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 .
Remarks
This action is in response to the applicant’s response filed 25 September 2025, which is in response to the USPTO office action mailed 25 June 2025. Claims 1, 10 and 15 are amended. Claims 4, 6, 8, 12, 17, 19 and 21-24 are cancelled. Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9-11, 13-16, 18 and 20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the 35 USC §103 rejections of claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9-11, 13-16, 18 and 20-24, the applicant’s arguments are moot in view of a new grounds of rejection, as necessitated by the applicant's amendments.
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, 3, 5, 7, 9-11, 14, 15, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al., US 2021/0152459 A1 (hereinafter “Park”) in view of Perlman et al., US 1,075,6904 B1 (hereinafter “Perlman”) in further view of Vo et al., US 2019/0340267 A1 (hereinafter “Vo”) in further view of George et al., US 2021/0374675 A1 (hereinafter “George”).
Claim 1: Park teaches a method comprising:
a first system initiating a first interaction flow and receiving an instruction to communicate content across a system boundary with a second system performing a second interaction flow complementary to the first interaction flow, wherein the first and second interaction flows are cross-system processes each comprising a plurality of process steps (Park, [Fig. 1], [0051] note user A21 is linked to a node A2 constituting a first block chain network, user B11 is linked to a node B1 constituting a second block chain network, and user A21 wishes to have a transaction with user B11, [Fig. 5] note transmitting transactional information from a first block chain network to a second block chain network);
in response to the instruction and for each process step of the first interaction flow, the first system generating first ledger entries of a blockchain comprising first content corresponding to a particular process step (Park, [0051] note In review of the examples of FIG. 1 and FIG. 5, user A21 is linked to a node A2 constituting a first block chain network, user B11 is linked to a node B1 constituting a second block chain network, and user A21 wishes to have a transaction with user B11. Here, note A2 records transaction information on a distribution ledger),
the first system communicating the first content across the system boundary to the second system through the blockchain (Park, [Fig. 1], [Fig. 4], [0052] note the first router may transmit transactional information to the second router using a predetermined form… the form of data exchange among routers is shown in FIG. 4); and
in response to the first content from the first system and for each process step of the second interaction flow, the second system generating second ledger entries of the blockchain comprising second content corresponding to a hash linking to the first content particular process step of the second interaction flow, the second system communicating the second content to the first system through the blockchain (Park, [Fig. 5], [0054] note node B4 records the transaction request in the corresponding distribution ledger, and node B1 which is linked to user B11 may verify the transactional information with user B11, [0043] note a second block chain network wishes to share data with a first block chain network, [0032] note each of the blocks constituting the block chain of the present invention is linked in a form of a Hash Chain. That is, nth block stores a hash value of n-1th block; i.e. the nth block storing a hash value of the n-1th block reads on a second ledger entry comprising second content corresponding to a hash linking to the first content),
wherein the blockchain is a distributed storage platform comprising individual distributed computing devices connected in a chain (Park, [0051] note a distribution ledger, [0036] note a first router may be connected to one node (A3) constituting a first block chain network, as a separate node distinguished from nodes (A1, A2, A3) constituting a first block chain network, [0037] note a second router may be connected to one node (B4) constituting a second block chain network, as a separate node distinguished from nodes (B1, B2, B3, B4) constituting a second block chain network).
Park does not explicitly teach unique timestamps and unique keys; receiving, in the blockchain, a first query from the first system and a second query from the second system, wherein the first query and the second query return a history of interactions for the first and second interaction flow; and sending, by the blockchain, a first notification to the second system in response to the first system generating the first ledger entries and selectively sending, by the blockchain, a second notification to the first system in response to the second system generating the second ledger entries, wherein the second notification is sent when the blockchain is updated according to a first status, and the second notification is not sent when the blockchain is updated according to a second status.
However, Perlman teaches unique timestamps and unique keys (Perlman, [Col. 6 Line 67]-[Col. 7 Lines 1-3] note cryptographic keys 122 more particularly comprise respective private keys for generating digital signatures on blocks 106 to be added to the distributed ledger 105 within the system 100, [Fig. 4], [Col. 13] Lines 7-13] note the current block 106-n includes… a timestamp indicating the time at which the block was created, [Col. 6 Lines 58-61] note at least portions of the transactions database 116 can additionally or alternatively be implemented as an in-memory database utilizing the memory 112 of the ledger maintenance node 102-1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to combine the distributed ledger of Park with the keys and timestamps of Perlman according to known methods (i.e. generating respective keys and timestamps on blocks to be added to a distributed ledger). Motivation for doing so is that can provide significant advantages in maintenance of blockchains and other types of distributed ledgers in a wide variety of different contexts (Perlman, [Col. 1 Lines 36-38]).
Park and Perlman do not explicitly teach receiving, in the blockchain, a first query from the first system and a second query from the second system, wherein the first query and the second query return a history of interactions for the first and second interaction flow; and sending, by the blockchain, a first notification to the second system in response to the first system generating the first ledger entries and selectively sending, by the blockchain, a second notification to the first system in response to the second system generating the second ledger entries, wherein the second notification is sent when the blockchain is updated according to a first status, and the second notification is not sent when the blockchain is updated according to a second status.
However, Vo teaches receiving, in the blockchain, a first query from the first system and a second query from the second system, wherein the first query and the second query return a history of interactions for the first and second interaction flow (Vo, [0020] note the system includes a mixed blockchain chain that retrieves data from multiple blockchains and executes cross-chain transactions by leveraging the data from the multiple blockchain, [0025] note using permissioned blockchain (e.g., Hyperledger Fabric) to hold a transaction history of a business network; i.e. a transaction history reads on a history of interactions, [0045] note master chain 410 may also include a query federator smart contract 418 that is responsible for handling queries, [0055] note individually querying the plurality of blockchains to determine at least one blockchain storing data for the blockchain transaction; i.e. the examiner interprets individually querying reads on a first query and a second query, [0061] note the query federator may interact with network information and the network interface of the system to transmit queries to other blockchains systems and receive responses).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to combine the distributed ledger of Park and Perlman with the cross-chain transaction querying of Vo according to known methods (i.e. individually querying a plurality of blockchains holding a history of transactions and receiving responses). Motivation for doing so is that the benefits of blockchain system is that it improves the capacity of a blockchain-based system in terms of both storage and transaction throughput (Vo, [0020]).
Park, Perlman ad Vo do not explicitly teach sending, by the blockchain, a first notification to the second system in response to the first system generating the first ledger entries and selectively sending, by the blockchain, a second notification to the first system in response to the second system generating the second ledger entries, wherein the second notification is sent when the blockchain is updated according to a first status, and the second notification is not sent when the blockchain is updated according to a second status.
However, George teaches this (George, [0010] note the distributed ledger will be a blockchain with smart contracts, [0016] note the distributed ledger can make use of features like notifications mechanisms and consensus mechanisms for efficient handling of the issues. Notification mechanisms can be used for contact center A to get a notification when contact center B updates the ledger, [0074] note Notification rules 212 may define the notifications to be generated and to whom the notifications are sent. Notification rules 212 may generate new blocks for informational reporting, such as to stakeholders not involved in resolving the issue, step completion, such as to notify other parties that a particular task to resolve the issue has been completed. This may further cause workflow rules 210 to generate subsequent tasks, if so determined by workflow rules 210. Additionally or alternatively, notification rules 212 may determine the criteria for receiving data related to a particular issue or block, such as to maintain a record of actions taken, states of components, time/date of actions taken, or other recordkeeping and/or informational data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to combine the distributed ledger of Park, Perlman and Vo with the notification rules of George according to known methods (i.e. using notification rules to define the notifications to be generated and to whom the notifications are sent). Motivation for doing so is that the distributed ledger can make use of features like notifications mechanisms and consensus mechanisms for efficient handling of issues (George, [0016]).
Claim 3: Park, Perlman, Vo and George teach the method as in claim 1 wherein the first ledger entry entries of the blockchain comprise a blockchain transaction (Park, [0051] note A2 records transaction information on a distribution ledger).
Claim 5: Park, Perlman, Vo and George teach the method as in claim 1 wherein the blockchain comprises a one-way hash (Perlman, [Col. 13 Lines 7-14] note the current block 106-n includes… a hash of previous block 106-(n−1) that was previously added to the distributed ledger).
Claim 7: Park, Perlman, Vo and George teach the method as in claim 1 wherein the second content further comprises an identifier of the first and second interaction flows (Park, [0051] note he unique information refers to the ID No. of the transmission request, and the information of the transmission side block chain network may comprise an ID of a transmission side block chain network, a channel name of a transmission side block chain network and a form of a transmission side block chain network, and the information of the reception side block chain network may comprise an ID of a reception side block chain network and a channel name of a reception side block chain network).
Claim 9 Park, Perlman, Vo and George teach the method as in claim 1 wherein an in-memory database engine creates the first content (Perlman, [Col. 6 Lines 58-61] note at least portions of the transactions database 116 can additionally or alternatively be implemented as an in-memory database utilizing the memory 112 of the ledger maintenance node 102-1).
Claim 10: Park teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium embodying a computer program for performing a method, said method comprising:
a first system initiating a first interaction flow and receiving an instruction to communicate content across a system boundary with a second system performing a second interaction flow complementary to the first interaction flow, wherein the first and second interaction flows are cross-system processes each comprising a plurality of process steps (Park, [Fig. 1], [0051] note user A21 is linked to a node A2 constituting a first block chain network, user B11 is linked to a node B1 constituting a second block chain network, and user A21 wishes to have a transaction with user B11, [Fig. 5] note transmitting transactional information from a first block chain network to a second block chain network);
in response to the instruction and for each process step of the first interaction flow, the first system generating first ledger entries of a blockchain comprising content corresponding to a particular process step (Park, [0051] note In review of the examples of FIG. 1 and FIG. 5, user A21 is linked to a node A2 constituting a first block chain network, user B11 is linked to a node B1 constituting a second block chain network, and user A21 wishes to have a transaction with user B11. Here, note A2 records transaction information on a distribution ledger),
the first system communicating the first content across the system boundary to the second system through the blockchain (Park, [Fig. 1], [Fig. 4], [0052] note the first router may transmit transactional information to the second router using a predetermined form… the form of data exchange among routers is shown in FIG. 4);
in response to the first content from the first system and for each process step of the second interaction flow, the second system generating second ledger entries of the blockchain comprising second content corresponding to hash linking to the first content, a particular process step of the second interaction flow, the second system communicating the second content to the first system through the blockchain (Park, [Fig. 5], [0054] note node B4 records the transaction request in the corresponding distribution ledger, and node B1 which is linked to user B11 may verify the transactional information with user B11, [0043] note a second block chain network wishes to share data with a first block chain network, [0032] note each of the blocks constituting the block chain of the present invention is linked in a form of a Hash Chain. That is, nth block stores a hash value of n-1th block; i.e. the nth block storing a hash value of the n-1th block reads on a second ledger entry comprising second content corresponding to a hash linking to the first content),
wherein the blockchain is a distributed storage platform comprising individual distributed computing devices connected in a chain (Park, [0051] note a distribution ledger, [0036] note a first router may be connected to one node (A3) constituting a first block chain network, as a separate node distinguished from nodes (A1, A2, A3) constituting a first block chain network, [0037] note a second router may be connected to one node (B4) constituting a second block chain network, as a separate node distinguished from nodes (B1, B2, B3, B4) constituting a second block chain network).
Park does not explicitly teach unique timestamps and unique keys; and receiving, in the blockchain, a first query from the first system and a second query from the second system, wherein the first query and the second query return a history of interactions for the first and second interaction flow; and sending, by the blockchain, a first notification to the second system in response to the first system generating the first ledger entries and selectively sending, by the blockchain, a second notification to the first system in response to the second system generating the second ledger entries, wherein the second notification is sent when the blockchain is updated according to a first status, and the second notification is not sent when the blockchain is updated according to a second status.
However, Perlman teaches unique timestamps and unique keys (Perlman, [Col. 6 Line 67]-[Col. 7 Lines 1-3] note cryptographic keys 122 more particularly comprise respective private keys for generating digital signatures on blocks 106 to be added to the distributed ledger 105 within the system 100, [Fig. 4], [Col. 13] Lines 7-13] note the current block 106-n includes… a timestamp indicating the time at which the block was created, [Col. 6 Lines 58-61] note at least portions of the transactions database 116 can additionally or alternatively be implemented as an in-memory database utilizing the memory 112 of the ledger maintenance node 102-1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to combine the distributed ledger of Park with the keys and timestamps of Perlman according to known methods (i.e. generating respective keys and timestamps on blocks to be added to a distributed ledger). Motivation for doing so is that can provide significant advantages in maintenance of blockchains and other types of distributed ledgers in a wide variety of different contexts (Perlman, [Col. 1 Lines 36-38]).
Park and Perlman do not explicitly teach receiving, in the blockchain, a first query from the first system and a second query from the second system, wherein the first query and the second query return a history of interactions for the first and second interaction flow; and sending, by the blockchain, a first notification to the second system in response to the first system generating the first ledger entries and selectively sending, by the blockchain, a second notification to the first system in response to the second system generating the second ledger entries, wherein the second notification is sent when the blockchain is updated according to a first status, and the second notification is not sent when the blockchain is updated according to a second status.
However, Vo teaches receiving, in the blockchain, a first query from the first system and a second query from the second system, wherein the first query and the second query return a history of interactions for the first and second interaction flow (Vo, [0020] note the system includes a mixed blockchain chain that retrieves data from multiple blockchains and executes cross-chain transactions by leveraging the data from the multiple blockchain, [0025] note using permissioned blockchain (e.g., Hyperledger Fabric) to hold a transaction history of a business network; i.e. a transaction history reads on a history of interactions, [0045] note master chain 410 may also include a query federator smart contract 418 that is responsible for handling queries, [0055] note individually querying the plurality of blockchains to determine at least one blockchain storing data for the blockchain transaction; i.e. the examiner interprets individually querying reads on a first query and a second query, [0061] note the query federator may interact with network information and the network interface of the system to transmit queries to other blockchains systems and receive responses).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to combine the distributed ledger of Park and Perlman with the cross-chain transaction querying of Vo according to known methods (i.e. individually querying a plurality of blockchains holding a history of transactions and receiving responses). Motivation for doing so is that the benefits of blockchain system is that it improves the capacity of a blockchain-based system in terms of both storage and transaction throughput (Vo, [0020]).
Park, Perlman ad Vo do not explicitly teach sending, by the blockchain, a first notification to the second system in response to the first system generating the first ledger entries and selectively sending, by the blockchain, a second notification to the first system in response to the second system generating the second ledger entries, wherein the second notification is sent when the blockchain is updated according to a first status, and the second notification is not sent when the blockchain is updated according to a second status.
However, George teaches this (George, [0010] note the distributed ledger will be a blockchain with smart contracts, [0016] note the distributed ledger can make use of features like notifications mechanisms and consensus mechanisms for efficient handling of the issues. Notification mechanisms can be used for contact center A to get a notification when contact center B updates the ledger, [0074] note Notification rules 212 may define the notifications to be generated and to whom the notifications are sent. Notification rules 212 may generate new blocks for informational reporting, such as to stakeholders not involved in resolving the issue, step completion, such as to notify other parties that a particular task to resolve the issue has been completed. This may further cause workflow rules 210 to generate subsequent tasks, if so determined by workflow rules 210. Additionally or alternatively, notification rules 212 may determine the criteria for receiving data related to a particular issue or block, such as to maintain a record of actions taken, states of components, time/date of actions taken, or other recordkeeping and/or informational data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to combine the distributed ledger of Park, Perlman and Vo with the notification rules of George according to known methods (i.e. using notification rules to define the notifications to be generated and to whom the notifications are sent). Motivation for doing so is that the distributed ledger can make use of features like notifications mechanisms and consensus mechanisms for efficient handling of issues (George, [0016]).
Claim 11: Park, Perlman, Vo and George teach the non-transitory computer readable storage medium as in claim 10 wherein the blockchain comprises a one-way hash (Perlman, [Col. 13 Lines 7-14] note the current block 106-n includes… a hash of previous block 106-(n−1) that was previously added to the distributed ledger).
Claim 14: Park, Perlman, Vo and George teach the non-transitory computer readable storage medium as in claim 10 wherein the second content further comprises an identifier of the first and second interaction flows (Park, [0051] note he unique information refers to the ID No. of the transmission request, and the information of the transmission side block chain network may comprise an ID of a transmission side block chain network, a channel name of a transmission side block chain network and a form of a transmission side block chain network, and the information of the reception side block chain network may comprise an ID of a reception side block chain network and a channel name of a reception side block chain network).
Claim 15: Park teaches a computer system comprising: one or more processors; a software program, executable on said computer system, the software program configured to cause a first system to:
initiate a first interaction flow and receive an instruction to communicate content across a system boundary to a second system through a blockchain, the second system configured to perform a second interaction flow complementary to the first interaction flow, wherein the first and second interaction flows are cross-system processes each comprising a plurality of process steps (Park, [0051] note In review of the examples of FIG. 1 and FIG. 5, user A21 is linked to a node A2 constituting a first block chain network, user B11 is linked to a node B1 constituting a second block chain network, and user A21 wishes to have a transaction with user B11. Here, note A2 records transaction information on a distribution ledger);
in response to the instruction and for each process step of the first interaction flow, the first system configured to generate first ledger entries of the blockchain comprising first content corresponding to a particular process step Park, [0051] note In review of the examples of FIG. 1 and FIG. 5, user A21 is linked to a node A2 constituting a first block chain network, user B11 is linked to a node B1 constituting a second block chain network, and user A21 wishes to have a transaction with user B11. Here, note A2 records transaction information on a distribution ledger),
the first system communicating the first content across the system boundary to the second system through the blockchain (Park, [Fig. 1], [Fig. 4], [0052] note the first router may transmit transactional information to the second router using a predetermined form… the form of data exchange among routers is shown in FIG. 4); and
in response to the first content from the first system and for each process step of the second interaction flow, the second system is configured to generate second ledger entries of the blockchain comprising second content corresponding toa hash linking to the first content, a particular process step of the second interaction flow, the second system configured to communicate second content across to the first system through the blockchain (Park, [Fig. 5], [0054] note node B4 records the transaction request in the corresponding distribution ledger, and node B1 which is linked to user B11 may verify the transactional information with user B11, [0043] note a second block chain network wishes to share data with a first block chain network, [0032] note each of the blocks constituting the block chain of the present invention is linked in a form of a Hash Chain. That is, nth block stores a hash value of n-1th block; i.e. the nth block storing a hash value of the n-1th block reads on a second ledger entry comprising second content corresponding to a hash linking to the first content),
wherein the blockchain is a distributed storage platform comprising individual distributed computing devices connected in a chain (Park, [0051] note a distribution ledger, [0036] note a first router may be connected to one node (A3) constituting a first block chain network, as a separate node distinguished from nodes (A1, A2, A3) constituting a first block chain network, [0037] note a second router may be connected to one node (B4) constituting a second block chain network, as a separate node distinguished from nodes (B1, B2, B3, B4) constituting a second block chain network).
Park does not explicitly teach unique timestamps, and unique keys; generate a first query, wherein the first query from the first system and a second query generated by the second system are received in the blockchain, and wherein the first query and the second query return a history of interactions for the first and second interaction flow to the first system and second system; and wherein the blockchain is configured to send a first notification to the second system in response to the first system generating the first ledger entries, wherein the blockchain is configured to selectively send a second notification to the first system in response to the second system generating the second ledger entries, wherein the second notification is sent when the blockchain is updated according to a first status, and the second notification is not sent when the blockchain is updated according to a second status.
However, Perlman teaches unique timestamps, and unique keys (Perlman, [Col. 6 Line 67]-[Col. 7 Lines 1-3] note cryptographic keys 122 more particularly comprise respective private keys for generating digital signatures on blocks 106 to be added to the distributed ledger 105 within the system 100, [Fig. 4], [Col. 13] Lines 7-13] note the current block 106-n includes… a timestamp indicating the time at which the block was created, [Col. 6 Lines 58-61] note at least portions of the transactions database 116 can additionally or alternatively be implemented as an in-memory database utilizing the memory 112 of the ledger maintenance node 102-1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to combine the distributed ledger of Park with the keys and timestamps of Perlman according to known methods (i.e. generating respective keys and timestamps on blocks to be added to a distributed ledger). Motivation for doing so is that can provide significant advantages in maintenance of blockchains and other types of distributed ledgers in a wide variety of different contexts (Perlman, [Col. 1 Lines 36-38]).
Park and Perlman do not explicitly teach generate a first query, wherein the first query from the first system and a second query generated by the second system are received in the blockchain, and wherein the first query and the second query return a history of interactions for the first and second interaction flow to the first system and second system; and wherein the blockchain is configured to send a first notification to the second system in response to the first system generating the first ledger entries, wherein the blockchain is configured to selectively send a second notification to the first system in response to the second system generating the second ledger entries, wherein the second notification is sent when the blockchain is updated according to a first status, and the second notification is not sent when the blockchain is updated according to a second status.
However, Vo teaches generate a first query, wherein the first query from the first system and a second query generated by the second system are received in the blockchain, and wherein the first query and the second query return a history of interactions for the first and second interaction flow to the first system and second system (Vo, [0020] note the system includes a mixed blockchain chain that retrieves data from multiple blockchains and executes cross-chain transactions by leveraging the data from the multiple blockchain, [0025] note using permissioned blockchain (e.g., Hyperledger Fabric) to hold a transaction history of a business network; i.e. a transaction history reads on a history of interactions, [0045] note master chain 410 may also include a query federator smart contract 418 that is responsible for handling queries, [0055] note individually querying the plurality of blockchains to determine at least one blockchain storing data for the blockchain transaction; i.e. the examiner interprets individually querying reads on a first query and a second query, [0061] note the query federator may interact with network information and the network interface of the system to transmit queries to other blockchains systems and receive responses).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to combine the distributed ledger of Park and Perlman with the cross-chain transaction querying of Vo according to known methods (i.e. individually querying a plurality of blockchains holding a history of transactions and receiving responses). Motivation for doing so is that the benefits of blockchain system is that it improves the capacity of a blockchain-based system in terms of both storage and transaction throughput (Vo, [0020]).
Park, Perlman and Vo do not explicitly teach wherein the blockchain is configured to send a first notification to the second system in response to the first system generating the first ledger entries, wherein the blockchain is configured to selectively send a second notification to the first system in response to the second system generating the second ledger entries, wherein the second notification is sent when the blockchain is updated according to a first status, and the second notification is not sent when the blockchain is updated according to a second status.
However, George teaches this (George, [0010] note the distributed ledger will be a blockchain with smart contracts, [0016] note the distributed ledger can make use of features like notifications mechanisms and consensus mechanisms for efficient handling of the issues. Notification mechanisms can be used for contact center A to get a notification when contact center B updates the ledger, [0074] note Notification rules 212 may define the notifications to be generated and to whom the notifications are sent. Notification rules 212 may generate new blocks for informational reporting, such as to stakeholders not involved in resolving the issue, step completion, such as to notify other parties that a particular task to resolve the issue has been completed. This may further cause workflow rules 210 to generate subsequent tasks, if so determined by workflow rules 210. Additionally or alternatively, notification rules 212 may determine the criteria for receiving data related to a particular issue or block, such as to maintain a record of actions taken, states of components, time/date of actions taken, or other recordkeeping and/or informational data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to combine the distributed ledger of Park, Perlman and Vo with the notification rules of George according to known methods (i.e. using notification rules to define the notifications to be generated and to whom the notifications are sent). Motivation for doing so is that the distributed ledger can make use of features like notifications mechanisms and consensus mechanisms for efficient handling of issues (George, [0016]).
Claim 18: Park, Perlman, Vo and George teach the computer system as in claim 17 wherein the blockchain comprises a one-way hash (Perlman, [Col. 13 Lines 7-14] note the current block 106-n includes… a hash of previous block 106-(n−1) that was previously added to the distributed ledger).
Claim 20: Park, Perlman, Vo and George teach the computer system as in claim 15 wherein an in-memory database engine is further configured to create the first content (Perlman, [Col. 6 Lines 58-61] note at least portions of the transactions database 116 can additionally or alternatively be implemented as an in-memory database utilizing the memory 112 of the ledger maintenance node 102-1).
Claims 2, 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, Perlman, Vo and George in further view of Tobin et al., US 2022/0103584 A1 (hereinafter “Tobin”).
Claim 2: Park, Perlman, Vo and George do not explicitly teach the method as in claim 1 wherein the system boundary comprises a firewall.
However, Tobin teaches this (Tobin, [0002] note Blockchains take different forms, and may comprise a distributed, public or centralized ledger that acts as a single source of truth for information, [Fig. 1], [0034] note nodes 1, 2, 3 . . . n 101 share information between each other via router 104. Each node 101 individually communicates information to the router 104, depicted by router connections 103. The router 104 then communicates with the Internet 106 through a separate connection 105, [0044] note A network appliance, such as a firewall, participating in the blockchain can serve as a centralized enforcement point for remediation tactics).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to combine the data sharing between block chain networks of Park, Perlman, Vo and George with the firewall of Tobin according to known methods (i.e. using a firewall for participating in the blockchain that can serve as a centralized enforcement point for remediation tactics). Motivation for doing so is that this may be leveraged to improve security and reliability in further contexts (Tobin, [0065]).
Claim 13: Park, Perlman, Vo and George do not explicitly teach the non-transitory computer readable storage medium as in claim 10 wherein the system boundary comprises a firewall.
However, Tobin teaches this (Tobin, [0002] note Blockchains take different forms, and may comprise a distributed, public or centralized ledger that acts as a single source of truth for information, [Fig. 1], [0034] note nodes 1, 2, 3 . . . n 101 share information between each other via router 104. Each node 101 individually communicates information to the router 104, depicted by router connections 103. The router 104 then communicates with the Internet 106 through a separate connection 105, [0044] note A network appliance, such as a firewall, participating in the blockchain can serve as a centralized enforcement point for remediation tactics).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to combine the data sharing between block chain networks of Park, Perlman, Vo and George with the firewall of Tobin according to known methods (i.e. using a firewall for participating in the blockchain that can serve as a centralized enforcement point for remediation tactics). Motivation for doing so is that this may be leveraged to improve security and reliability in further contexts (Tobin, [0065]).
Claim 16: Park, Perlman, Vo and George do not explicitly teach the computer system as in claim 15 wherein the system boundary comprises a firewall.
However, Tobin teaches this (Tobin, [0002] note Blockchains take different forms, and may comprise a distributed, public or centralized ledger that acts as a single source of truth for information, [Fig. 1], [0034] note nodes 1, 2, 3 . . . n 101 share information between each other via router 104. Each node 101 individually communicates information to the router 104, depicted by router connections 103. The router 104 then communicates with the Internet 106 through a separate connection 105, [0044] note A network appliance, such as a firewall, participating in the blockchain can serve as a centralized enforcement point for remediation tactics).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to combine the data sharing between block chain networks of Park, Perlman, Vo and George with the firewall of Tobin according to known methods (i.e. using a firewall for participating in the blockchain that can serve as a centralized enforcement point for remediation tactics). Motivation for doing so is that this may be leveraged to improve security and reliability in further contexts (Tobin, [0065]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Giuseppi Giuliani whose telephone number is (571)270-7128. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Kavita Stanley can be reached at (571)272-8352. 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.
/GIUSEPPI GIULIANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153
Prosecution Insights