recite: wherein the second reference is an invariant reference.
Claims 10 and 59 recite: wherein the second reference is based on an invariant feature of the first blockchain transaction.
Claim 11 recites: wherein the first blockchain transaction comprises at least one input and the second reference is based on at least one of the at least one input of the first blockchain transaction.
Claims 12 and 62 recite: wherein the reference comprising the at least one input takes the form of a transaction outpoint.
Claim 56 recites: wherein the second reference is a reference to an initial transaction in the first chain of transactions.
The dependent claims 3, 5, 7-12, 51, 54, and 56-62 have further defined the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims: Claims 1, 34, 92, and 94; and thus, correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity: fundamental economic principles and hence are abstract in nature for the reason presented above.
The dependent claims 3, 5, 7-12, 51, 54, and 56-62 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, 3, 5, 7-12, 51, 54, and 56-62 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Thus, claims 1, 3, 5, 7-12, 34, 51, 54, 56-62, 92, and 94 are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-12, 34, 50-52, 54-62, 92 and 94 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over UHR et al. (US 20200050780 A1, “UHR”) in view of Andreas M. Antonopoulos (NPL: “Mastering Bitcoin” December 2014) in view of Brenton John Gunning (US 11398911 B1, “Gunning”) further in view of Escriva (US 20150172412 A1, “Escriva”).
Regarding claims 34, 92 and 94: UHR discloses: A computer implemented method associated with a set of transactions in a blockchain system, the method comprising the steps:
creating a second blockchain transaction […] (UHR [0085]: the document-transmitting transaction 500 may include header information 510, a transaction input 520, a transaction output 530, and at least one redeeming condition-determining code 540 configured to determine at least one redeeming condition), (see paragraph [0085] and Fig. 5),
creating a first blockchain transaction comprising (paragraph [0078]):
at least one input associated with an output from a latest transaction in the first chain of transactions, […] (UHR [0108]: the transaction input of the additional document-transmitting transaction as such may include a value created by applying the specific operation to a last document-transmitting transaction as a previous document-transmitting transaction function value, because the additional document-transmitting transaction is not a document-transmitting transaction corresponding to the initial issuance of the document and thus at least one document-transmitting transaction to be referred to is present), (see paragraph [0108] and Fig. 7A), and
an output comprising a data payload including a first reference to the second blockchain transaction, […] (UHR [0129]: every document-transmitting transaction except the document-transmitting transaction TRXID1 corresponding to the initial issuance, refers to its corresponding previous document-transmitting transaction using its function value thus, the TRXID1, a TRXID2, and a TRXID3, that is, every document-transmitting transaction generated with regard to the document may be tracked and managed by referring to the respective previous document-transmitting transaction function values of the individual document-transmitting transactions), (see paragraph [0129] and Fig. 9),
submitting the second blockchain transaction to the blockchain (UHR [0089]: the transaction input may further include at least one piece of additional document information, wherein the additional document information includes (i) a transaction ID representing information on a location of the document-transmitting transaction function value, created by applying the specific operation to the document-transmitting transaction, in the blockchain database), (see paragraphs [0089] and Fig. 5), and
submitting the first blockchain transaction to the blockchain (see paragraphs [0108] and Fig. 7A);
wherein the second blockchain transaction comprises an output comprising a data payload including a second reference to a transaction in the first chain of transactions that is previous to the latest transaction (UHR [0129]: the document-managing server allows the blockchain database to store the document-transmitting transaction hash value in the first blockchain at a process of S330, and if one of anchoring conditions is satisfied, allows the blockchain database to store a representative hash value or its processed value in the second blockchain at a process of S330′ (not illustrated) where the representative hash value is calculated by using both (i) a specific hash value which is the document-transmitting transaction hash value and (ii) its at least one corresponding neighboring hash value which is a hash value of a specific document-transmitting transaction different from the document-transmitting transaction; Additionally, UHR discloses, second type (e.g., Transaction ID TRXID2) comprises a data payload based on a second reference (e.g., Prev Transaction Hash (TRXID1) or receipt 1 public key), (see claim 6, paragraphs [0129]-[0131] and Fig. 9).
UHR does not specifically disclose: at least one input associated with an output from a latest transaction in the first chain of transactions, thereby establishing a spending relationship.
However, Antonopoulos to disclose:
creating a first blockchain transaction comprising (Antonopoulos [p. 12, paragraph 2]: Joe’s mobile bitcoin wallet constructs a transaction that assigns 0.10 bitcoin to the address provided by Alice, sourcing the funds from Joe’s wallet and signing the transaction with Joe’s private keys):
at least one input associated with an output from a latest transaction in the first chain of transactions, thereby establishing a spending relationship (Antonopoulos [p. 12, paragraph 2]: This tells the bitcoin network that Joe has authorized a transfer of value from one of his addresses to Alice’s new address. As the transaction is transmitted via the peer-to-peer protocol, it quickly propagates across the bitcoin network), and
an output comprising a data payload including a first reference to the second blockchain transaction, wherein the first reference is an invariant reference and/or comprises a transaction id of the second blockchain transaction (Antonopoulos [p. 163, paragraph 3]: Joe’s mobile bitcoin wallet constructs a transaction that assigns 0.10 bitcoin to the address provided by Alice, sourcing the funds from Joe’s wallet and signing the transaction with Joe’s private keys. This tells the bitcoin network that Joe has authorized a transfer of value from one of his addresses to Alice’s new address. As the transaction is transmitted via the peer-to-peer protocol, it quickly propagates across the bitcoin network. In less than a second, most of the well-connected nodes in the network receive the transaction and see Alice’s address for the first time; (Antonopoulos [p. 163, paragraph 3]: Each block within the blockchain is identified by a hash, generated using the SHA256 cryptographic hash algorithm on the header of the block. Each block also references a previous block, known as the parent block, through the “previous block hash” field in the block header. In other words, each block contains the hash of its parent inside its own header. The sequence of hashes linking each block to its parent, creates a chain going back all the way to the first block ever created, known as the genesis block), (see also p. 163, paragraph 3 and p. 45);
Alternatively, Antonopoulos discloses:
creating a second blockchain transaction to be an initial transaction in a second chain of transactions (Antonopoulos [p. 16, paragraph 1]: The transaction created by Joe, funded Alice’s wallet with 0.10 BTC. Now Alice will make her first retail transaction, buying a cup of coffee at Bob’s coffee shop in Palo Alto, California; [page 20, paragraph 1]: Alice’s payment to Bob’s Cafe utilizes a previous transaction as its input. In the previous chapter Alice received bitcoin from her friend Joe in return for cash. That transaction has a number of bitcoins locked (encumbered) against Alice’s key. Her new transaction to Bob’s Cafe references the previous transaction as an input and creates new outputs to pay for the cup of coffee and receive change. The transactions form a chain, where the inputs from the latest transaction correspond to outputs from previous transactions; [page 25, paragraph 1]: The transaction created by Alice’s wallet application is 258 bytes long and contains everything necessary to confirm ownership of the funds and assign new owners. Now, the transaction must be transmitted to the bitcoin network where it will become part of the distributed ledger, the blockchain), (see also pages Fig. 2-8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify UHR with Antonopoulos to include well-known function of blockchain such as referencing transaction in the blockchain network to enhance transaction security.
UHR does not specifically disclose, however, Gunning, discloses:
the first blockchain transaction and the second blockchain transaction are not linked by a spending relationship, thereby creating a break in a spending-dependent chain of transactions to overcome an ancestor limit of the blockchain (Gunning [Col. 77, Lines 50-58]: In some embodiments, it is sometimes useful to transfer a jig object from one output to another output without spending the first output into the second output. One use case for this is to work around the chained transaction ancestor limit which is a restrictive property of many nodes. This limit effectively caps the number of jig updates between blocks because jig updates require spends. If there was a way to transfer a jig without a spend, applications and the jig library could work around this limit).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of UHR and Antonopoulos with Gunning to include functions of Gunning, such as a method for tokenizing modern objects that maintains their interactive properties on a blockchain to overcome or to work around the blockchain (i.e., chained) transaction ancestor limit.
Examiner’s Note: the language “…thereby creating a break in a spending-dependent chain of transactions to overcome an ancestor limit of the blockchain” has been considered and determined to be an intended result and is accorded no patentable weight. It is an intended result of the first blockchain transaction and the second blockchain transaction are not linked by a spending relationship. However, for purposes of compact prosecution, the following citation is provided above. See MPEP 2111.04.
UHR does not specifically disclose, however, Escriva, discloses:
and the first reference thereby enabling forward traversal through the first and second chains of transactions; and the second reference thereby enabling backward traversal through the first and second chains of transactions (Escriva [0106]: The linear transactions protocol captures all dependency information as transactions traverse chains in the forward and reverse direction. Dependencies accumulate and propagate in the same messages that carry the transactions themselves; [0103]: Once a "prepare" message traverses the entire chain, the prepare phase completes and the commit phase begins. "Commit" messages traverse the chain in reverse, starting with the last server to prepare the transaction. Upon receipt of a "commit" message, each server locally applies writes affecting keys for which it is mapped to by the key-value store and passes the "commit" message backward to the previous server in the chain).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of UHR, Antonopoulos and Gunning with Escriva to include features of Escriva, managing dependencies between operations in a distributed system to travers through transactions or records in a distributed system to enhance system performance and stability.
Examiner’s Note: the language “…thereby enabling forward traversal through the first and second chains of transactions” has been considered and determined to be an intended use of the first reference. And with respect to the language “…thereby enabling backward traversal through the first and second chains of transactions” has been considered and determined to be an intended use of the second reference. Therefore, it fails to provide a patentable distinction over the prior art. The Examiner further notes that, these claims as well as other statements of intended use do not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed structure over that of the reference. See MPEP § 2114.
Regarding claim 1: Claim 1 recites subject matter similar to that discussed above in connection with claim 34. Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected under a similar rationale as claims 34.
Regarding claims 3 and 51: UHR, Antonopoulos, Gunning and Escriva, discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
UHR further discloses: The computer implemented data structure of claim 2, wherein the first reference is based on an invariant feature of the e second blockchain transaction (UHR [0087]: a previous document-transmitting transaction function value created by applying the specific operation to each previous document-transmitting transaction which is referred to by the document-transmitting transaction, (iii) an output index of said each previous document-transmitting transaction), (see paragraphs [0016], [0087] and [0108] and Fig. 7A).
Regarding claims 5 and 54: UHR, Antonopoulos, Gunning and Escriva, discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
UHR further discloses: The computer implemented data structure of claims 1, wherein the second blockchain transaction comprises at least one input and the first reference is based on at least one of the at least one input to the second blockchain transaction (see paragraph [0144] and Claim 4 and Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 7: UHR, Antonopoulos, Gunning and Escriva, discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
UHR further discloses: The computer implemented data structure of claim 1, wherein the data payload based on the second reference is stored in an output of the blockchain transaction (UHR [Claim 6]: a previous document-transmitting transaction function value created by applying the specific operation to each previous document-transmitting transaction which is referred to by the document-transmitting transaction, (iii) an output index of said each previous document-transmitting transaction), (Claims 4 and 6 and Figs. 9 and 10).
Regarding claims 8 and 57: UHR, Antonopoulos, Gunning and Escriva, discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
UHR further discloses: The computer implemented data structure of claim 1, wherein the second reference comprises a transaction id of the first blockchain transaction (UHR [Claim 7]: the transaction input further includes document information, and wherein the document information includes an issuance time and date of the document, a type of the document, a title of the document, a document-information function value created by applying the specific operation to the information on the original document, information on the document issuance requester who requested the document, a unique identifier of the document, information on the document-issuing institution, information on a document-issuing person in charge of issuing the document, information on authenticity of the document, and the access information on the document), (see Fig. 9).
Regarding claims 9 and 58: UHR, Antonopoulos, Gunning and Escriva, discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
UHR further discloses: The computer implemented data structure of claims 1, wherein the second reference is an invariant reference (UHR [0078]: Throughout the present disclosure, a specific function or a specific operation may be a hash function, a function value may be a hash value generated by using the hash function, a specific tree may be a Merkle tree or a Patricia tree, and a representative function value of the specific tree may be a root value of the Merkle tree, but the scope of the present disclosure is not limited thereto), (see paragraphs [0124], [0078] and [0063] and Figs. 8A and 9).
Regarding claims 10 and 59: UHR, Antonopoulos, Gunning and Escriva, discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
UHR further discloses: The computer implemented data structure of claim 9, wherein the second reference is based on an invariant feature of the first blockchain transaction (see claim 7 and paragraphs [0124], [0078] and [0063] and Figs. 8A and 9).
Regarding claim 11: UHR, Antonopoulos, Gunning and Escriva, discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
UHR further discloses: The computer implemented data structure of claim 1, wherein the first blockchain transaction comprises at least one input and the second reference is based on at least one of the at least one input of the first blockchain transaction (UHR [Claim 6]: wherein the transaction input includes at least one of (i) information on personnel with a document-viewing permission representing who has the document-viewing permission of the document, (ii) a previous document-transmitting transaction function value created by applying the specific operation to each previous document-transmitting transaction which is referred to by the document-transmitting transaction), (see Figs. 8A and 10).
Regarding claims 12 and 62: UHR, Antonopoulos, Gunning and Escriva, discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
UHR further discloses: The computer implemented data structure of claim 5, wherein the reference comprising the at least one input takes the form of a transaction outpoint (UHR [Claim 6]: an output index of said each previous document-transmitting transaction), (see Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 56: UHR, Antonopoulos, Gunning and Escriva, discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
UHR further discloses: The computer implemented method of claim 34, wherein the second reference is a reference to an initial transaction in the first chain of transactions (see paragraphs [0108] and [0122]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAHED ALI whose telephone number is (571)270-1085. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 5:00 M-F.
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, Neha Patel can be reached on (571) 270-1492. 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.
/JAHED ALI/
Examiner, Art Unit 3699 /NEHA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3699