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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to communication received on 1/15/2026. Claims 1-2, 5-16, and 29-30 are pending in this application. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed 4/8/2026 has been considered by the Examiner.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/15/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 15 are acknowledged. Applicant’s cancellation of claims 3-4 and 17-28 are acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
On Remarks pages 10-11, Applicant argues specific computer and network architecture and cites paragraphs 0101-0102 of Applicant’s specification for support of this argument. It is first noted much of argued specification is not reflected in Applicant’s claims. Rather as detailed below, the claims merely recite functions of storing information on different ledgers and verifying the information stored on different ledgers through an identifier or feature which are certain methods of organizing human activities. Therefore this is part of the abstract idea and is further detailed in the 101 rejection below.
The additional elements in claim 1 beyond the abstract idea, that the network and ledger is “blockchain”, the record is “blockchain”, one of the nodes is a device that comprises one or more processors and a memory, and the records within the ledger are “blocks”, and the identifier is “a cryptographic dash hash” merely results in apply it and generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed in the 101 rejection below.
Further as to Applicant’s arguments with respect to “cryptographic data hash” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Verifying the information stored on different ledgers through an identifier or feature are certain methods of organizing human activities. Therefore this is part of the abstract idea. The additional element that this identifier or feature is “cryptographic data hash” merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers. It is noted that the claims do not actually require performing cryptographic data hash, with the language “based on” this could be merely comparing results of the determination possibly at some later time, e.g. comparing two numbers or results or identifiers. Here Applicant does not recite an improvement in for example “cryptographic data hash” rather Applicant is merely using “cryptographic data hash” to implement the abstract idea, which is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Therefore the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/15/2026 with respect to the prior art are acknowledged however are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection in this office action (see newly cited prior art of O’Brien et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2018/0349968) and Dorward (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2022/0138791)).
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 1-2, 5-16 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-2 and 5-14 recite a process as the claims recite a method. Claims 15-16 recite a machine as the claims recite a data storage apparatus including processors. Claim 29 recites a machine as the claims recite an electronic device with a processor. Claim 30 recites an article of manufacture as the claims recite a non-transitory computer
readable medium being executed by a processor.
The claim(s) 1-2, 5-16 and 29-30 recite obtaining target data evaluation (like reviews), storing the data in multiple ledgers, and verifying the information stored in separate ledgers based on an identifier or feature, updating information stored in a first record in a first ledger and or second ledger based on historical data or identifiers.
The claims recite subject matter that is a fundamental economic practice, specifically obtaining target data evaluation (like reviews), storing the data in multiple ledgers, and verifying the information stored in separate ledgers based on an identifier or feature, updating information stored in a first record in a first ledger and or second ledger based on historical data or identifiers. Fundamental economic practices are certain methods of organizing human activity.
Certain methods of organizing human activity are in the groupings of enumerated abstracts ideas, and hence the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the
claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical
application in that the claims merely recite:
(1) Adding the words "apply it" ( or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or
mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a
computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), (2) Adding
insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), and or (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Specifically as recited in the claims:
As per claim 1, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity of obtaining target data evaluation (like reviews), storing the data in multiple ledgers, and verifying the information stored in separate ledgers based on an identifier or feature, updating information stored in a first record in a first ledger and or second ledger based on historical data or identifiers. This is part of the abstract idea.
Here a node is merely a connection between networks, where a network in its plain meaning is a very a broad term of a group or system of interconnected people or things, therefore this is part of the abstract idea as a user could be connected to two groups of people, groups of records or logs, etc. and store data with those different systems from which they are connected. Further it is a certain method of organizing human activity step to perform cross verification as someone could ask two different systems of people or records for information to make a determination based on identifiers. This is part of the abstract idea. It is further noted that the amended “wherein generating the first evaluation block and the second evaluation block comprises” is recited in the alternative therefore only one of the alternatives is required. Therefore if an argument is made that one of these is beyond the abstract idea, a practical application and or significantly more such an argument would be non-persuasive as it may not be required to be actually performed, as the claim is listed in the alternative. The above is part of the abstract idea.
The additional elements beyond the abstract idea, that the network and ledger is “blockchain”, the record is “blockchain”, software running on a computer to perform functions (one of the nodes is a device that comprises one or more processors and a memory), the records within the ledger are “blocks”, and the identifier is “a cryptographic dash hash” merely results in apply it. It is noted that the claims do not actually require performing cryptographic data hash, with the language “based on” this could be merely comparing results of the determination, e.g. comparing two numbers, results, or identifiers. This is a result oriented solution and lacks details as to how the computer performs the modifications, which is equivalent to the words apply it. The claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further here as broadly recited in the claims Applicant does not recite an improvement in blockchain, blocks, device nodes, or cryptographic data hash rather the claims merely recite using the computer or computer elements to implement the above abstract idea.
Further these above additional elements are considered no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the field of computers.
As per claim 2, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity steps, specifically, collecting target evaluation data like reviews and sorting the information in various records or ledgers. This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional elements that this is performed on the "blockchain" merely result in "apply it" or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above in claim 1.
As per claim 5, the claims recite certain method of organizing human activity steps, specifically setting the target user as the record identification for the record ledger, where records can be set in different ledgers. This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional elements that the records are "blocks" and the ledger is a "blockchain" merely result in "apply it" or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above in claim 1.
As per claim 6, the claims recite certain method of organizing human activities steps including encrypting and storing data in a records as broadly recited in the claims. This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional element that the encrypted text is "ciphertext" merely results in "apply it." Specifically the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Rather the claims recites only a result oriented solution as the claim limitations attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description for the mechanism for accomplishing the result other than the encrypted text being "ciphertext" which does not result in a practical application or significantly more. The claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Further these additional elements merely result in generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the field of computers.
Further this can be considered mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea.
As per claim 7, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity steps of storing purchase data in relation to the evaluations. This is part of the abstract idea. There are no additional elements beyond those discussed above in the claims from which the claim depends.
As per claim 8, the claims recite certain methods of human activities specifically sign a document, another user could verify that information with information they have and
store the information in response to verifying the information or determining its valid. This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional element that the signature information is "public" and "private" keys merely results in "apply it." Specifically the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Rather the claims recites only a result oriented solution as the claim limitations attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description for the mechanism for accomplishing the result other than the signature information is "public" and "private" keys which does not result in a practical application or significantly more. The claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a juridical exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Further these additional elements merely result in generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the field of computers.
Further this can be considered mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea.
As per claim 9, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activities specifically determine a diversity degree between reviews and based on meeting the diversity degree threshold store the information. This is part of the abstract idea. There are no additional elements beyond those previously discussed in claim 1.
As per claim 10, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically register with an entity and the registration process could be implemented by an algorithm, for example check to see if there is another user with the same name or credentials etc. This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional elements that the entity is a server and the algorithm is a zero-knowledge proof algorithm results in merely apply it.
Specifically the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Rather the claims recites only a result oriented solution as the claim limitations attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description for the mechanism for accomplishing the result other than the entity is a server and the algorithm is a zero-knowledge proof algorithm which does not result in a practical application or significantly more. The claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a juridical exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Further the additional elements merely result in generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the field of computers.
As per claim 11, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity of wherein the constraints of the algorithm are generated according to the identity of the target or information used by the user to provide the reviews. This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional elements that the algorithm is a zero-knowledge proof algorithm, the information is provided by the user from a "device information of a terminal device" and the constraints are a "proof circuit" results in merely apply it.
Specifically the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Rather the claims recites only a result oriented solution as the claim limitations attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description for the mechanism for accomplishing the result other than the algorithm is a zero-knowledge proof algorithm, the information is provided by the user from "device information of a terminal device" and the constraints are a "proof circuit" which does not result in a practical application or significantly more. The claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Further the additional elements merely result in generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the field of computers.
As per claim 12, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically the claims recite in response to storing the review triggering a benefit to the user based on the review. This is part of abstract idea.
The additional elements that the information is stored in a ledger that is "blockchain" merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed in claim 1.
As per claim 13, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically the claims recite in response to a cancellation request freezing permission from others for viewing the review data. This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional elements that the information is stored in a ledger that is "blockchain" merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed in claim 1.
As per claim 14, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activities, specifically the claims recite receiving a request for information including time, user identification and object identifiers of the reviews, obtaining information from storage according to the request and upon determining the information is identical returning the information to the requesting party. This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional elements that the information is in a ledger that is "blockchain" merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed in claim 1 .
As per claim 15, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity steps of obtaining target data evaluation (like reviews), storing the data in multiple ledgers, verifying the information stored in separate ledgers based on an identifier or feature, updating information stored in a first record in a first ledger or second ledger based on historical data, target evaluations, and or identifiers. This is part of the abstract idea.
Here a node is merely a connection between networks, where a network in its plain meaning is a very a broad term of a group or system of interconnected people or things, therefore this is part of the abstract idea as a user could be connected to two groups of people, groups of records or logs, etc. and store data with those different systems from which they are connected. Further it is a certain method of organizing human activity step to perform cross verification as someone could ask two different systems of people or records for information to make a determination based on identifiers. This is part of the abstract idea. It is further noted that the amended “wherein generating the first evaluation block and the second evaluation block comprises” is recited in the alternative therefore only one of the alternatives is required. Therefore if an argument is made that one of these is beyond the abstract idea, a practical application and or significantly more such an argument would be non-persuasive as it may not be required to be actually performed, as the claim is listed in the alternative.
The additional elements beyond the abstract idea, that the network and ledger is “blockchain”, the record is “blockchain”, one of the nodes is a “device comprises one or more processors and a memory”, and being performed by a “data storage apparatus” which “comprises one or more processors configured to”, the records within the ledger are “blocks”, and the identifier is “a cryptographic dash hash” merely results in apply it. It is noted that the claims do not actually require performing cryptographic data hash, with the language “based on” this could be merely comparing results of the determination, e.g. comparing two numbers, results, or identifiers. This is a result oriented solution and lacks details as to how the computer performs the modifications, which is equivalent to the words apply it.
The claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further here as broadly recited in the claims Applicant does not recite an improvement in blockchain, blocks, device nodes, or cryptographic data hash rather the claims merely recite using the computer or computer elements to implement the abstract idea.
Further these additional elements are considered no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the field of computers.
As per claim 16, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity of collecting target evaluation data like reviews and sorting the information in various records or ledgers. This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional elements that this is performed on the "blockchain" merely result in
"apply it" or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above in claim 16.
As per claim 29, the claims recite performing a method of claim 1 which as discussed above in claim 1 are include certain methods of organizing human activities. This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional elements that this method that includes certain methods of organizing human activity are instead recited as being performed by "an electronic device comprising: a processor; a memory used to sore processor executable instructions; wherein the processor is configured to implement the method according to" merely recite "apply it." The claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Further these above additional elements merely result in generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the field of computers.
As per claim 30, the claims recite performing a method of claim 1 which as discussed above in claim 1 which include certain methods of organizing human activities steps. This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional elements that these certain method of organizing human activities are instead recited as being performed by a "a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium on which a computer program is stored, wherein, when the program is executed by a processor, the computer program implements steps of the method according to" merely recite "apply it."
The claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Further additional elements that certain methods of organizing human activities are instead recited as being performed on by ""a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium on which a computer program is stored, wherein, when the program is executed by a processor, the computer program implements steps of the method according to" merely result in generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the field of computers.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of an inventive concept ("significantly more") in that the claims merely recite: (1) Adding the words "apply it" ( or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), and (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) as detailed above under the practical application step.
Further, the claims merely recite (a) Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo).
Specifically as recited in the claims:
As per claim 6, using "ciphertext"
- Gligor et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US
2001/0033656) paragraph 0006 "Also well known in the art are other
encryption schemes, such as he plaintext-ciphertext Block Chaining (PCBC)
(viz., C. H. Meyer and S. M. Matyas: "Cryptography; A New Dimension in
Computer Data Security", John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1982 (second
printing)), stateful or counter-based (XORC), and stateless (XOR$), XOR
schemes (viz., M. Bellare, A. Desai, E. Jokipii, and P. Rogaway: "A Concrete
Security Treatment of Symmetric Encryption," Proceedings of the 38th
Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, IEEE, 1997, pp. 394-403),
and the "infinite garble extension" (viz., C. M. Campbell: "Design and Specification of Cryptographic Capabilities," in Computer Security and the
Data Encryption Standard, (D. K. Brandstad (ed.)) National Bureau of
Standards Special Publications 500-27, U.S. Department of Commerce,
February 1978, pp. 54-66). The encryption and decryption equations of these
schemes illustrate in a brief manner how these schemes use F.sub.K, a block
cipher F with key K, and its inverse F.sup.-1.sub.K, to process the plaintext
and ciphertext blocks of a message or data."
- Henry et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US
2004/0208318) paragraph 0009 "The field of information security that
provides us with techniques and means to encode data so that it can only be
decoded by specified individuals is known as cryptography. When particularly
applied to protecting information that is stored on or transmitted between
computers, cryptography most often is utilized to transform sensitive
information (known in the art as "plaintext" or "cleartext") into an intelligible
form (known in the art as "ciphertext"). The transformation process of
converting plaintext into ciphertext is called "encryption," "enciphering," or
"ciphering" and the reverse transformation process of converting ciphertext
back into plaintext is referred to as "decryption," "deciphering," or "inverse
ciphering."
- Batthish et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US
2005/0160292) paragraph 0057 "As indicated above, the content itself can be
encrypted using the previously derived encryption key. Various algorithms
can be used to encrypt the content with the encryption key, including the Data Encryption Standard (DES), Triple-DES, RC2 and AES algorithms. As will be
known to those of skill in the art, content is generally encrypted by mapping a
string of octets, comprising the content, to another string of octets, often
referred to as "the ciphertext", under the control of the content encryption key.
Depending on the size of the content, padding may be added to increase the
content to an appropriate size multiple to facilitate encryption.
As per claim 8, verifying or validating information through public and
private keys
- Geiger et al. (United States Patent US 6,377,810) column 2 liens 65-
column 3 lines 15) teaches "This produces as output a finite length bit
string(s) which is a digital signature. The second part of such an algorithm is
the verification part. The cryptographic algorithm has the property that an
entity with the public key mathematically related, in a manner well known in
the art of public key cryptography, to the signer's private key may verify that
the holder of such a private key actually digitally signed the message. This
verification is commonly done by once again hashing the message and then
running this output through the verification part. Input to the verification part
includes the message hash, (supposed) signer's public key, and the digital
signature. The verification part outputs either valid or invalid. An output of
valid indicates that the holder of the private key mathematically related to the
public key actually produced this digital signature with the corresponding
private key as input to the signing part of the cryptographic algorithm. In
practice the public key is bound to an entity by a certification process, which is well known in the art of public key infrastructures. This certification process
binds an identifier or name for an entity to a public key in the form of a
certificate, as is well known in the art."
- Lord et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US
2003/0066091) paragraph 0041 "as is well known in the art, it is possible to
user a private key to generate a signature and a public key to verify a
signature. This is a crucial part of digitally signing any data. "
- Mimatsu (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US
2009/0177721) paragraph 0043 "Also, private key 1305 may be used to
create a digital signature to be included with data exported, and public key
1306 may be used to verify a digital signature on data imported in a manner
known in the art"
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 5 depends off of claim 3 which is a cancelled claim, therefore the claim does not reference a claim previously set forth. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
For the purposes of this examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to depend from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-8, 14-16, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being unpatentable over O’Brien et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2018/0349968)
As per claim 1, O’Brien et al. teaches A data storage method, performed by a node device deployed with a blockchain node, wherein the node device comprises one or more processors and a memory, (see paragraphs 0076, Examiner’s note: software running on a computer to perform operations).
wherein a user blockchain network comprises the blockchain node and one or more user nodes, and an object blockchain network comprises the block chain node and one or more object nodes, and each of the user nodes or the object nodes is deployed on a node device, the user blockchain network stores evaluation data generated by evaluation behavior of a target user on at least one object, and the object blockchain network stores evaluation data generated by at least one user performing evaluation behavior on the target object, the method comprises: (see paragraphs 0017-0022, Examiner’s note: here teaches each of the user device, retailer system, supplier system, and review web service system may be a node of a distributed ledger and or database (which is defined as blockchains, see paragraph 0017) and may contain a subset of data from the distributed database of customers review and or transactions records (see paragraphs 0017-0021), and then paragraph 0022 teaches one of or more of these devices may be used to generate updates and verify the validity of updates to the system. So here you have different blockchains information stored on different devices used to update and verify information in the system for different reviews).
obtaining target evaluation data on a target object, the target evaluation data being generated by the target user performing target evaluation behavior on the target object; storing the target evaluation data separately to the user blockchain network and the object blockchain network through the blockchain node, and performing cross verification between the target evaluation data stored separately in the user blockchain network and the object blockchain network based on cryptographic data Hash; wherein storing the target evaluation data comprises: generating a first evaluation block and a second evaluation block respectively based on the target evaluation data; updating the first evaluation block to a first blockchain ledger maintained by the user blockchain network, and updating the second evaluation block to a second blockchain ledger maintained by the object blockchain network; wherein generating the first evaluation block and the second evaluation block comprises: (see paragraphs 0032, 0037, and 0051-0054, Examiner’s note: teaches one or more nodes can update the records where records are updated and based on hashing).
generating the first evaluation block based on first historical evaluation data and the target evaluation data, and generating the second evaluation block based on second historical evaluation data and the target evaluation data; or, generating the first evaluation block based on cryptographic data Hash of the first historical evaluation data and the target evaluation data, and generating the second evaluation block based on cryptographic data Hash of the second historical evaluation data and the target evaluation data; wherein the first historical evaluation data was generated by the target user performing a first historical evaluation behavior on at least one object before the target evaluation behavior, and the second historical evaluation data was generated by at least one user performing a second historical evaluation behavior on the target object before the target evaluation behavior. (see paragraphs 0032, 0037, and 0051-0054, Examiner’s note: teaches one or more nodes can update the records where records are updated and based on hashing, and historical (past information), it is noted this is listed in the alternative therefore only requiring one to be performed as claimed.).
As per claim 2, O’Brien teaches
wherein the blockchain node comprises a first blockchain node in the user blockchain network and a second blockchain node in the object blockchain network, wherein storing the target evaluation data comprises: (see paragraphs 0017-0022, Examiner’s note: here teaches each of the user device, retailer system, supplier system, and review web service system may be a node of distributed ledger and or database (which is defined as blockchains, see paragraph 0017) and may contain a subset of data from the distributed database of customers review and or transactions records (see paragraphs 0017-0021), and then paragraph 0022 teaches one of or more of these devices may be used to generate updates and verify the validity of updates to the system. So here you have different blockchains information stored on different devices used to update and verify information in the system for different reviews).
storing the target evaluation data to the user blockchain network through the first blockchain node, and storing the target evaluation data to the object blockchain network through the second blockchain node. (see paragraphs 0032, 0037, 0051-0054, Examiner’s note: teaches one or more nodes can update the records where records are updated and based on hashing).
As per claim 5, O’Brien teaches
further comprising: setting identity information of the target user as a ledger identification of the first blockchain ledger, wherein the first evaluation block is a first block of the first blockchain ledger; or, setting identification information of the target object as a ledger identification of the second blockchain ledger, wherein the second evaluation block is a first block of the second blockchain ledger (see paragraphs 0043, 0054-0055, Examiner’s note: listed in the alternative here shows including user information in a record and shows the different blocks including the first block).
As per claim 6, O’Brien teaches
wherein storing the target evaluation data comprises: encrypting the target evaluation data and storing the encrypted ciphertext evaluation data (see paragraph 0031, Examiner’s note: product review can be encrypted).
As per claim 7, O’Brien teaches
wherein storing the target evaluation data-comprises: obtaining target purchase data corresponding to the target evaluation behavior, the target purchase data being generated by the target user performing target purchase behavior on the target object; the target purchase data with the target evaluation data (see paragraphs 0025-0026 and 0028-0029, Examiner’s note: teaches determining purchase information to provide product reviews).
As per claim 8, O’Brien teaches
wherein a signature generated from a private key of the target user is added by a client of the target user to the target evaluation data comprise a signature generated by a client of the target user from a private key of the target user, and storing the target evaluation data comprises: verifying the signature with a public key of the client; in response to the signature is verified, storing the target evaluation data (see paragraphs 0050, 0052, and 0055-0056, Examiner’s note: using public and private keys to provide reviews).
As per claim 14, O’Brien teaches
further comprising: receiving a data acquisition request initiated by a requesting party for an evaluation behavior, the acquisition request comprising time information of the evaluation behavior, a user identification of a user who implemented the evaluation behavior, and an object identification of a corresponding object of the evaluation behavior; obtaining a stored first to-be-verified data from the user blockchain network based on the time information and the object identification, and obtaining a stored second to-be-verified data from the object blockchain network based on the time information and the user identification; upon determination that the first to-be-verified data and the second to-be-verified data are identical, returning the data to the requesting party (see paragraphs 0043 and 0054-0055, Examiner’s note: record includes time, product, and user, and then sending the information to nodes to confirm any changes (see paragraphs 0054-0055) to determine it has not been modified).
As per claim 15, O’Brien teaches A data storage apparatus, applied to a node device deployed with a blockchain node, (see paragraphs 0076, Examiner’s note: software running on a computer to perform operations).
wherein the node device comprises one or more processors and a memory, wherein a user blockchain network comprises the blockchain node and one or more user nodes, and an object blockchain network comprises the block chain node and one or more object nodes, and each of the user nodes or the object nodes is deployed on a node device, the user blockchain network stores evaluation data generated by evaluation behavior of a target user on at least one object, and the object blockchain network stores evaluation data generated by at least one user performing evaluation behavior on the target object, and the apparatus comprises one or more processors configured to: (see paragraphs 0017-0022, Examiner’s note: here teaches each of the user device, retailer system, supplier system, and review web service system may be a node of distributed ledger and or database (which is defined as blockchains, see paragraph 0017) and may contain a subset of data from the distributed database of customers review and or transactions records (see paragraphs 0017-0021), and then paragraph 0022 teaches one of or more of these devices may be used to generate updates and verify the validity of updates to the system. So here you have different blockchains information stored on different devices used to update and verify information in the system for different reviews).
obtain target evaluation data on a target object, the target evaluation data being generated by the target user performing target evaluation behavior on the target object; store the target evaluation data separately to the user blockchain network and the object blockchain network through the blockchain node; and perform cross verification between the target evaluation data stored separately in the user blockchain network and the object blockchain network based on cryptographic data Hash; wherein storing the target evaluation data comprises: generating a first evaluation block and a second evaluation block respectively based on the target evaluation data; updating the first evaluation block to a first blockchain ledger maintained by the user blockchain network, and updating the second evaluation block to a second blockchain ledger maintained by the object blockchain network; (see paragraphs 0032, 0037, and 0051-0054, Examiner’s note: teaches one or more nodes can update the records where records are updated and based on hashing).
wherein generating the first evaluation block and the second evaluation block comprises: generating the first evaluation block based on first historical evaluation data and the target evaluation data, and generating the second evaluation block based on second historical evaluation data and the target evaluation data; or, generating the first evaluation block based on cryptographic data Hash of the first historical evaluation data and the target evaluation data, and generating the second evaluation block based on cryptographic data Hash of the second historical evaluation data and the target evaluation data; wherein the first historical evaluation data was generated by the target user performing a first historical evaluation behavior on at least one object before the target evaluation behavior, and the second historical evaluation data was generated by at least one user performing a second historical evaluation behavior on the target object before the target evaluation behavior. (see paragraphs 0032, 0037, 0051-0054, Examiner’s note: teaches one or more nodes can update the records where records are updated and based on hashing, and historical (past information), it is noted this is listed in the alternative therefore only requiring one to be performed as claimed.).
As per claim 16, O’Brien teaches
wherein the blockchain node comprises a first blockchain node in the user blockchain network and a second blockchain node in the object blockchain network, and the processors are further configured to: (see paragraphs 0017-0022, Examiner’s note: here teaches each of the user device, retailer system, supplier system, and review web service system may be a node of distributed ledger and or database (which is defined as blockchains, see paragraph 0017) and may contain a subset of data from the distributed database of customers review and or transactions records (see paragraphs 0017-0021), and then paragraph 0022 teaches one of or more of these devices may be used to generate updates and verify the validity of updates to the system. So here you have different blockchains information stored on different devices used to update and verify information in the system for different reviews).
store the target evaluation data to the user blockchain network through the first blockchain node, and store the target evaluation data to the object blockchain network through the second blockchain node. (see paragraphs 0032, 0037, 0051-0054, Examiner’s note: teaches one or more nodes can update the records where records are updated and based on hashing).
As per claim 29, O’Brien teaches
An electronic device comprising: a processor; a memory used to store processor executable instructions; wherein the processor is configured to implement the method according to claim 1. (see paragraphs 0076, Examiner’s note: software running on a computer to perform operations).
As per claim 30, O’Brien teaches
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium on which a computer program is stored, wherein, when the program is executed by a processor, the computer program implements steps of the method according to claim 1. (see paragraphs 0076, Examiner’s note: non-transitory software running on a computer to perform operations).
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.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Brien (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2018/0349968) further in view of further in view of Newell et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2019/0362376).
As per claim 9, O’Brien teaches
wherein storing the target evaluation data comprises: storing the target evaluation data. (see paragraphs 0032, 0037, 0051-0054, Examiner’s note: teaches one or more nodes can update the records where records are updated and based on hashing).
O’Brien does not expressly teach determining reviews meet a degree of diversity or more specifically as recited in the claims of determining a diversity degree of evaluations of the target user based on historical evaluation records of the target user; In response to the diversity degree of evaluations meeting a preset diversity degree threshold.
However, Newell et al. which is in the art managing blockchain conversations
(see abstract) teaches determining reviews meet a degree of diversity or more
specifically as recited in the claims of determining a diversity degree of evaluations of the target user based on historical evaluation records of the target user; In response to the diversity degree of evaluations meeting a preset diversity degree threshold ( see
paragraphs 0015, 0020, 0024, 0029, and 0059, Examiner's note: determining if the
conversations are valid based on various factors like not the same review by the same
person, and comparing to a threshold to then store the data in the blockchain).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been
obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified O’Brien with the aforementioned teachings from Newell et al. with the motivation of providing a way
determine if a review is appropriate or meets requirements before awarding a user (see
Newell et al. paragraph 0025), when a customer providing a review is known (see O’Brien et al. paragraph 0022).
15. Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Brien (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2018/0349968) further in view of Greco et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US
2019/0034923).
As per claim 10, O’Brien teaches
wherein the target user is pre-registered to a server, (see paragraph0025 and 0049, Examiner’s note: keeping transaction of providing and registering users).
O’Brien does not expressly teach and a corresponding registration process is implemented based on a zero-knowledge proof algorithm.
However, Greco et al. which is in the art of zero knowledge protocol on blockchains (see title and abstract) teaches and a corresponding registration process is implemented based on a zero-knowledge proof algorithm (see paragraphs 0020, 0032-0034, and 0040-0041, Examiner's note: teaches using zero knowledge proofs to verify users).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified O’Brien et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Greco et al. with the motivation of providing a way to confidentially provide information in a blockchain and avoid the misuse of information in the blockchain through the known method of zero proof algorithms (see Greco et al. paragraphs 0002-0003), when providing information on the blockchain and performing cryptography to verify interactions on the blockchain to verify and validate updates and reviews is known (see O’Brien paragraph 0022 ).
As per claim 11, O’Brien does not expressly teach wherein a proof circuit of the zero- knowledge proof algorithm is generated according to identity information of the target user and/or device information of a terminal device used by the target user.
However, Greco et al. which is in the art of zero knowledge protocol on
blockchains (see title and abstract) teaches wherein a proof circuit of the zero-knowledge proof algorithm is generated according to identity information of the target
user and/or device information of a terminal device used by the target user (see
paragraphs 0005, 0032, 0041, and 0045, Examiner's note: here teaches the
computational process of the zero knowledge proof algorithm can be based on the
sender or receiver).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been
obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified O’Brien n view of Greco
et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Greco et al. with the motivation of
providing a way to confidentially provide information in a blockchain and avoid the
misuse of information in the blockchain through the known method of zero proof algorithms (see Greco et al. paragraphs 0002-0003), when providing information on the blockchain and performing cryptography to verify interactions on the blockchain to verify and validate updates and reviews is known (see O’Brien paragraph 0022 ) .
16. Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Brien (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2018/0349968) further in view of Dorward (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2022/0138791).
As per claim 12, O’Brien teaches
further comprising: in response to determining that the target evaluation data has been successfully stored in the user blockchain network or the object blockchain network, being able to perform additional operations (see paragraphs 0052. 0054-0055, Examiner’s note: after storing information to the blockchain performing additional operations like transferring information in the future).
O’Brien does not expressly teach triggering allocation of an available benefit corresponding to the target evaluation data and/or the target evaluation behavior to the target user.
However, Dorward which is in the art of storing review information on the blockchain (see abstract) teaches triggering allocation of an available benefit corresponding to the target evaluation data and/or the target evaluation behavior to the target user (see paragraphs 0057, Examiner’s note: reward for completing a review where the review is stored on the blockchain).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified O’Brien with the aforementioned teachings from Dorward with the motivation of providing a way to provide a way to incentivize a user to complete a review by giving them a reward (see Dorward paragraph 0057), when a user providing reviews in the system is known (see O’Brien paragraph 0049-0050).
17. Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Brien (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2018/0349968) further in view of Murray et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2022/0335414).
As per claim 13, O’Brien does not expressly teach further comprising: in response to an evaluation cancellation request initiated for the target evaluation data, triggering the blockchain node to execute a corresponding evaluation cancellation transaction that freezes a permission of a preset type of blockchain nodes to read the stored target evaluation data.
However, Murray which is in the art of blockchain reviews (see abstract) teaches further comprising: in response to an evaluation cancellation request initiated for
the target evaluation data, triggering the blockchain node to execute a corresponding
evaluation cancellation transaction that freezes a permission of a preset type of
blockchain nodes to read the stored target evaluation data (see paragraphs 0026 and
0060, Examiner's note: here teaches not allowing certain parties to update or access
data in the blockchain).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified O’Brien with the aforementioned teachings from Murray with the motivation of preventing access to reviews from poor past behavior like prohibited behavior or leaking of previous reviews (see Murray paragraphs 0026 and 0060), when protecting from fraud and attacker nodes is known (see O’Brien paragraphs 0040, 0055 and 0068)
Conclusion
18. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Fang RevBlock: A Blockchain-based Secure Customer Review
System 2020 IEEE discusses putting customer reviews on the blockchain (see
all pages)
19. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIERSTEN SUMMERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6542. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7am-3:30pm.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached on 5712703923. 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.
/KIERSTEN V SUMMERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights