DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Action is non-final and is in response to the claims filed 09/27/2022. Claims 1-13, and 15-20 are currently pending, of which claims 1-13, and 15-20 are currently rejected. Claims 14 and 21 have been cancelled by applicant.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because abstract includes “[Figure 1]” at the bottom of the paragraph. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because a computer program embodied on computer-readable storage would normally be considered statutory unless the specification defines “computer-readable storage” as including transient media such as signals, carries waves, transmissions, optical waves, transmission media or other media incapable of being touched or perceived absent the non-transitory medium though which they are conveyed.
Claim 15 is not limited to non-transitory embodiments. Specifically, in view of the specification (¶0049) the computer-readable storage is not limited to non-transitory embodiments. Instead, the specification explains that a memory included in the apparatus may be i.e. computer-readable storage in the form of a non-transitory computer-readable medium or media. Therefore, the claim is not limited to statutory subject matter, hence Claim 15 is non-statutory.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: US 20200219097 A1), hereinafter “Chan”, in view of Peter Mell in NPL: “Cryptocurrency Smart Contracts for Distributed Consensus of Public Randomness” (link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-319-69084-1_31.pdf), hereinafter “Mell”.
Regarding Claim 1, Chan teaches:
A computer-implemented method of generating random numbers based on blockchain transactions, wherein the method is performed by a generating party (¶0121, e.g., transactions have digital assets committed by the respective parties) and comprises:
obtaining a candidate block header, wherein the candidate block header is based on a set of blockchain transactions (¶0150, e.g., future block header (candidate block header) are accessed based on blockchains);
applying a hash function to at least the candidate block header one or more times, wherein each application of the hash function to at least the candidate block header generates a respective hash digest (¶0149, e.g., Hash of a future block header is determined);
generating one or more random numbers, wherein each random number is generated based on a respective hash digest (¶0149, e.g., Solution is the hash of the first block header; ¶0151, e.g., random number is generated using the solution (hash of the first block header));
Chan does not specifically teach:
and outputting the one or more random numbers to one or more consuming devices.
However, Mell teaches:
and outputting the one or more random numbers to one or more consuming devices (Page 417, Section 5 “Single Producer Contract”, e.g., Random numbers are produced on the blockchain; Page 418, Top paragraph, e.g., Random Value is represented by R; Page 423, Section 7 “Empirical Work”, e.g., distributed application (DApp) software allows for customers to retrieve R values).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine the distributed application (DApp) software as taught by Mell with the user interface output devices as taught by Chan. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose random number generation within a blockchain based on transactions, and Mell enhances the model of Chan by improving security capabilities associated with smart contracts and blockchains in the distribution process. (See Mell: Page 411, Section 1: Introduction)
Regarding Claim 2, Chan in view of Mell teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein obtaining the candidate block header comprises obtaining the set of blockchain transactions (Chan: ¶0150, e.g., future block header (candidate block header) are accessed based on blockchains).
Regarding Claim 3, Chan in view of Mell teach:
The method of claim 2, wherein obtaining the set of blockchain transactions comprises obtaining the set of blockchain transactions from a pool of unconfirmed blockchain transactions (Chan: ¶0007, e.g., transactions need to be validated, hence they are unconfirmed).
Regarding Claim 4, Chan in view of Mell teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein obtaining the candidate block header comprises obtaining a candidate block template, wherein the candidate block template comprises the set of blockchain transactions (Chan: ¶0149, e.g., future block header contains certain number of transactions).
Regarding Claim 7, Chan in view of Mell teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein the respective random number is the respective hash digest (Chan: ¶0149, e.g., Solution is the hash of the first block header; ¶0151, e.g., random number is generated using the solution (hash of the first block header)).
Regarding Claim 8, Chan in view of Mell teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein generating a respective random number comprises one or more of:
removing one, some or all of the zeros present in the respective hash digest;
generating a fixed number as a running sum of the digits of the respective hash digest and use the fixed number as the respective random number, or a predetermined amount of least significant digits of the fixed number as the respective random number;
applying a same or different hash function to the respective hash digest;
converting the respective hash digest to a number between zero and one; and/or
selecting a subset of the respective hash digest as the respective random number. (Chan: ¶0105, e.g., same seed will reproduce same sequence, hence the same hash function is used)
Regarding Claim 9, Chan in view of Mell teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein outputting the one or more random numbers to the consuming device comprises outputting the one or more random numbers to the consuming device over a respective communication channel between the generating party and the one or more consuming devices (Chan: Fig. 11, e.g., outputs are validated and inputted as transactions (consuming devices); ¶0164, e.g., bus 1204 is utilized for communicating data).
Regarding Claim 10, Chan in view of Mell teach:
The method of claim 9, wherein some or all of the respective communication channel comprises an internet connection (Mell: Page 423, Section 7 “Empirical Work”, e.g., Ethereum test network is used along the DApp software, hence an internet connection is used).
The motivation to combine provided with respect to claim 1 applies equally to claim 10.
Regarding Claim 11, Chan in view of Mell teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more consuming devices comprises at least one local consuming device of the generating party (Chan: Fig. 12, e.g., Computer includes User Interface Output devices; Mell: Page 423, Section 7 “Empirical Work”, e.g., distributed application (DApp) software allows for customers to retrieve R values).
The motivation to combine provided with respect to claim 1 applies equally to claim 11.
Regarding Claim 12, Chan in view of Mell teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more consuming devices comprises at least one remote device of a second, different party (Mell: Page 423, Section 7 “Empirical Work”, e.g., distributed application (DApp) software allows for customers to retrieve R values, hence different customers (parties) are involved).
The motivation to combine provided with respect to claim 1 applies equally to claim 12.
Regarding Claim 13, Chan in view of Mell teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein the generating party comprises a mining node of a blockchain network (Chan: ¶0007, e.g., Network nodes (mining nodes) ensure transaction validation).
Regarding Claim 15, Chan teaches:
A computer program embodied on computer-readable storage and configured so as, when run on computer equipment (Fig. 12, e.g., shows computer including the memory subsystem and processor), to perform a method of generating random numbers based on blockchain transactions, wherein the method is performed by a generating party (¶0121, e.g., transactions have digital assets committed by the respective parties) and comprises:
obtaining a candidate block header, wherein the candidate block header is based on a set of blockchain transactions (¶0150, e.g., future block header (candidate block header) are accessed based on blockchains);
applying a hash function to at least the candidate block header one or more times, wherein each application of the hash function to at least the candidate block header generates a respective hash digest (¶0149, e.g., Hash of a future block header is determined);
generating one or more random numbers, wherein each random number is generated based on a respective hash digest (¶0149, e.g., Solution is the hash of the first block header; ¶0151, e.g., random number is generated using the solution (hash of the first block header)) …
Chan does not specifically teach:
and outputting the one or more random numbers to one or more consuming devices.
However, Mell teaches:
and outputting the one or more random numbers to one or more consuming devices (Page 417, Section 5 “Single Producer Contract”, e.g., Random numbers are produced on the blockchain; Page 418, Top paragraph, e.g., Random Value is represented by R; Page 423, Section 7 “Empirical Work”, e.g., distributed application (DApp) software allows for customers to retrieve R values).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine the distributed application (DApp) software as taught by Mell with the user interface output devices as taught by Chan. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose random number generation within a blockchain based on transactions, and Mell enhances the model of Chan by improving security capabilities associated with smart contracts and blockchains in the distribution process. (See Mell: Page 411, Section 1: Introduction)
Regarding Claim 16, Chan teaches:
An apparatus configured to generate random numbers based on blockchain transactions (Fig. 12, e.g., shows computing device 1200; ¶0121, e.g., transactions have digital assets committed by the respective parties), wherein the apparatus comprises:
an input interface configured to obtain a candidate block header, wherein the candidate block header is based on a set of blockchain transactions (¶0150, e.g., future block header (candidate block header) are accessed based on blockchains; Fig. 12, e.g., User interface input devices 1212);
a hashing component configured to apply a hash function to at least the candidate block header one or more times, wherein each application of the hash function to at least the candidate block header generates a respective hash digest (¶0149, e.g., Hash of a future block header is determined; ¶0114, e.g., Hashing algorithm is used (hashing component)); and
an output interface (Fig. 12, e.g., User Interface Output Devices 1214) … , and
wherein the apparatus is configured to generate the one or more random numbers, wherein each random number is generated based on a respective hash digest (¶0149, e.g., Solution is the hash of the first block header; ¶0151, e.g., random number is generated using the solution (hash of the first block header)).
Chan does not specifically teach:
an output interface configured to output one or more random numbers to one or more consuming devices,
However, Mell teaches:
… output one or more random numbers to one or more consuming devices (Page 417, Section 5 “Single Producer Contract”, e.g., Random numbers are produced on the blockchain; Page 418, Top paragraph, e.g., Random Value is represented by R; Page 423, Section 7 “Empirical Work”, e.g., distributed application (DApp) software allows for customers to retrieve R values),
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine the distributed application (DApp) software as taught by Mell with the user interface output devices as taught by Chan. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose random number generation within a blockchain based on transactions, and Mell enhances the model of Chan by improving security capabilities associated with smart contracts and blockchains in the distribution process. (See Mell: Page 411, Section 1: Introduction)
Regarding Claim 17, Chan in view of Mell teaches:
The apparatus of claim 16, wherein the input interface configured to obtain the set of blockchain transactions, and wherein the apparatus is configured to generate the candidate block header (Chan: ¶0150, e.g., future block header (candidate block header) are accessed based on blockchains).
Regarding Claim 19, Chan in view of Mell teaches:
The apparatus of claim 16, wherein the apparatus is configured to generate a respective random number by performing one or more of the following operations:
removing one, some or all of the zeros present in the respective hash digest;
generating a fixed number as a running sum of the digits of the respective hash digest and use the fixed number as the respective random number, or a predetermined amount of least significant digits of the fixed number as the respective random number;
applying a same or different hash function to the respective hash digest;
converting the respective hash digest to a number between zero and one; and/or
selecting a subset of the respective hash digest as the respective random number. (Chan: ¶0105, e.g., same seed will reproduce same sequence, hence the same hash function is used)
Regarding Claim 20, Chan in view of Mell teaches:
The apparatus of claims 16, wherein the apparatus comprises at least one of the one or more consuming devices (Chan: Fig. 12, e.g., Computer includes User Interface Output devices; Mell: Page 423, Section 7 “Empirical Work”, e.g., distributed application (DApp) software allows for customers to retrieve R values).
The motivation to combine provided with respect to claim 16 applies equally to claim 20.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan in view of Mell, further in view of Jake Frankenfield in NPL: “Nonce” (https://web.archive.org/web/20191114202226/https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/nonce.asp), hereinafter “Frankenfield”.
Regarding Claim 5, Chan in view of Mell teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein:
…
generating the one or more random numbers comprises generating a plurality of random numbers (Chan: ¶0113, e.g., PRNG 306 produces random numbers); and
outputting the one or more random numbers to the one or more consuming device comprises outputting the plurality of random numbers to the one or more consuming devices (Mell: Page 423, Section 7 “Empirical Work”, e.g., distributed application (DApp) software allows for customers to retrieve R values).
Chan in view of Mell do not teach:
applying the hash function to at least the candidate block header comprises applying the hash function to at least the candidate block header a plurality of times;
However, in the same field of endeavor, Frankenfield teaches how successful mining requires values to be hashed and rehashed. Frankenfield explains “Successfully mining a block requires a miner to be the first to guess the nonce, which is a random string of numbers appended to the hashed contents of the block, and then rehashed.” (Frankenfield: Section "Special Considerations: Discovering the Nonce")
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine the rehashing of transactions as taught by Frankenfield with the hashing algorithm as taught by Chan in view of Mell. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose Hashing of transactions in a blockchain, and Frankenfield enhances the model of Chan in view of Mell by allowing for successful mining by miners.
Claims 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan in view of Mell, further in view of Murray et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: US 20200371752 A1), hereinafter “Murray”.
Chan in view of Mell teach the method of claim 1, Chan in view of Mell do not teach:
storing the one or more random numbers in a buffer, wherein outputting the one or more random numbers comprises outputting the one or more random numbers comprises retrieving the one or more random numbers from the buffer.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Murray teaches storing a random number output in a buffer to improve performance of the random number generator. Murray explains “To improve performance, calls to access RNG 10 may be serviced with an output buffer (not shown).” (Murray: ¶0024)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine the output buffer for storing random numbers as taught by Murray with the blockchain system as taught by Chan in view of Mell. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose random number generation using hashing algorithms, and Murray enhances the model of Chan in view of Mell by adding a buffer to store random numbers for improved performance. See Murray: ¶0024.
With regards to Claim 18, this is similar to the claimed method above (claim 6 respectively), wherein all claim limitations also have been addressed and/or covered in cited areas. Thus, accordingly, this claim is rejected for at least the same reasons therein.
Prior Art Made of Record
US 10256974 B1 – teaches a transform-enabled cryptographic circuit 100 containing a transform enabled hashing core and a random number generator. See Figs. 1 and 9, and corresponding descriptions.
US 20180034629 A1 – teaches an array of CNT-based physical entropy sources that produce a random value 560, and uses a buffer 550 to hold output bits and perform cryptographic hash. See Fig. 5 and corresponding description.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS H DE LA GARZA whose telephone number is (571)272-0474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-6PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Caldwell can be reached at (571) 272-3702. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.H.D./
Carlos H. De La GarzaExaminer, Art Unit 2182 (571)272-0474
/ANDREW CALDWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2182