DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
This Office action is responsive to the communications filed December 12, 2025. Claims 1-17 were amended. Claims 1-17 are pending.
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant has amended the claims, thereby overcoming the 35 U.S.C 112(b) of claims 1-8, 10, and 12.
2. Applicant has amended the claims, thereby overcoming the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
3. Applicant amended claims 1 and 5-8, thereby the claim objection has been withdrawn.
4. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of the claims have been considered, but are moot in light of the new ground of rejection necessitated by the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Specifically, claim1 recites “broadcasting the first transaction in a first blockchain in a distributed ledger…,” which is unclear. It is known that the blockchain is a distributed ledger. Is the blockchain included in another blockchain?
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2022/0327538 to Kumar et al. (“Kumar”) in view of CN-111460395 to Cui et al. (“Cui”), US 2019/0305966 to Qui (“Qui”), WO 2019/116184 to Chan et al. (“Chan”) and 2019/0267119 to Witchey (“Witchey”).
As per claim 1, Kumar discloses a plurality of nodes wherein at least one of the plurality of nodes comprises: at least one hybrid node, wherein the at least one hybrid node comprises (paragraph [0062]);
a device processor (paragraph [0058]); and
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing one or more sequences of instructions, which, when executed by the device processor, causes (paragraph [0058]);
generating the first transaction by defining at least one input transaction, at least one output transaction, or at least one data element (Fig. 12);
creating a Lineage table (Fig. 14 – World State DB)
storing the first element associated with the first transaction in the lineage table, wherein the lineage table stores a version history of at least one transaction using a linked list structure comprising a plurality of elements (Fig. 16);
extracting, from the Lineage table, the linked list associated with the first transaction by identifying a row corresponding to a transaction identifier of the first transaction (paragraph [0101]);and
creating a new element associated with the second transaction in the Lineage table (Fig. 16);
appending the new element associated with the second transaction into the linked list (Fig. 14).
Kumar does not expressly disclose broadcasting the first transaction in the a first blockchain in a distributed ledger that comprises the first blockchain and a second blockchain;
creating a Lineage table stored in a distributed Interplanetary file system that is distributed across the plurality of nodes and is communicatively connected with the plurality of nodes through a network, a first element associated with the first transaction;
verifying ensuring that none of the output transactions in the first transaction have been spent by at least one beneficiary;
updating, based on the verification, the at least one output transaction and the at least one data element of the first transaction to generate a second transaction as an updated version of the first transaction;
broadcasting the second transaction in the second blockchain in the distributed ledger, wherein the immutability of both the first blockchain and the second blockchain is preserved because the first transaction in the first blockchain and the second transaction in the second blockchain remains unmodified, thereby ensuring that the table-driven blockchain system does not introduce the cryptographic weakness
creating a new element associated with the second transaction in the Lineage table;
and
appending the new element associated with the second transaction into the linked list by updating a pointer of a last element of the linked list to link the new element as the last element of the linked list representing the updated version of the first transaction in the lineage table, thereby maintaining the version history of the first transaction in the Lineage table without modifying the first transaction in the first blockchain,
wherein any subsequent transaction enabled by the at least one beneficiary is based on the updated version of the first transaction by retrieving the last element of the linked list.
Qui discloses broadcasting the first transaction in the a first blockchain in a distributed ledger that comprises the first blockchain and a second blockchain;
broadcasting the second transaction in the second blockchain in the distributed ledger, wherein the immutability of both the first blockchain and the second blockchain is preserved because the first transaction in the first blockchain and the second transaction in the second blockchain remains unmodified, thereby ensuring that the table-driven blockchain system does not introduce the cryptographic weakness (paragraph [0048])
Cui discloses creating a Lineage table stored in a distributed Interplanetary file system that is distributed across the plurality of nodes and is communicatively connected with the plurality of nodes through a network, a first element associated with the first transaction (see abstract);
Chan discloses verifying ensuring that none of the output transactions in the first transaction have been spent by at least one beneficiary;
updating, based on the verification, the at least one output transaction and the at least one data element of the first transaction to generate a second transaction as an updated version of the first transaction (paragraphs [0012] and [0019]);
extracting, from the Lineage table, the linked list associated with the first transaction by identifying a row corresponding to a transaction identifier of the fist transaction (abstract)
and
Witchey discloses updating a pointer of a last element of the linked list to link the new element as the last element of the linked list representing the updated version of the first transaction in the lineage table, thereby maintaining the version history of the first transaction in the Lineage table without modifying the first transaction in the first blockchain
wherein any subsequent transaction enabled by the at least one beneficiary is based on the updated version of the first transaction by retrieving the last element of the linked list (Fig. 1 and claim 42).
The “wherein clause” has been considered; however, it merely expresses the intended results. See MPEP§ 2111.04. It is not a step that needs to be performed and does not patentable distinguish over the disclosure of the prior art.
Functional recitation(s) using the word "for" or “thereby” have been considered but does not patentable distinguish the claims from the prior art because they fail to add any steps are thereby regarded as intend use language. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in additional steps. See Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Laboratories, Inc., 246 F.3d 1368, 1375-76, 58 USPQ2d 1508, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (Where the language in a method claim states only a purpose and intended result, the expression does not result in a manipulative difference in the steps of the claim.)
The claims recite the conditional /optional language “--or." Although the conditional/optional language has been considered, Applicants are reminded that optional or conditional elements do not narrow the claims because they can always be omitted. See MPEP §2111.04: "Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation."
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the elements of Cui, Qui , Chan and Witchey into the system Kumar. Hence, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 2, Kumar in combination with Cui, Qui , Chan and Witchey disclose wherein the processor is configured to generate the first transaction by, collecting transaction details to prepare details of the at least one input transaction, and the at least one output transaction; determining details of the at least one input transaction by computing a transaction identifier a first index for the at least one input transaction and revealing the unlocking condition of the at least one input transaction, wherein an unlocking condition is a cryptographic signature; determining details of the at least one output transaction by computing a second index for the at least one output transaction and defining the unlocking condition of the at least one input transaction and a size of the unlocking condition; generating the first transaction using details of the at least one data element by (i) defining a public key and a size of the public key, (ii) defining and writing data into data value field of the first transaction and a size of the data into size value field of the first blockchain, and (iii) computing a signature and a size of the signature on the data value field of the first transaction; computing a number of input transactions and a number of output transactions to corresponding an input count field and an output count field; inserting a creation time stamp of the first transaction to a timestamp field and blockchain software version information in a version field; storing a hash of the at least one input transaction, the at least one output transaction and the at least one data element, as the transaction identifier; updating the LT table by creating the first entry by initializing the transaction identifier and computing the signature; and identifying a row corresponding to the transaction identifier in the LT table to store the first entry (see claim 1 above; Chan at Fig. 2 and Fig.6)
As per claim 3, Kumar in combination with Cui, Qui , Chan and Witchey disclose wherein the processor is configured to generating the second transaction by modifying the first transaction by, updating the first transaction based on the transaction details; adding the second entry in the LT table; determining the index of the blockchain that comprises a latest version of the second transaction; checking if the index is equal to the global variable, wherein the global variable is stored in the distributed Interplanetary file system and indicates a count of a number of blockchains in the table-driven blockchain system; updating the global variable by adding one if the index is equal to the global variable; creating the at least one second blockchain; preparing details of the at least one output transaction; preparing details of the at least one data element to write the data into a field of data value and a size of the data into a field of data size, wherein a public key and a size of the public key are defined to the at least one data element; assigning a value to the transaction identifier of the second transaction to compute a number of output transactions; initializing a number to a field of number of the blockchain; inserting a creation time stamp of the second transaction to the timestamp field and blockchain software version information in the version field; computing and storing the hash of the at least one input transaction and the at least one output transaction, as the transaction identifier; computing and storing the signature of the at least one input transaction and the at least one output transaction, in a field of transaction signature; broadcasting the second transaction that is created newly; updating the lineage table by initializing the transaction identifier of the second transaction and a pointer and computing the signature.
The claims recite the conditional /optional language “--if." Although the conditional/optional language has been considered, Applicants are reminded that optional or conditional elements do not narrow the claims because they can always be omitted. See MPEP §2111.04: "Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation."
Functional recitation(s) using the word "for" or other functional language (e.g. “to write,” “to compute,” “to extract”) have been considered, but does not patentable distinguish the claim from the prior art because they are regarded as intended use language. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed product must result in a structural difference between the claimed product and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it reads on the claimed limitation. In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) ("The manner or method in which such machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself."); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). See also MPEP §§ 2114 and 2115.
Also, the examiner notes that it is obvious to try by one of ordinary skill to perform the steps performed for the first entry for the second entry.
As per claim 4, Kumar in combination with Cui, Qui , Chan and Witchey disclose the processor is configured to verify the first transaction and the second transaction which represents the updated version of the first transaction in the table-driven blockchain by, collecting the transaction details of the transaction and aborting verification process if the transaction details are not found; checking if any of the at least one input transaction is for the verification if a value of block chain number field is one and checking if the script signature is present for all the input transactions; checking if any of the at least one output transaction is executed by a user when the hash of the first transaction is matched with the transaction identifier; checking if the signature on transaction content matches a value of transaction content signature field; checking if the hash of the first transaction content matches with a transaction identifier; checks if sum of all the amounts in the at least one output transaction is less than or equal to that in the amounts in the at least one input transaction; and verifying the signature on data value and values in other fields for correctness, thereby accepting the transaction (see claims 1 and 2 above; also Chan at abstract, paragraph [0029], [0050] and [0087]).
The claims recite the conditional /optional language “--if." Although the conditional/optional language has been considered, Applicants are reminded that optional or conditional elements do not narrow the claims because they can always be omitted. See MPEP §2111.04: "Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation."
As per claim 5, Kumar in combination with Cui, Qui , Chan and Witchey n disclose the processor is configured to create the at least one second block for the second blockchain of the table-driven blockchain by, collecting the transaction details and preparing a list of transactions; checking if each transaction in the list of transactions matches with same value for the value of blockchain number field; checking correctness of each transaction in the list of transactions; computing the number of transactions in the list of transactions if the correctness of each transaction and the matching in previous steps are successful and inserting the blockchain software version information in a field of software version and assigning the value of hash of the latest block in existing blockchain; computing a merkle root of the transactions and a puzzle; and preparing a header of the block in a format, and the block in the format (see claims 1 and 2 above; Chan paragraphs [0006] and [0007]).
The claims recite the conditional /optional language “--if." Although the conditional/optional language has been considered, Applicants are reminded that optional or conditional elements do not narrow the claims because they can always be omitted. See MPEP §2111.04: "Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation."
As per claim 6, Kumar in combination with Cui, Qui , Chan and Witchey disclose wherein the processor is configured to mine a first block of the first blockchain in the table-driven blockchain by, collecting all new transactions and preparing a list of all new transactions that are valid in one blockchain; computing a candidate block that comprises the list of transactions with the list of all new transactions that are valid; computing a solution of the puzzle as a nonce field; and computing and storing the hash of the header of the block and the size of the block. (see claims 1, 2, and 5 above).
As per claim 7, Kumar in combination with Cui, Qui , Chan and Witchey disclose the processor is configured to retrieve a latest version of the transaction of the table-driven blockchain by, collecting transaction details of the transaction; extracting the linked list for the transaction identifier in the lineage table, and verifying the signature stored in each element of the linked list; extracting the first element for the transaction and a last element of the transaction; extracting and verifying the transaction from the first blockchain, and the transaction from the ith blockchain; and extracting and returning the input transactions, the output transactions, and data elements from the input transactions, and the output transactions (see claim 1 above; also, Chan at paragraphs [00195], [0198]). Also, these operations are fundamental (e.g. extracting and returning data).
As per claim 8, Kumar in combination with Cui, Qui , Chan and Witchey disclose the processor is configured to retrieve all versions of the at least one transaction of the table-driven mutable blockchain by extracting the linked list for the transaction identifier in the lineage table, and verifying the signature stored in each element of the linked list; extracting and verifying elements for the transactions for blockchains in the linked list; extracting and verifying all the transactions from the blockchains in the linked list; extracting and returning the input transactions, the output transactions, the data elements, from the transactions. (see claim 1 above; a Chan at paragraphs [00195], [0198]). Also, these operations are fundamental (e.g. extracting and returning data).
Claims 10-16 are rejected on the same rationale as claims 2-8 above.
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 JALATEE WORJLOH whose telephone number is (571)272-6714. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:00am-2:00pm.
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, John Hayes can be reached at (571) 272-6708. 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.
/Jalatee Worjloh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights