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 .
This office action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment filed 01/01/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, and 20 have been amended. Any examiner’s note, objection, or rejection not repeated is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
Examiner’s Note
It should be noted that though Claims 8 and 10 are marked as “Original” in Applicant’s amendment, they have in fact been amended.
Claim 8, Line 2 was changed from “as the proof of the work” to “as the proof of work”.
Claim 10, Lines 1-2 were changed from “a proof of work block” to “a proof-of-work block”.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for priority from foreign application no. PCT/IN2022/41010861 filed 02/28/2022 is acknowledged.
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 1-20 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.
Regarding Claim 1, lines 14-15, “the at least one valid transaction” lacks antecedent basis, as is not previously defined in the claim. In order to further examine on the merits of the claim, the examiner interprets the claim as referring to the at least one digital currency transaction previously mentioned in the limitations.
Regarding Claim 11, lines 14-15, “the at least one valid transaction” lacks antecedent basis, as is not previously defined in the claim. In order to further examine on the merits of the claim, the examiner interprets the claim as referring to the at least one digital currency transaction previously mentioned in the limitations.
Regarding Claim 16, lines 14-15, “the at least one valid transaction” lacks antecedent basis, as is not previously defined in the claim. In order to further examine on the merits of the claim, the examiner interprets the claim as referring to the at least one digital currency transaction previously mentioned in the limitations.
Any claims not specifically mentioned are rejected by virtue of their dependency to rejected claims.
Correction is needed.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snow (US 20220006641 A1) in view of Adams et al. (US 20210272075 A1), and further in view of Bartolucci et al. (US 20210026599 A1), hereinafter referred to as Snow, Adams, and Bartolucci, respectively.
Regarding Claim 1, Snow discloses A system for better utilization of power consumption of a computing network in at least one blockchain system by validating digital currency transactions with minimal computing resources ([0003] Exemplary embodiments encourage blockchain miners to use CPU-based computer machines. Exemplary embodiments discourage or deter the use of specialized hardware (such as GPUs and ASICs) in blockchain mining by dispersing blockchain encryption and validation amongst multiple blockchain nodal computers. […]The nodal machine […] consumes far less memory byte space and requires far less processor time/tasks/cycles/operations. Please note that the system dispersing blockchain validation using nodal machines requiring less processor time and consuming less memory byte space corresponds to Applicant’s system for better utilization of power consumption of a computing network in at least one blockchain system by validating digital currency transactions with minimal computing resources.),
comprising, a memory; a processor that is configured to communicate at least one problem with a difficulty calculation specification using a centralized server, wherein the centralized server communicates at least one digital currency transaction that corresponds to at least one miner ([0026] A miner system 22 receives one or more inputs 24 via a communications network 26 from a blockchain network server 28. While the inputs 24 may be any electronic data 30, in the blockchain environment 20, the inputs 24 may be blockchain transactions 32 (such as financial transactions, inventory/shipping data, and/or healthcare medical data). […] The blockchain network server 28 sends, distributes, or broadcasts the inputs 24 to some or all of the authorized mining participants (such as the miner system 22); [0027] When the miner system 22 receives the inputs 24, the miner system 22 has a hardware processor (such as CPU 36) and a solid-state memory device 38 that collects the inputs 24 (such as the blockchain transactions 32) into a block 40 of data. […] The proof-of-work mechanism 44 may instruct or cause the miner system 22 to call, request, and/or execute a difficulty algorithm 48 that generates or creates a difficulty 50. Please note that the blockchain network server 28 corresponds to Applicant’s centralized server, the mining system 22 having a hardware processor corresponds to comprising a processor, having a solid-state memory device 38 corresponds to comprising a memory, calling a difficulty algorithm 48 that generates a difficulty 50 corresponds to communicating a problem with a difficulty calculation specification, and the blockchain network server 28 communicating blockchain transactions 32 to the miner system 22 corresponds to the centralized server communicating at least one digital currency transaction corresponding to at least one miner.);
to broadcast the at least one problem with the difficulty calculation specification, wherein the at least one problem is entered into the problem mempool once the at least one problem is registered in a problem merkle tree ([0054] The proof-of-work algorithm 52 may also compare the proof-of-work result 42 to the proof-of-work (“PoW”) target scheme 34 to ensure or to prove a solution to the mathematical problem or puzzle 54.; [0087] Exemplary embodiments, instead, may merely send the needed Merkle values 75 (and/or their representative bit-shuffled randomized values). The Merkle values 75 may thus be quickly and simply conveyed via the communications network 26. ; [0088] the difficulty algorithm 48, the PoW algorithm 52, […] include instructions, code, and/or programs that cause the miner system 22, the blockchain network server 28, and/or the accumulator device 79 to perform operations, such as sending the inputs 24 (such as the blockchain transactions 32), randomizing the Merkle values 75, and/or executing other validation processes. Please note that the difficulty algorithm 48 sending inputs 24 such as blockchain transactions 32 corresponds to the Applicant’s problem having the difficulty calculation specification. Furthermore, conveying the Merkle values 75 via the communications network 26 corresponds to broadcasting the problem where the problem is entered into the mempool once the problem is registered in a problem merkle tree, as the value must first be registered in the merkle tree prior to being entered into the pool. Additionally, since the PoW algorithm 52 is also performed, and its purpose is to solve the problem, this corresponds to the pool consisting of problems.);
validate a solution that corresponds to the at least one problem by checking if the at least one problem is solved by the at least one miner using a hash ([0028] The miners then compete to be the first to satisfy the proof-of-work target scheme 34 (e.g., the proof-of-work result 42 satisfies a mathematical problem or puzzle 54, such as a hash match or value). Please note that the miner satisfying the proof-of-work target scheme 34 by satisfying a mathematical problem 54 with a proof-of-work result 42 that is a hash match corresponds to Applicant’s validating a solution that corresponds to the problem by checking if the problem is solved by the miner using a hash, as in order to determine whether the miner’s hash matches the solution to problem, it must necessarily be validated. ), wherein the at least one problem that is selected from the problem mempool is communicated to the at least one miner using at least one of the centralized server, the problem mempool or the transaction mempool ([0028] The blockchain network server 28 sends, distributes, or broadcasts any of the inputs 24 (via the communications network 26) to some or all of the authorized mining participants 22a-d. Please note that the blockchain network server 28 broadcasting the inputs 24 via the communications network 26 to the mining participants corresponds to the problem that is selected from the problem mempool being communicated to the miners using the centralized server.);
and determine a problem fee for the at least one miner for solving the at least one problem when the block associated is verified ([0045] While there are many compensation schemes (e.g., US Dollar, Euro, etc.), crypto-compensation is possible. That is, as the accumulator device 79 processes or validates the outputs 62, conventional and/or cryptographic currencies may be exchanged, traded, or transferred.; [0046] the accumulator device 79 (e.g., the miner system 22. Please note that providing compensation for the miner system 22, which is an instance of an accumulator device 70, for successfully processing the verified block corresponds to Applicant’s determining a problem fee for the miner for solving the problem when the associated block is verified, as a fee must be determined in order to provide compensation to the successful miner.),
wherein the difficulty calculation specification enables adjustment of problem difficulty such that a probability of solving the at least one problem is proportional to computing power of the at least one miner relative to the overall network computing power, thereby improving utilization of computing resources across the blockchain network while minimizing unnecessary power consumption during transaction validation ([0029] As the difficulty 50 increases, older, less capable, and less power efficient miners are unable to compete. […] Indeed, Satoshi envisioned that increasing hardware speed would allow miners to easier solve the proof-of-work. Satoshi thus explained that the difficulty 50 would be a moving target to slow down generation of the blocks 40 of data. BITCOIN's difficulty mechanism is thus a measure of how difficult it is to mine a BITCOIN® block of data. BITCOIN® miners are required to find a hash value below a given target (e.g., SHA256(nonce+input) has n leading zeros, where n determines the mining difficulty). The difficulty adjustment is directly related to the total estimated mining power (sometimes estimated in Total Hash Rate per second). BITCOIN's difficulty mechanism is adjusted to basically ensure that ten (10) minutes of computation are required before a miner may solve the mathematical problem or puzzle 54. Please note that the difficulty adjustment being directly related to the total estimated mining power, adjusting to ensure that 10 minutes of computation are required before a miner may solve the problem corresponds to Applicant’s difficulty calculation specification enabling adjustment of problem difficulty such that a probability of solving the at least one problem is proportional to computing power of the at least one miner relative to the overall network computing power, i.e., the probability of a particular miner solving the problem is adjusted according to the total estimated mining power, thereby improving utilization of computing resources across the blockchain network while minimizing unnecessary power consumption during transaction validation, as it improves power efficiency of miners as the difficulty increases.).
Snow does not explicitly disclose create a problem mempool;
create a transaction mempool to enable the at least one miner to select the at least one valid transaction for inclusion in a block;
select, by the at least one miner, the at least one problem from the problem mempool, and solve the at least one problem using computing power of a computing device as a proof of work, wherein a hash of a block header is provided as an input to the least one problem that is selected;
verify a block associated with the at least one problem selected from the problem mempool and the solution that is validated using the hash of a previous block of a blockchain as a proof of work
However, Adams discloses create a problem mempool ([0030] The pool coordinator 102 includes a computing device, with at least a processor and memory, configured to connect to and communicate with nodes on the blockchain network 104. The pool coordinator 102 may maintain a mempool of unconfirmed transactions in some implementations. Please note that a mempool of unconfirmed transactions corresponds to Applicant’s problem mempool, as it communicates unconfirmed transactions from a mempool, corresponding to problems, to be solved by the mining units.);
create a transaction mempool to enable the at least one miner to select the at least one valid transaction for inclusion in a block ([0037] In many mining pools, the pool coordinator generates and sends a new candidate block template to the mining units on a regular basis, e.g. every 1 minute, 30 seconds, 20 seconds etc. to add additional transactions to the candidate block. Each new candidate block has a different block reward as the transaction fees may change. Please note that a mining pool where the pool coordinator adds additional transactions to the candidate block to be sent to the mining units corresponds to Applicant’s transaction mempool enabling miners to select valid transactions for inclusion in a block, as it communicates the transactions in the pool to miners to allow them to select them for processing as part of a candidate block. The pool of candidate block templates for the mining units to select from and process corresponds to Applicant’s transaction mempool.);
select, by the at least one miner, the at least one problem from the problem mempool, and solve the at least one problem using computing power of a computing device as a proof of work, wherein a hash of a block header is provided as an input to the least one problem that is selected ([0031] The mining units 106 are configured to carry out proof-of-work (POW) calculations in search of a POW for a candidate block header. The calculations include repeatedly hashing the block header, determining whether the hash result falls below the target value set by the difficulty setting.;[0032] If a solution to the POW is found by one of the mining units 106, it may immediately propagate the solution on the blockchain network 104 in some cases. Please note that the mining units carrying out POW calculations in search of a POW for a candidate block header, where the block header is hashed, to find a solution to the POW corresponds to Applicant’s selecting a problem from the problem mempool and solving the problem using computing power of a computing device, i.e., the miner, as a proof of work, wherein a hash of a block header is provided as an input to the problem that is selected.);
verify a block associated with the at least one problem selected from the problem mempool and the solution that is validated using the hash of a previous block of a blockchain as a proof of work ([0026] Each block header contains a summary of the block's contents, such as in the form of a Merkle root, and each block header contains a hash of the previous block header so that blocks become chained together to create a permanent, unalterable record of all transactions which have been written to the blockchain since its inception.; [0027] Nodes validate transactions and propagate them to other nodes in the network. Please note that each block containing a hash of the previous block header so that blocks become chained together to create a permanent, unalterable transaction record corresponds to Applicant’s verifying a block associated with the problem selected from the problem mempool and the solution that is validated using the hash of a previous block of a blockchain as a proof of work, since propagating validated transactions with associated hashes, corresponding to validated solutions, provides a proof of work that is used to verify subsequent blocks and continue the blockchain. It is known in the art that the hash in a blockchain allows for verification of a block.);
Snow and Adams are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of blockchain mining operation management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Snow to incorporate the teachings of Adams to modify the blockchain transaction validation system optimized for resource usage to have problem and transaction mempools, have the miners select a problem from the mempool and solve it, and verify the block associated with each problem with a validation solution using the hash of a previous block of a blockchain as a proof of work, allowing for better distribution of transactions to be validated, improved adaptation of the system to changing transaction fees, and creating a permanent, unalterable record of transactions, as described in Adams.
Snow-Adams does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one problem is progress-free and memoryless such that no advantage is gained from previous solution attempts,
thereby enabling verification of the solution with reduced computational power relative to generating the solution
However, Bartolucci discloses wherein the at least one problem is progress-free and memoryless such that no advantage is gained from previous solution attempts ([0068] systems and methods described herein allow miners (e.g., nodes) of a blockchain to perform a computation (e.g., evaluation of function ƒ on input custom-character) once and generate a proof that can be used to verify correctness of the output, wherein evaluating correctness of the proof is computationally less expensive than evaluating the function.; [0069] Accordingly, the present disclosure presents systems and methods to execute the verification phase using blockchain scripts (e.g., in a Bitcoin-based network) for storing the elements used in the verification of the computation.; [0086] In an embodiment, the probability of a symbol occurring at a step j has properties of being memoryless, wherein the distribution of a symbol occurring at j+1 is not dependent on the values of any preceding symbols. Please note that the system to execute the verification phase using blockchain scripts, wherein the probability of a symbol occurring at a step j is memoryless, where the distribution of a symbol occurring at j+1 is not dependent on the values of any preceding symbols, corresponds to Applicant’s problem being progress-free and memoryless such that no advantage is gained from previous solution attempts.),
thereby enabling verification of the solution with reduced computational power relative to generating the solution ([0068] miners (e.g., nodes) of a blockchain to perform a computation (e.g., evaluation of function ƒ on input custom-character) once and generate a proof that can be used to verify correctness of the output, wherein evaluating correctness of the proof is computationally less expensive than evaluating the function[…] Further advantages may include reduction in power consumption of verifier systems, thereby improving the efficiency of verifier computer systems and reducing the energy costs associated with running such verifier computer systems in evaluating correctness of proofs. Please note that miners of a blockchain performing a computation to generate a proof to generate a proof to verify correctness of the output, wherein the evaluation of correctness is computationally less expensive than evaluating the function, and reducing the power consumption of verifier systems corresponds to Applicant’s enabling verification of the solution with reduced computational power relative to generating the solution.)
Snow-Adams and Bartolucci are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of blockchain mining operation management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Snow-Adams to incorporate the teachings of Bartolucci to modify the blockchain transaction validation system optimized for resource usage with problem and transaction mempools and verifying the block associated with each problem to have the problem be progress-free and memoryless and enable verification of the solution with reduced computational power relative to generating the solution, allowing for improved resource usage and system computing efficiency, as described in Bartolucci.
Regarding Claim 2, Snow-Adams-Bartolucci as described in Claim 1, Snow further discloses wherein the centralized server is utilized for a centralized blockchain system to communicate the at least one problem with the difficulty calculation specification ([0027] When the miner system 22 receives the inputs 24, the miner system 22 has a hardware processor (such as CPU 36) and a solid-state memory device 38 that collects the inputs 24 (such as the blockchain transactions 32) into a block 40 of data. […] The proof-of-work mechanism 44 may instruct or cause the miner system 22 to call, request, and/or execute a difficulty algorithm 48 that generates or creates a difficulty 50; [0060] The blockchain network 20 (such the server 28) may execute a reporting software application (read/write operation) that logs/records/writes the randomized Merkle values (e.g., the Merkle value 75 and/or the Merkle root 77, the bit shuffle 92, and or the entry 94) in the database 81, thus perhaps generating a central repository of the blockchain transactions 32 and their validation operations. Please note that the blockchain network server 28 communicating inputs 24 corresponds to Applicant’s centralized server performing communication, calling a difficulty algorithm 48 that generates a difficulty 50 corresponds to communicating a problem with a difficulty calculation specification, and generating a central repository of the blockchain transactions 32 and their validation operations corresponds to the centralized server being utilized for a centralized blockchain system. ).
Regarding Claim 3, Snow-Adams-Bartolucci as described in Claim 1, Snow further discloses wherein the problem mempool are created to broadcast the at least one problem with the difficulty calculation specification ([0027] The proof-of-work mechanism 44 may instruct or cause the miner system 22 to call, request, and/or execute a difficulty algorithm 48 that generates or creates a difficulty 50; [0028] The blockchain network server 28 sends, distributes, or broadcasts any of the inputs 24 (via the communications network 26) to some or all of the authorized mining participants 22a-d.; [0087] Exemplary embodiments may thus pool validation efforts.; [0088] the difficulty algorithm 48, the PoW algorithm 52, […] include instructions, code, and/or programs that cause the miner system 22, the blockchain network server 28, and/or the accumulator device 79 to perform operations, such as sending the inputs 24 (such as the blockchain transactions 32), randomizing the Merkle values 75, and/or executing other validation processes. Please note that pooling validation efforts, where the inputs 24 are broadcast by the blockchain network server 28 to the miner system 22 that can generate a difficulty 50 based on the proof-of-work mechanism 44 corresponds to Applicant’s problem mempool being created to broadcast the problem with the difficulty calculation specification, as the proof-of-work mechanism 44 specifies the difficulty calculation to be performed by the miner, and the problem is broadcast to the pool.).
Adams further discloses and the transaction mempool ([0037] In many mining pools, the pool coordinator generates and sends a new candidate block template to the mining units on a regular basis, e.g. every 1 minute, 30 seconds, 20 seconds etc. to add additional transactions to the candidate block. Please note that a mining pool where the pool coordinator adds additional transactions to the candidate block to be sent to the mining units corresponds to Applicant’s transaction mempool.);
for a decentralized blockchain system ([0025] A blockchain is a peer-to-peer, electronic ledger which is implemented using a computer-based decentralised, distributed system. Please note that the computer-based decentralized system implementing a blockchain corresponds to a decentralized blockchain system.)
Regarding Claim 4, Snow-Adams-Bartolucci as described in Claim 1, Adams further discloses wherein the transaction mempool comprises valid pending transactions that are added to be in the blockchain ([0027] Nodes validate transactions and propagate them to other nodes in the network. Specialized network nodes, termed “mining nodes” or “miners,” collect a set of unconfirmed transactions, i.e. pending transactions, into a block. Please note that a set of pending transactions to be put into a block by miners after being validated corresponds to Applicant’s valid pending transactions added to be in the blockchain, as the set of pending transactions corresponds to the transaction mempool, and they are validated prior to propagation to other nodes, in order to be eventually added as a block to the blockchain. ).
Regarding Claim 5, Snow-Adams-Bartolucci as described in Claim 1, Snow further discloses wherein the at least one problem are cryptographic puzzles that are communicated to the at least one miner using the centralized server by at least one puzzler, wherein each problem includes a problem description, a timestamp, a difficulty level of a problem, a problem fee and a solution description ([0027] The proof-of-work mechanism 44 may instruct or cause the miner system 22 to call, request, and/or execute a difficulty algorithm 48 that generates or creates a difficulty 50; [0028] The blockchain network server 28 sends, distributes, or broadcasts any of the inputs 24 (via the communications network 26) to some or all of the authorized mining participants 22a-d. The miners then compete to be the first to satisfy the proof-of-work target scheme 34.; [0045] While there are many compensation schemes (e.g., US Dollar, Euro, etc.), crypto-compensation is possible. That is, as the accumulator device 79 processes or validates the outputs 62, conventional and/or cryptographic currencies may be exchanged, traded, or transferred.; [0046] the accumulator device 79 (e.g., the miner system 22.; [0049] have to satisfy or solve the complicated mathematical question, target, problem, or puzzle 54, perhaps defined or specified by the proof-of-work target scheme 34.; [0056] The proof-of-work algorithm 52, for example, may have to compare the hash value(s) 64 to a target hash value 82. The target hash value 82 may be any minimum or maximum hash value that must be satisfied.; [0091] Exemplary embodiments may packetize. When the miner system 22, the blockchain network server 28, and the accumulator device 79 communicate via the communications network 26, the miner system 22, the blockchain network server 28, and the accumulator device 79 may collect, send, and retrieve information. The information may be formatted or generated as packets of data according to a packet protocol (such as the Internet Protocol). Please note that the blockchain network server 28 broadcasting the inputs 24 with a proof-of-work target scheme defining a puzzle via the communications network 26 with IP packets to the mining participants corresponds to the centralized server communicating cryptographic puzzles to the miners by a puzzler. The mathematical puzzle 54 corresponds to the problem description, and the target hash value 82 that must be satisfied corresponds to the solution description. Since the difficulty and problem fee are derived specifically based on the processing of a particular problem, they are inherently included in the problem. Additionally, the proof-of-work target scheme 34 corresponds to the puzzler, as it defines the puzzle to be communicated. Lastly, since the blockchain network server 28 broadcasts the inputs 24 to the miner systems via IP packets, it is known in the art that an IP packet, especially in a time-sensitive system as described in this invention, often contains a timestamp, which corresponds to the problem including a timestamp, as the problems being communicated to the miner systems would have a timestamp associated with the packets containing their data.).
Regarding Claim 6, Snow-Adams-Bartolucci as described in Claim 1, Snow further discloses wherein the system is communicatively connected with a plurality of computing devices that are associated with the at least one miner to solve the at least one problem, wherein each computing device stores the blockchain ([0028] Today's blockchain environment 20 may include many hundreds, thousands, or millions of mining machines/participants that compete to process the block 40 of data; [0087] Conventional blockchain processing schemes distribute hundreds, thousands, or even more of the blockchain transactions 32, or the entire block 40 of data, throughout the blockchain environment 20. Please note that distributing the entire block 40 of data in the blockchain environment 20 including large numbers of mining machines corresponds to Applicant’s system communicatively being connected with a plurality of computing devices that are associated with the miner to solve the problem wherein each computing device stores the blockchain, since the blockchain environment 20 corresponding to Applicant’s system is communicatively connected with a plurality of machines associated with miners to solve the problem and each store the entire block 40 of data, corresponding to the blockchain.).
Regarding Claim 7, Snow-Adams-Bartolucci as described in Claim 1, Adams further discloses wherein each block of the blockchain comprises a block header, wherein the block header comprises a hash of a previous data block ([0026] Each block header contains a summary of the block's contents, such as in the form of a Merkle root, and each block header contains a hash of the previous block header so that blocks become chained together to create a permanent, unalterable record of all transactions which have been written to the blockchain since its inception. Please note that each block having a block header containing a hash of the previous block header so that blocks become chained together corresponds to Applicant’s each block of the blockchain comprising a block header where the block header comprises a hash of a previous data block. )
Regarding Claim 8, Snow-Adams-Bartolucci as described in Claim 1, Snow further discloses wherein the at least one miner solves a cryptographic puzzle as the proof of work in an absence of problems in the problem mempool to solve ([0028] The miners then compete to be the first to satisfy the proof-of-work target scheme 34 (e.g., the proof-of-work result 42 satisfies a mathematical problem or puzzle 54, such as a hash match or value). Any solution to the mathematical problem or puzzle 54 is usually discovered using trial-and-error schemes. Please note that the miners satisfying the proof-of-work target scheme 34 by satisfying a mathematical puzzle 54 by discovering proof-of-work result 42 corresponds to the miner solving a cryptographic puzzle as the proof of the work in an absence of problems in the problem mempool to solve, because it specifies satisfying a proof-of-work target scheme 34 with either a mathematical problem or puzzle 43; therefore, if there is no problem to solve, it must solve a puzzle as proof of work instead. Furthermore, the proof-of-work result being a hash match or value to satisfy the mathematical puzzle corresponds to the puzzle being cryptographic.).
Regarding Claim 9, Snow-Adams-Bartolucci as described in Claim 1, Snow further discloses wherein the at least one problem in the problem mempool comprises at least one of: (i) an equiprobable solution space where inputs given are equally likely to produce a valid solution, which maintains progress-freeness;(ii) an inexhaustible solution space where the blockchain does not run out of problems to solve; (iii) a non-algorithmically generated solution space; or (iv) application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) resistance that enables a general- purpose computer to solve the problem ([0064] The database table 90 thus deters GPU/ASIC usage when validating the blockchain transactions 32 and/or when randomizing the Merkle value 75 and/or the Merkle root 77. Please note that deterring ASIC usage when validating the blockchain transactions 32 corresponds to Applicant’s problems in the problem mempool comprising ASIC resistance that enables a general-purpose computer to solve the problem, since, as previously disclosed, the transaction validation process by the miners is pooled, corresponding to the problems being in the problem mempool, and deterring ASIC usage when validating the blockchain transactions 32 corresponds to ASIC resistance enabling a general-purpose computer to solve the problem as it deters the need for specialized hardware, i.e., enables general-purpose computers to solve the problem as well. Please note that as Applicant states “at least one of” the problems in the problem mempool, option (iv) is being interpreted as fulfilling the requirements of the claim.).
Regarding Claim 10, Snow-Adams-Bartolucci as described in Claim 1, Snow further discloses wherein the at least one miner publishes the solution as a proof-of-work block for the at least one problem that is selected and solved to claim the problem fee ([0028] mining machines/participants that compete to process the block 40 of data. […] The winning or successful miner system (say 22a) may timestamp the block 40 of data and broadcast the block 40 of data, the timestamp, the proof-of-work result 42, and/or the mathematical problem or puzzle 54 to other miners 22b-d in the blockchain environment 20.; [0045] While there are many compensation schemes (e.g., US Dollar, Euro, etc.), crypto-compensation is possible. That is, as the accumulator device 79 processes or validates the outputs 62, conventional and/or cryptographic currencies may be exchanged, traded, or transferred.; [0046] the accumulator device 79 (e.g., the miner system 22. Please note that the winning miner system, which is an instance of an accumulator device 79, broadcasting the block 40 of data, proof-of-work result 42, and the mathematical problem 54 to other miners in the blockchain environment 20 in order to be compensated for processing the data corresponds to Applicant’s miner publishing the solution as a proof of work block for the problem that is selected and solved to claim the problem fee, as the miner publishes the proof-of-work result for the problem it selected and solved in order to be compensated.).
Regarding Claim 11, Snow discloses A method for better utilization of power consumption of a computing network in at least one blockchain system by validating digital currency transactions with minimal computing resources ([0003] Exemplary embodiments encourage blockchain miners to use CPU-based computer machines. Exemplary embodiments discourage or deter the use of specialized hardware (such as GPUs and ASICs) in blockchain mining by dispersing blockchain encryption and validation amongst multiple blockchain nodal computers. […]The nodal machine […] consumes far less memory byte space and requires far less processor time/tasks/cycles/operations. Please note that the system dispersing blockchain validation using nodal machines requiring less processor time and consuming less memory byte space corresponds to Applicant’s method for better utilization of power consumption of a computing network in at least one blockchain system by validating digital currency transactions with minimal computing resources.),
comprising, communicating at least one digital currency transaction that corresponds to at least one miner ([0026] A miner system 22 receives one or more inputs 24 via a communications network 26 from a blockchain network server 28. While the inputs 24 may be any electronic data 30, in the blockchain environment 20, the inputs 24 may be blockchain transactions 32 (such as financial transactions, inventory/shipping data, and/or healthcare medical data). […] The blockchain network server 28 sends, distributes, or broadcasts the inputs 24 to some or all of the authorized mining participants (such as the miner system 22); [0027] When the miner system 22 receives the inputs 24, the miner system 22 has a hardware processor (such as CPU 36) and a solid-state memory device 38 that collects the inputs 24 (such as the blockchain transactions 32) into a block 40 of data. […] The proof-of-work mechanism 44 may instruct or cause the miner system 22 to call, request, and/or execute a difficulty algorithm 48 that generates or creates a difficulty 50. Please note that the blockchain network server 28 corresponds to Applicant’s centralized server, the mining system 22 having a hardware processor corresponds to comprising a processor, having a solid-state memory device 38 corresponds to comprising a memory, calling a difficulty algorithm 48 that generates a difficulty 50 corresponds to communicating a problem with a difficulty calculation specification, and the blockchain network server 28 communicating blockchain transactions 32 to the miner system 22 corresponds to the centralized server communicating at least one digital currency transaction corresponding to at least one miner.);
to broadcast the at least one problem with the difficulty calculation specification, wherein the at least one problem is entered into the problem mempool once the at least one problem is registered in a problem merkle tree ([0054] The proof-of-work algorithm 52 may also compare the proof-of-work result 42 to the proof-of-work (“PoW”) target scheme 34 to ensure or to prove a solution to the mathematical problem or puzzle 54.; [0087] Exemplary embodiments, instead, may merely send the needed Merkle values 75 (and/or their representative bit-shuffled randomized values). The Merkle values 75 may thus be quickly and simply conveyed via the communications network 26. ; [0088] the difficulty algorithm 48, the PoW algorithm 52, […] include instructions, code, and/or programs that cause the miner system 22, the blockchain network server 28, and/or the accumulator device 79 to perform operations, such as sending the inputs 24 (such as the blockchain transactions 32), randomizing the Merkle values 75, and/or executing other validation processes. Please note that the difficulty algorithm 48 sending inputs 24 such as blockchain transactions 32 corresponds to the Applicant’s problem having the difficulty calculation specification. Furthermore, conveying the Merkle values 75 via the communications network 26 corresponds to broadcasting the problem where the problem is entered into the mempool once the problem is registered in a problem merkle tree, as the value must first be registered in the merkle tree prior to being entered into the pool. Additionally, since the PoW algorithm 52 is also performed, and its purpose is to solve the problem, this corresponds to the pool consisting of problems.);
validating a solution that corresponds to the at least one problem by checking if the at least one problem is solved by the at least one miner using a hash ([0028] The miners then compete to be the first to satisfy the proof-of-work target scheme 34 (e.g., the proof-of-work result 42 satisfies a mathematical problem or puzzle 54, such as a hash match or value). Please note that the miner satisfying the proof-of-work target scheme 34 by satisfying a mathematical problem 54 with a proof-of-work result 42 that is a hash match corresponds to Applicant’s validating a solution that corresponds to the problem by checking if the problem is solved by the miner using a hash, as in order to determine whether the miner’s hash matches the solution to problem, it must necessarily be validated. ), wherein the at least one problem that is selected from the problem mempool is communicated to the at least one miner using at least one of the centralized server, the problem mempool or the transaction mempool ([0028] The blockchain network server 28 sends, distributes, or broadcasts any of the inputs 24 (via the communications network 26) to some or all of the authorized mining participants 22a-d. Please note that the blockchain network server 28 broadcasting the inputs 24 via the communications network 26 to the mining participants corresponds to the problem that is selected from the problem mempool being communicated to the miners using the centralized server.);
and determining a problem fee for the at least one miner for solving the at least one problem when the block associated is verified ([0045] While there are many compensation schemes (e.g., US Dollar, Euro, etc.), crypto-compensation is possible. That is, as the accumulator device 79 processes or validates the outputs 62, conventional and/or cryptographic currencies may be exchanged, traded, or transferred.; [0046] the accumulator device 79 (e.g., the miner system 22. Please note that providing compensation for the miner system 22, which is an instance of an accumulator device 70, for successfully processing the verified block corresponds to Applicant’s determining a problem fee for the miner for solving the problem when the associated block is verified, as a fee must be determined in order to provide compensation to the successful miner.),
wherein the difficulty calculation specification enables adjustment of problem difficulty such that a probability of solving the at least one problem is proportional to computing power of the at least one miner relative to the overall network computing power, thereby improving utilization of computing resources across the blockchain network while minimizing unnecessary power consumption during transaction validation ([0029] As the difficulty 50 increases, older, less capable, and less power efficient miners are unable to compete. […] Indeed, Satoshi envisioned that increasing hardware speed would allow miners to easier solve the proof-of-work. Satoshi thus explained that the difficulty 50 would be a moving target to slow down generation of the blocks 40 of data. BITCOIN's difficulty mechanism is thus a measure of how difficult it is to mine a BITCOIN® block of data. BITCOIN® miners are required to find a hash value below a given target (e.g., SHA256(nonce+input) has n leading zeros, where n determines the mining difficulty). The difficulty adjustment is directly related to the total estimated mining power (sometimes estimated in Total Hash Rate per second). BITCOIN's difficulty mechanism is adjusted to basically ensure that ten (10) minutes of computation are required before a miner may solve the mathematical problem or puzzle 54. Please note that the difficulty adjustment being directly related to the total estimated mining power, adjusting to ensure that 10 minutes of computation are required before a miner may solve the problem corresponds to Applicant’s difficulty calculation specification enabling adjustment of problem difficulty such that a probability of solving the at least one problem is proportional to computing power of the at least one miner relative to the overall network computing power, i.e., the probability of a particular miner solving the problem is adjusted according to the total estimated mining power, thereby improving utilization of computing resources across the blockchain network while minimizing unnecessary power consumption during transaction validation, as it improves power efficiency of miners as the difficulty increases.).
Snow does not explicitly disclose creating a problem mempool;
creating a transaction mempool to enable the at least one miner to select the at least one valid transaction for inclusion in a block;
selecting, by the at least one miner, the at least one problem from the problem mempool, and solve the at least one problem using computing power of a computing device as a proof of work, wherein a hash of a block header is provided as an input to the least one problem that is selected;
verifying a block associated with the at least one problem selected from the problem mempool and the solution that is validated using the hash of a previous block of a blockchain as a proof of work
However, Adams discloses creating a problem mempool ([0030] The pool coordinator 102 includes a computing device, with at least a processor and memory, configured to connect to and communicate with nodes on the blockchain network 104. The pool coordinator 102 may maintain a mempool of unconfirmed transactions in some implementations. Please note that a mempool of unconfirmed transactions corresponds to Applicant’s problem mempool, as it communicates unconfirmed transactions from a mempool, corresponding to problems, to be solved by the mining units.);
creating a transaction mempool to enable the at least one miner to select the at least one valid transaction for inclusion in a block ([0037] In many mining pools, the pool coordinator generates and sends a new candidate block template to the mining units on a regular basis, e.g. every 1 minute, 30 seconds, 20 seconds etc. to add additional transactions to the candidate block. Each new candidate block has a different block reward as the transaction fees may change. Please note that a mining pool where the pool coordinator adds additional transactions to the candidate block to be sent to the mining units corresponds to Applicant’s transaction mempool enabling miners to select valid transactions for inclusion in a block, as it communicates the transactions in the pool to miners to allow them to select them for processing as part of a candidate block. The pool of candidate block templates for the mining units to select from and process corresponds to Applicant’s transaction mempool.);
selecting, by the at least one miner, the at least one problem from the problem mempool, and solve the at least one problem using computing power of a computing device as a proof of work, wherein a hash of a block header is provided as an input to the least one problem that is selected ([0031] The mining units 106 are configured to carry out proof-of-work (POW) calculations in search of a POW for a candidate block header. The calculations include repeatedly hashing the block header, determining whether the hash result falls below the target value set by the difficulty setting.;[0032] If a solution to the POW is found by one of the mining units 106, it may immediately propagate the solution on the blockchain network 104 in some cases. Please note that the mining units carrying out POW calculations in search of a POW for a candidate block header, where the block header is hashed, to find a solution to the POW corresponds to Applicant’s selecting a problem from the problem mempool and solving the problem using computing power of a computing device, i.e., the miner, as a proof of work, wherein a hash of a block header is provided as an input to the problem that is selected.);
verifying a block associated with the at least one problem selected from the problem mempool and the solution that is validated using the hash of a previous block of a blockchain as a proof of work ([0026] Each block header contains a summary of the block's contents, such as in the form of a Merkle root, and each block header contains a hash of the previous block header so that blocks become chained together to create a permanent, unalterable record of all transactions which have been written to the blockchain since its inception.; [0027] Nodes validate transactions and propagate them to other nodes in the network. Please note that each block containing a hash of the previous block header so that blocks become chained together to create a permanent, unalterable transaction record corresponds to Applicant’s verifying a block associated with the problem selected from the problem mempool and the solution that is validated using the hash of a previous block of a blockchain as a proof of work, since propagating validated transactions with associated hashes, corresponding to validated solutions, provides a proof of work that is used to verify subsequent blocks and continue the blockchain. It is known in the art that the hash in a blockchain allows for verification of a block.);
Snow and Adams are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of blockchain mining operation management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Snow to incorporate the teachings of Adams to modify the blockchain transaction validation system optimized for resource usage to have problem and transaction mempools, have the miners select a problem from the mempool and solve it, and verify the block associated with each problem with a validation solution using the hash of a previous block of a blockchain as a proof of work, allowing for better distribution of transactions to be validated, improved adaptation of the system to changing transaction fees, and creating a permanent, unalterable record of transactions, as described in Adams.
Snow-Adams does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one problem is progress-free and memoryless such that no advantage is gained from previous solution attempts,
thereby enabling verification of the solution with reduced computational power relative to generating the solution
However, Bartolucci discloses wherein the at least one problem is progress-free and memoryless such that no advantage is gained from previous solution attempts ([0068] systems and methods described herein allow miners (e.g., nodes) of a blockchain to perform a computation (e.g., evaluation of function ƒ on input custom-character) once and generate a proof that can be used to verify correctness of the output, wherein evaluating correctness of the proof is computationally less expensive than evaluating the function.; [0069] Accordingly, the present disclosure presents systems and methods to execute the verification phase using blockchain scripts (e.g., in a Bitcoin-based network) for storing the elements used in the verification of the computation.; [0086] In an embodiment, the probability of a symbol occurring at a step j has properties of being memoryless, wherein the distribution of a symbol occurring at j+1 is not dependent on the values of any preceding symbols. Please note that the system to execute the verification phase using blockchain scripts, wherein the probability of a symbol occurring at a step j is memoryless, where the distribution of a symbol occurring at j+1 is not dependent on the values of any preceding symbols, corresponds to Applicant’s problem being progress-free and memoryless such that no advantage is gained from previous solution attempts.),
thereby enabling verification of the solution with reduced computational power relative to generating the solution ([0068] miners (e.g., nodes) of a blockchain to perform a computation (e.g., evaluation of function ƒ on input custom-character) once and generate a proof that can be used to verify correctness of the output, wherein evaluating correctness of the proof is computationally less expensive than evaluating the function[…] Further advantages may include reduction in power consumption of verifier systems, thereby improving the efficiency of verifier computer systems and reducing the energy costs associated with running such verifier computer systems in evaluating correctness of proofs. Please note that miners of a blockchain performing a computation to generate a proof to generate a proof to verify correctness of the output, wherein the evaluation of correctness is computationally less expensive than evaluating the function, and reducing the power consumption of verifier systems corresponds to Applicant’s enabling verification of the solution with reduced computational power relative to generating the solution.)
Snow-Adams and Bartolucci are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of blockchain mining operation management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Snow-Adams to incorporate the teachings of Bartolucci to modify the blockchain transaction validation system optimized for resource usage with problem and transaction mempools and verifying the block associated with each problem to have the problem be progress-free and memoryless and enable verification of the solution with reduced computational power relative to generating the solution, allowing for improved resource usage and system computing efficiency, as described in Bartolucci.
Regarding Claim 12, Snow-Adams-Bartolucci as described in Claim 11, Snow further discloses wherein the method comprises utilizing the centralized server for a centralized blockchain system to communicate the at least one problem with the difficulty calculation specification ([0027] When the miner system 22 receives the inputs 24, the miner system 22 has a hardware processor (such as CPU 36) and a solid-state memory device 38 that collects the inputs 24 (such as the blockchain transactions 32) into a block 40 of data. […] The proof-of-work mechanism 44 may instruct or cause the miner system 22 to call, request, and/or execute a difficulty algorithm 48 that generates or creates a difficulty 50; [0060] The blockchain network 20 (such the server 28) may execute a reporting software application (read/write operation) that logs/records/writes the randomized Merkle values (e.g., the Merkle value 75 and/or the Merkle root 77, the bit shuffle 92, and or the entry 94) in the database 81, thus perhaps generating a central repository of the blockchain transactions 32 and their validation operations. Please note that the blockchain network server 28 communicating inputs 24 corresponds to Applicant’s centralized server performing communication, calling a difficulty algorithm 48 that generates a difficulty 50 corresponds to communicating a problem with a difficulty calculation specification, and generating a central repository of the blockchain transactions 32 and their validation operations corresponds to the centralized server being utilized for a centralized blockchain system. ).
Regarding Claim 13, Snow-Adams-Bartolucci as described in Claim 11, Snow further discloses wherein the problem mempool are created to broadcast the at least one problem with the difficulty calculation specification ([0027] The proof-of-work mechanism 44 may instruct or cause the miner system 22 to call, request, and/or execute a difficulty algorithm 48 that generates or creates a difficulty 50; [0028] The blockchain network server 28 sends, distributes, or broadcasts any of the inputs 24 (via the communications network 26) to some or all of the authorized mining participants 22a-d.; [0087] Exemplary embodiments may thus pool validation efforts.; [0088] the difficulty algorithm 48, the PoW algorithm 52, […] include instructions, code, and/or programs that cause the miner system 22, the blockchain network server 28, and/or the accumulator device 79 to perform operations, such as sending the inputs 24 (such as the blockchain transactions 32), randomizing the Merkle values 75, and/or executing other validation processes. Please note that pooling validation efforts, where the inputs 24 are broadcast by the blockchain network server 28 to the miner system 22 that can generate a difficulty 50 based on the proof-of-work mechanism 44 corresponds to Applicant’s problem mempool being created to broadcast the problem with the difficulty calculation specification, as the proof-of-work mechanism 44 specifies the difficulty calculation to be performed by the miner, and the problem is broadcast to the pool.).
Adams further discloses and the transaction mempool ([0037] In many mining pools, the pool coordinator generates and sends a new candidate block template to the mining units on a regular basis, e.g. every 1 minute, 30 seconds, 20 seconds etc. to add additional transactions to the candidate block. Please note that a mining pool where the pool coordinator adds additional transactions to the candidate block to be sent to the mining units corresponds to Applicant’s transaction mempool.);
for a decentralized blockchain system ([0025] A blockchain is a peer-to-peer, electronic ledger which is implemented using a computer-based decentralised, distributed system. Please note that the computer-based decentralized system implementing a blockchain corresponds to a decentralized blockchain system.)
wherein the transaction mempool comprises valid pending transactions that are added to be in the blockchain ([0027] Nodes validate transactions and propagate them to other nodes in the network. Specialized network nodes, termed “mining nodes” or “miners,” collect a set of unconfirmed transactions, i.e. pending transactions, into a block. Please note that a set of pending transactions to be put into a block by miners after being validated corresponds to Applicant’s valid pending transactions added to be in the blockchain, as the set of pending transactions corresponds to the transaction mempool, and they are validated prior to propagation to other nodes, in order to be eventually added as a block to the blockchain. ).
Regarding Claim 14, Snow-Adams-Bartolucci as described in Claim 11, Snow further discloses wherein the method comprises communicating at least one problem are cryptographic puzzles to the at least one miner using the centralized server by at least one puzzler, wherein each problem comprises a problem description, a timestamp, a difficulty level of a problem, a problem fee and a solution description ([0027] The proof-of-work mechanism 44 may instruct or cause the miner system 22 to call, request, and/or execute a difficulty algorithm 48 that generates or creates a difficulty 50; [0028] The blockchain network server 28 sends, distributes, or broadcasts any of the inputs 24 (via the communications network 26) to some or all of the authorized mining participants 22a-d. The miners then compete to be the first to satisfy the proof-of-work target scheme 34.; [0045] While there are many compensation schemes (e.g., US Dollar, Euro, etc.), crypto-compensation is possible. That is, as the accumulator device 79 processes or validates the outputs 62, conventional and/or cryptographic currencies may be exchanged, traded, or transferred.; [0046] the accumulator device 79 (e.g., the miner system 22.; [0049] have to satisfy or solve the complicated mathematical question, target, problem, or puzzle 54, perhaps defined or specified by the proof-of-work target scheme 34.; [0056] The proof-of-work algorithm 52, for example, may have to compare the hash value(s) 64 to a target hash value 82. The target hash value 82 may be any minimum or maximum hash value that must be satisfied.; [0091] Exemplary embodiments may packetize. When the miner system 22, the blockchain network server 28, and the accumulator device 79 communicate via the communications network 26, the miner system 22, the blockchain network server 28, and the accumulator device 79 may collect, send, and retrieve information. The information may be formatted or generated as packets of data according to a packet protocol (such as the Internet Protocol). Please note that the blockchain network server 28 broadcasting the inputs 24 with a proof-of-work target scheme defining a puzzle via the communications network 26 with IP packets to the mining participants corresponds to the centralized server communicating cryptographic puzzles to the miners by a puzzler. The mathematical puzzle 54 corresponds to the problem description, and the target hash value 82 that must be satisfied corresponds to the solution description. Since the difficulty and problem fee are derived specifically based on the processing of a particular problem, they are inherently included in the problem. Additionally, the proof-of-work target scheme 34 corresponds to the puzzler, as it defines the puzzle to be communicated. Lastly, since the blockchain network server 28 broadcasts the inputs 24 to the miner systems via IP packets, it is known in the art that an IP packet, especially in a time-sensitive system as described in this invention, often contains a timestamp, which corresponds to the problem including a timestamp, as the problems being communicated to the miner systems would have a timestamp associated with the packets containing their data.).
Regarding Claim 15, Snow-Adams-Bartolucci as described in Claim 11, Snow further discloses wherein the method comprises solving a cryptographic puzzle by the at least one miner as the proof of the work in an absence of problems in the problem mempool to solve ([0028] The miners then compete to be the first to satisfy the proof-of-work target scheme 34 (e.g., the proof-of-work result 42 satisfies a mathematical problem or puzzle 54, such as a hash match or value). Any solution to the mathematical problem or puzzle 54 is usually discovered using trial-and-error schemes. Please note that the miners satisfying the proof-of-work target scheme 34 by satisfying a mathematical puzzle 54 by discovering proof-of-work result 42 corresponds to the miner solving a cryptographic puzzle as the proof of the work in an absence of problems in the problem mempool to solve, because it specifies satisfying a proof-of-work target scheme 34 with either a mathematical problem or puzzle 43; therefore, if there is no problem to solve, it must solve a puzzle as proof of work instead. Furthermore, the proof-of-work result being a hash match or value to satisfy the mathematical puzzle corresponds to the puzzle being cryptographic.);
and publishing the solution by the at least one miner as a proof of work block for the at least one problem that is selected and solved to claim the problem fee ([0028] mining machines/participants that compete to process the block 40 of data. […] The winning or successful miner system (say 22a) may timestamp the block 40 of data and broadcast the block 40 of data, the timestamp, the proof-of-work result 42, and/or the mathematical problem or puzzle 54 to other miners 22b-d in the blockchain environment 20.; [0045] While there are many compensation schemes (e.g., US Dollar, Euro, etc.), crypto-compensation is possible. That is, as the accumulator device 79 processes or validates the outputs 62, conventional and/or cryptographic currencies may be exchanged, traded, or transferred.; [0046] the accumulator device 79 (e.g., the miner system 22. Please note that the winning miner system, which is an instance of an accumulator device 79, broadcasting the block 40 of data, proof-of-work result 42, and the mathematical problem 54 to other miners in the blockchain environment 20 in order to be compensated for processing the data corresponds to Applicant’s miner publishing the solution as a proof of work block for the problem that is selected and solved to claim the problem fee, as the miner publishes the proof-of-work result for the problem it selected and solved in order to be compensated.).
Regarding Claim 16, Snow discloses One or more non-transitory computer-readable storage mediums storing the one or more sequences of instructions, which when executed by one or more processors, further causes ([0141] Exemplary embodiments may be physically embodied on or in a computer-readable storage medium […] A computer program product comprises processor-executable instructions for processing. Please note that physically embodying the exemplary embodiments in a computer-readable storage medium with a computer program product comprising processor-executable instructions for processing corresponds to Applicant’s non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing the sequences of instructions that are executed by a processor.)
a method for better utilization of power consumption of a computing network in at least one blockchain system by validating digital currency transactions with minimal computing resources ([0003] Exemplary embodiments encourage blockchain miners to use CPU-based computer machines. Exemplary embodiments discourage or deter the use of specialized hardware (such as GPUs and ASICs) in blockchain mining by dispersing blockchain encryption and validation amongst multiple blockchain nodal computers. […]The nodal machine […] consumes far less memory byte space and requires far less processor time/tasks/cycles/operations. Please note that the system dispersing blockchain validation using nodal machines requiring less processor time and consuming less memory byte space corresponds to Applicant’s method for better utilization of power consumption of a computing network in at least one blockchain system by validating digital currency transactions with minimal computing resources.),
comprising, communicating at least one digital currency transaction that corresponds to at least one miner ([0026] A miner system 22 receives one or more inputs 24 via a communications network 26 from a blockchain network server 28. While the inputs 24 may be any electronic data 30, in the blockchain environment 20, the inputs 24 may be blockchain transactions 32 (such as financial transactions, inventory/shipping data, and/or healthcare medical data). […] The blockchain network server 28 sends, distributes, or broadcasts the inputs 24 to some or all of the authorized mining participants (such as the miner system 22); [0027] When the miner system 22 receives the inputs 24, the miner system 22 has a hardware processor (such as CPU 36) and a solid-state memory device 38 that collects the inputs 24 (such as the blockchain transactions 32) into a block 40 of data. […] The proof-of-work mechanism 44 may instruct or cause the miner system 22 to call, request, and/or execute a difficulty algorithm 48 that generates or creates a difficulty 50. Please note that the blockchain network server 28 corresponds to Applicant’s centralized server, the mining system 22 having a hardware processor corresponds to comprising a processor, having a solid-state memory device 38 corresponds to comprising a memory, calling a difficulty algorithm 48 that generates a difficulty 50 corresponds to communicating a problem with a difficulty calculation specification, and the blockchain network server 28 communicating blockchain transactions 32 to the miner system 22 corresponds to the centralized server communicating at least one digital currency transaction corresponding to at least one miner.);
to broadcast the at least one problem with the difficulty calculation specification, wherein the at least one problem is entered into the problem mempool once the at least one problem is registered in a problem merkle tree ([0054] The proof-of-work algorithm 52 may also compare the proof-of-work result 42 to the proof-of-work (“PoW”) target scheme 34 to ensure or to prove a solution to the mathematical problem or puzzle 54.; [0087] Exemplary embodiments, instead, may merely send the needed Merkle values 75 (and/or their representative bit-shuffled randomized values). The Merkle values 75 may thus be quickly and simply conveyed via the communications network 26. ; [0088] the difficulty algorithm 48, the PoW algorithm 52, […] include instructions, code, and/or programs that cause the miner system 22, the blockchain network server 28, and/or the accumulator device 79 to perform operations, such as sending the inputs 24 (such as the blockchain transactions 32), randomizing the Merkle values 75, and/or executing other validation processes. Please note that the difficulty algorithm 48 sending inputs 24 such as blockchain transactions 32 corresponds to the Applicant’s problem having the difficulty calculation specification. Furthermore, conveying the Merkle values 75 via the communications network 26 corresponds to broadcasting the problem where the problem is entered into the mempool once the problem is registered in a problem merkle tree, as the value must first be registered in the merkle tree prior to being entered into the pool. Additionally, since the PoW algorithm 52 is also performed, and its purpose is to solve the problem, this corresponds to the pool consisting of problems.);
validating a solution that corresponds to the at least one problem by checking if the at least one problem is solved by the at least one miner using a hash ([0028] The miners then compete to be the first to satisfy the proof-of-work target scheme 34 (e.g., the proof-of-work result 42 satisfies a mathematical problem or puzzle 54, such as a hash match or value). Please note that the miner satisfying the proof-of-work target scheme 34 by satisfying a mathematical problem 54 with a proof-of-work result 42 that is a hash match corresponds to Applicant’s validating a solution that corresponds to the problem by checking if the problem is solved by the miner using a hash, as in order to determine whether the miner’s hash matches the solution to problem, it must necessarily be validated. ), wherein the at least one problem that is selected from the problem mempool is communicated to the at least one miner using at least one of the centralized server, the problem mempool or the transaction mempool ([0028] The blockchain network server 28 sends, distributes, or broadcasts any of the inputs 24 (via the communications network 26) to some or all of the authorized mining participants 22a-d. Please note that the blockchain network server 28 broadcasting the inputs 24 via the communications network 26 to the mining participants corresponds to the problem that is selected from the problem mempool being communicated to the miners using the centralized server.);
and determining a problem fee for the at least one miner for solving the at least one problem when the block associated is verified ([0045] While there are many compensation schemes (e.g., US Dollar, Euro, etc.), crypto-compensation is possible. That is, as the accumulator device 79 processes or validates the outputs 62, conventional and/or cryptographic currencies may be exchanged, traded, or transferred.; [0046] the accumulator device 79 (e.g., the miner system 22. Please note that providing compensation for the miner system 22, which is an instance of an accumulator device 70, for successfully processing the verified block corresponds to Applicant’s determining a problem fee for the miner for solving the problem when the associated block is verified, as a fee must be determined in order to provide compensation to the successful miner.),
wherein the difficulty calculation specification enables adjustment of problem difficulty such that a probability of solving the at least one problem is proportional to computing power of the at least one miner relative to the overall network computing power, thereby improving utilization of computing resources across the blockchain network while minimizing unnecessary power consumption during transaction validation ([0029] As the difficulty 50 increases, older, less capable, and less power efficient miners are unable to compete. […] Indeed, Satoshi envisioned that increasing hardware speed would allow miners to easier solve the proof-of-work. Satoshi thus explained that the difficulty 50 would be a moving target to slow down generation of the blocks 40 of data. BITCOIN's difficulty mechanism is thus a measure of how difficult it is to mine a BITCOIN® block of data. BITCOIN® miners are required to find a hash value below a given target (e.g., SHA256(nonce+input) has n leading zeros, where n determines the mining difficulty). The difficulty adjustment is directly related to the total estimated mining power (sometimes estimated in Total Hash Rate per second). BITCOIN's difficulty mechanism is adjusted to basically ensure that ten (10) minutes of computation are required before a miner may solve the mathematical problem or puzzle 54. Please note that the difficulty adjustment being directly related to the total estimated mining power, adjusting to ensure that 10 minutes of computation are required before a miner may solve the problem corresponds to Applicant’s difficulty calculation specification enabling adjustment of problem difficulty such that a probability of solving the at least one problem is proportional to computing power of the at least one miner relative to the overall network computing power, i.e., the probability of a particular miner solving the problem is adjusted according to the total estimated mining power, thereby improving utilization of computing resources across the blockchain network while minimizing unnecessary power consumption during transaction validation, as it improves power efficiency of miners as the difficulty increases.).
Snow does not explicitly disclose creating a problem mempool;
creating a transaction mempool to enable the at least one miner to select the at least one valid transaction for inclusion in a block;
selecting, by the at least one miner, the at least one problem from the problem mempool, and solve the at least one problem using computing power of a computing device as a proof of work, wherein a hash of a block header is provided as an input to the least one problem that is selected;
verifying a block associated with the at least one problem selected from the problem mempool and the solution that is validated using the hash of a previous block of a blockchain as a proof of work
However, Adams discloses creating a problem mempool ([0030] The pool coordinator 102 includes a computing device, with at least a processor and memory, configured to connect to and communicate with nodes on the blockchain network 104. The pool coordinator 102 may maintain a mempool of unconfirmed transactions in some implementations. Please note that a mempool of unconfirmed transactions corresponds to Applicant’s problem mempool, as it communicates unconfirmed transactions from a mempool, corresponding to problems, to be solved by the mining units.);
creating a transaction mempool to enable the at least one miner to select the at least one valid transaction for inclusion in a block ([0037] In many mining pools, the pool coordinator generates and sends a new candidate block template to the mining units on a regular basis, e.g. every 1 minute, 30 seconds, 20 seconds etc. to add additional transactions to the candidate block. Each new candidate block has a different block reward as the transaction fees may change. Please note that a mining pool where the pool coordinator adds additional transactions to the candidate block to be sent to the mining units corresponds to Applicant’s transaction mempool enabling miners to select valid transactions for inclusion in a block, as it communicates the transactions in the pool to miners to allow them to select them for processing as part of a candidate block. The pool of candidate block templates for the mining units to select from and process corresponds to Applicant’s transaction mempool.);
selecting, by the at least one miner, the at least one problem from the problem mempool, and solve the at least one problem using computing power of a computing device as a proof of work, wherein a hash of a block header is provided as an input to the least one problem that is selected ([0031] The mining units 106 are configured to carry out proof-of-work (POW) calculations in search of a POW for a candidate block header. The calculations include repeatedly hashing the block header, determining whether the hash result falls below the target value set by the difficulty setting.;[0032] If a solution to the POW is found by one of the mining units 106, it may immediately propagate the solution on the blockchain network 104 in some cases. Please note that the mining units carrying out POW calculations in search of a POW for a candidate block header, where the block header is hashed, to find a solution to the POW corresponds to Applicant’s selecting a problem from the problem mempool and solving the problem using computing power of a computing device, i.e., the miner, as a proof of work, wherein a hash of a block header is provided as an input to the problem that is selected.);
verifying a block associated with the at least one problem selected from the problem mempool and the solution that is validated using the hash of a previous block of a blockchain as a proof of work ([0026] Each block header contains a summary of the block's contents, such as in the form of a Merkle root, and each block header contains a hash of the previous block header so that blocks become chained together to create a permanent, unalterable record of all transactions which have been written to the blockchain since its inception.; [0027] Nodes validate transactions and propagate them to other nodes in the network. Please note that each block containing a hash of the previous block header so that blocks become chained together to create a permanent, unalterable transaction record corresponds to Applicant’s verifying a block associated with the problem selected from the problem mempool and the solution that is validated using the hash of a previous block of a blockchain as a proof of work, since propagating validated transactions with associated hashes, corresponding to validated solutions, provides a proof of work that is used to verify subsequent blocks and continue the blockchain. It is known in the art that the hash in a blockchain allows for verification of a block.);
Snow and Adams are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of blockchain mining operation management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Snow to incorporate the teachings of Adams to modify the blockchain transaction validation system optimized for resource usage to have problem and transaction mempools, have the miners select a problem from the mempool and solve it, and verify the block associated with each problem with a validation solution using the hash of a previous block of a blockchain as a proof of work, allowing for better distribution of transactions to be validated, improved adaptation of the system to changing transaction fees, and creating a permanent, unalterable record of transactions, as described in Adams.
Snow-Adams does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one problem is progress-free and memoryless such that no advantage is gained from previous solution attempts,
thereby enabling verification of the solution with reduced computational power relative to generating the solution
However, Bartolucci discloses wherein the at least one problem is progress-free and memoryless such that no advantage is gained from previous solution attempts ([0068] systems and methods described herein allow miners (e.g., nodes) of a blockchain to perform a computation (e.g., evaluation of function ƒ on input custom-character) once and generate a proof that can be used to verify correctness of the output, wherein evaluating correctness of the proof is computationally less expensive than evaluating the function.; [0069] Accordingly, the present disclosure presents systems and methods to execute the verification phase using blockchain scripts (e.g., in a Bitcoin-based network) for storing the elements used in the verification of the computation.; [0086] In an embodiment, the probability of a symbol occurring at a step j has properties of being memoryless, wherein the distribution of a symbol occurring at j+1 is not dependent on the values of any preceding symbols. Please note that the system to execute the verification phase using blockchain scripts, wherein the probability of a symbol occurring at a step j is memoryless, where the distribution of a symbol occurring at j+1 is not dependent on the values of any preceding symbols, corresponds to Applicant’s problem being progress-free and memoryless such that no advantage is gained from previous solution attempts.),
thereby enabling verification of the solution with reduced computational power relative to generating the solution ([0068] miners (e.g., nodes) of a blockchain to perform a computation (e.g., evaluation of function ƒ on input custom-character) once and generate a proof that can be used to verify correctness of the output, wherein evaluating correctness of the proof is computationally less expensive than evaluating the function[…] Further advantages may include reduction in power consumption of verifier systems, thereby improving the efficiency of verifier computer systems and reducing the energy costs associated with running such verifier computer systems in evaluating correctness of proofs. Please note that miners of a blockchain performing a computation to generate a proof to generate a proof to verify correctness of the output, wherein the evaluation of correctness is computationally less expensive than evaluating the function, and reducing the power consumption of verifier systems corresponds to Applicant’s enabling verification of the solution with reduced computational power relative to generating the solution.)
Snow-Adams and Bartolucci are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of blockchain mining operation management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Snow-Adams to incorporate the teachings of Bartolucci to modify the blockchain transaction validation system optimized for resource usage with problem and transaction mempools and verifying the block associated with each problem to have the problem be progress-free and memoryless and enable verification of the solution with reduced computational power relative to generating the solution, allowing for improved resource usage and system computing efficiency, as described in Bartolucci.
Regarding Claim 17, Snow-Adams-Bartolucci as described in Claim 16, Snow further discloses wherein the method comprises utilizing the centralized server for a centralized blockchain system to communicate the at least one problem with the difficulty calculation specification ([0027] When the miner system 22 receives the inputs 24, the miner system 22 has a hardware processor (such as CPU 36) and a solid-state memory device 38 that collects the inputs 24 (such as the blockchain transactions 32) into a block 40 of data. […] The proof-of-work mechanism 44 may instruct or cause the miner system 22 to call, request, and/or execute a difficulty algorithm 48 that generates or creates a difficulty 50; [0060] The blockchain network 20 (such the server 28) may execute a reporting software application (read/write operation) that logs/records/writes the randomized Merkle values (e.g., the Merkle value 75 and/or the Merkle root 77, the bit shuffle 92, and or the entry 94) in the database 81, thus perhaps generating a central repository of the blockchain transactions 32 and their validation operations. Please note that the blockchain network server 28 communicating inputs 24 corresponds to Applicant’s centralized server performing communication, calling a difficulty algorithm 48 that generates a difficulty 50 corresponds to communicating a problem with a difficulty calculation specification, and generating a central repository of the blockchain transactions 32 and their validation operations corresponds to the centralized server being utilized for a centralized blockchain system. ).
Regarding Claim 18, Snow-Adams-Bartolucci as described in Claim 16, Snow further discloses wherein the problem mempool are created to broadcast the at least one problem with the difficulty calculation specification ([0027] The proof-of-work mechanism 44 may instruct or cause the miner system 22 to call, request, and/or execute a difficulty algorithm 48 that generates or creates a difficulty 50; [0028] The blockchain network server 28 sends, distributes, or broadcasts any of the inputs 24 (via the communications network 26) to some or all of the authorized mining participants 22a-d.; [0087] Exemplary embodiments may thus pool validation efforts.; [0088] the difficulty algorithm 48, the PoW algorithm 52, […] include instructions, code, and/or programs that cause the miner system 22, the blockchain network server 28, and/or the accumulator device 79 to perform operations, such as sending the inputs 24 (such as the blockchain transactions 32), randomizing the Merkle values 75, and/or executing other validation processes. Please note that pooling validation efforts, where the inputs 24 are broadcast by the blockchain network server 28 to the miner system 22 that can generate a difficulty 50 based on the proof-of-work mechanism 44 corresponds to Applicant’s problem mempool being created to broadcast the problem with the difficulty calculation specification, as the proof-of-work mechanism 44 specifies the difficulty calculation to be performed by the miner, and the problem is broadcast to the pool.).
Adams further discloses and the transaction mempool ([0037] In many mining pools, the pool coordinator generates and sends a new candidate block template to the mining units on a regular basis, e.g. every 1 minute, 30 seconds, 20 seconds etc. to add additional transactions to the candidate block. Please note that a mining pool where the pool coordinator adds additional transactions to the candidate block to be sent to the mining units corresponds to Applicant’s transaction mempool.);
for a decentralized blockchain system ([0025] A blockchain is a peer-to-peer, electronic ledger which is implemented using a computer-based decentralised, distributed system. Please note that the computer-based decentralized system implementing a blockchain corresponds to a decentralized blockchain system.)
wherein the transaction mempool comprises valid pending transactions that are added to be in the blockchain ([0027] Nodes validate transactions and propagate them to other nodes in the network. Specialized network nodes, termed “mining nodes” or “miners,” collect a set of unconfirmed transactions, i.e. pending transactions, into a block. Please note that a set of pending transactions to be put into a block by miners after being validated corresponds to Applicant’s valid pending transactions added to be in the blockchain, as the set of pending transactions corresponds to the transaction mempool, and they are validated prior to propagation to other nodes, in order to be eventually added as a block to the blockchain. ).
Regarding Claim 19, Snow-Adams-Bartolucci as described in Claim 16, Snow further discloses wherein the method comprises communicating at least one problem are cryptographic puzzles to the at least one miner using the centralized server by at least one puzzler, wherein each problem comprises a problem description, a timestamp, a difficulty level of a problem, a problem fee and a solution description ([0027] The proof-of-work mechanism 44 may instruct or cause the miner system 22 to call, request, and/or execute a difficulty algorithm 48 that generates or creates a difficulty 50; [0028] The blockchain network server 28 sends, distributes, or broadcasts any of the inputs 24 (via the communications network 26) to some or all of the authorized mining participants 22a-d. The miners then compete to be the first to satisfy the proof-of-work target scheme 34.; [0045] While there are many compensation schemes (e.g., US Dollar, Euro, etc.), crypto-compensation is possible. That is, as the accumulator device 79 processes or validates the outputs 62, conventional and/or cryptographic currencies may be exchanged, traded, or transferred.; [0046] the accumulator device 79 (e.g., the miner system 22.; [0049] have to satisfy or solve the complicated mathematical question, target, problem, or puzzle 54, perhaps defined or specified by the proof-of-work target scheme 34.; [0056] The proof-of-work algorithm 52, for example, may have to compare the hash value(s) 64 to a target hash value 82. The target hash value 82 may be any minimum or maximum hash value that must be satisfied.; [0091] Exemplary embodiments may packetize. When the miner system 22, the blockchain network server 28, and the accumulator device 79 communicate via the communications network 26, the miner system 22, the blockchain network server 28, and the accumulator device 79 may collect, send, and retrieve information. The information may be formatted or generated as packets of data according to a packet protocol (such as the Internet Protocol). Please note that the blockchain network server 28 broadcasting the inputs 24 with a proof-of-work target scheme defining a puzzle via the communications network 26 with IP packets to the mining participants corresponds to the centralized server communicating cryptographic puzzles to the miners by a puzzler. The mathematical puzzle 54 corresponds to the problem description, and the target hash value 82 that must be satisfied corresponds to the solution description. Since the difficulty and problem fee are derived specifically based on the processing of a particular problem, they are inherently included in the problem. Additionally, the proof-of-work target scheme 34 corresponds to the puzzler, as it defines the puzzle to be communicated. Lastly, since the blockchain network server 28 broadcasts the inputs 24 to the miner systems via IP packets, it is known in the art that an IP packet, especially in a time-sensitive system as described in this invention, often contains a timestamp, which corresponds to the problem including a timestamp, as the problems being communicated to the miner systems would have a timestamp associated with the packets containing their data.).
Regarding Claim 20, Snow-Adams-Bartolucci as described in Claim 16, Snow further discloses wherein the method comprises solving a cryptographic puzzle by the at least one miner as the proof of the work in an absence of problems in the problem mempool to solve ([0028] The miners then compete to be the first to satisfy the proof-of-work target scheme 34 (e.g., the proof-of-work result 42 satisfies a mathematical problem or puzzle 54, such as a hash match or value). Any solution to the mathematical problem or puzzle 54 is usually discovered using trial-and-error schemes. Please note that the miners satisfying the proof-of-work target scheme 34 by satisfying a mathematical puzzle 54 by discovering proof-of-work result 42 corresponds to the miner solving a cryptographic puzzle as the proof of the work in an absence of problems in the problem mempool to solve, because it specifies satisfying a proof-of-work target scheme 34 with either a mathematical problem or puzzle 43; therefore, if there is no problem to solve, it must solve a puzzle as proof of work instead. Furthermore, the proof-of-work result being a hash match or value to satisfy the mathematical puzzle corresponds to the puzzle being cryptographic.);
and publishing the solution by the at least one miner as a proof of work block for the at least one problem that is selected and solved to claim the problem fee ([0028] mining machines/participants that compete to process the block 40 of data. […] The winning or successful miner system (say 22a) may timestamp the block 40 of data and broadcast the block 40 of data, the timestamp, the proof-of-work result 42, and/or the mathematical problem or puzzle 54 to other miners 22b-d in the blockchain environment 20.; [0045] While there are many compensation schemes (e.g., US Dollar, Euro, etc.), crypto-compensation is possible. That is, as the accumulator device 79 processes or validates the outputs 62, conventional and/or cryptographic currencies may be exchanged, traded, or transferred.; [0046] the accumulator device 79 (e.g., the miner system 22. Please note that the winning miner system, which is an instance of an accumulator device 79, broadcasting the block 40 of data, proof-of-work result 42, and the mathematical problem 54 to other miners in the blockchain environment 20 in order to be compensated for processing the data corresponds to Applicant’s miner publishing the solution as a proof of work block for the problem that is selected and solved to claim the problem fee, as the miner publishes the proof-of-work result for the problem it selected and solved in order to be compensated.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments are summarized as follows:
The combination of Snow and Adams fails to solve the technical problem addressed by the invention regarding better utilization of power consumption in a computing network of a blockchain system while validating digital currency transactions using minimal computing resources, the solution to which is addressed in the amended independent Claims 1, 11, and 16. Therefore, the limitations of the independent Claims are not taught by Snow and Adams, the Claims are patentable, and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be withdrawn.
Combining the teachings of Snow and Adams does not render the claims prima facie obvious-the proposed modification or combination of the prior art would change the principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified. Therefore, the combination is not obvious, and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be withdrawn.
Dependent Claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20 are also allowable over the prior art, since they are dependent on allowable independent claims and additionally patentable features they recite. Therefore, their rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 should also be withdrawn.
Regarding A, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s arguments are moot, as the rejections of the Claim now relies on a new grounds of rejection, Snow-Adams-Bartolucci, which discloses the limitations stated by the Applicant via the combination of references, as stated above. Therefore, the recited features can be found in the cited combination of references, and independent Claims 1, 11, and 16 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 for the reasons stated above, and the combinations cited would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintained.
Regarding B, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s arguments are moot, as the rejections of the Claim now relies on a new grounds of rejection, Snow-Adams-Bartolucci, which discloses the limitations stated by the Applicant via the combination of references, as stated above. In response to applicant's argument that the combination of Snow and Adams does not render the claims prima facie obvious and that the combination would change the principle of operation of the prior art invention, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Therefore, the recited features can be found in the cited combination of references, and independent Claims 1, 11, and 16 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 for the reasons stated above, and the combinations cited would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintained.
Regarding C, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The dependent claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20 depend on unpatentable claims and do not add limitations that overcome the rejection; therefore, they likewise remain rejected, and the application is not in condition for allowance. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Katz et al. (US 20180247191 A1) discloses ASICs reducing the processing power and energy required for mining, hashing a transaction to cement its validity and the difficulty of hashing a block varying based on the amount of computing power used by miners on the network (see [0180, 0247, 0278]).
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 FARAZ T AKBARI whose telephone number is (571)272-4166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:30am-7:30pm ET.
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, April Blair can be reached at (571)270-1014. 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.
/FARAZ T AKBARI/Examiner, Art Unit 2196
/APRIL Y BLAIR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2196