DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Action is non-final and is in response to the claims filed 01/27/2023. Claims 1-20 are currently pending, of which claims 1-20 are currently rejected.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a controller communicatively coupled to the memory array; a proof of space cryptocurrency logic” first disclosed in claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Closest figure showing this is Fig. 2, which shows the proof of space cryptocurrency logic inside the controller. However, it does not show the proof of space cryptocurrency logic as a separate component from the controller as disclosed in Claim 1.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“proof of space cryptocurrency logic” in claim 1, interpreted as the controller 126, shown in Figs. 1C and 2, executing the algorithmic steps to perform the proof of space cryptocurrency process disclosed in Fig. 12 and ¶0115-0119, including steps for generating plots disclosed in Fig. 13 and ¶0120-0122, and further including the steps for generating cryptocurrency tables disclosed in Fig. 14 and ¶0123-0126, as described in ¶0080, where ¶0080 states the proof of space cryptocurrency logic inside the controller 126 performs proof of space cryptocurrency processing operations.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 7-11 14-19 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the one or more redundancy processes”. It is unclear if applicant intends this to be the “one or more data redundancy processes” recited in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 inherits the same deficiency as claim 7 by reason of dependence and is rejected for the same reasons therein.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the one or more redundancy processes”. It is unclear if applicant intends this to be the “one or more data redundancy processes” recited in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 10-11 inherit the same deficiency as claim 7 by reason of dependence and are rejected for the same reasons therein.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the one or more redundancy processes”. It is unclear if applicant intends this to be the “one or more data redundancy processes” recited in claim 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 15-19 inherit the same deficiency as claim 7 by reason of dependence and are rejected for the same reasons therein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Cohen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: US 20220027355 A1), hereinafter “Cohen”.
Regarding Claim 12, Cohen teaches:
A method comprising:
utilizing a proof of space cryptocurrency process comprising a first data generation stage and a second data verification stage (¶0036, e.g., space server can allocate an amount of drive storage for generating proofs-of-space. Each plot file cryptographically verifies data);
wherein during the data generation stage, one or more data redundancy processes are utilized to reduce the size of data required during the first data generation stage (¶0053, e.g., compression of set of tables can be performed during the generating of entries).
Regarding Claim 13, Cohen teaches:
The method of claim 12, wherein the first data generation stage comprises generating a plurality of tables of entries (¶0037, e.g., plotting generates a set of tables of entries).
Regarding Claim 14, Cohen teaches:
The method of claim 13, wherein the one or more redundancy processes comprises at least one propagation step and a compression step (¶0050, e.g., forward-propagation and backpropagation is performed; ¶0053, e.g., compression of set of tables can be performed during the generating of entries).
Regarding Claim 15, Cohen teaches:
The method of claim 14, wherein the one or more redundancy processes comprises at least a forward propagation step, a backward propagation step, and a compression step (¶0050, e.g., forward-propagation and backpropagation is performed; ¶0053, e.g., compression of set of tables can be performed during the generating of entries).
Regarding Claim 16, Cohen teaches:
The method of claim 15, wherein the backward propagation step is a one-step backward propagation step (¶0050, e.g., backpropagation is performed after forward-propagation process).
Regarding Claim 17, Cohen teaches:
The method of claim 15, wherein, in response to completing the one or more redundancy processes, at least one table is redundant (¶0054, e.g., space server can compress sets of tables that contain redundant information).
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 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen in view of NPL: “Chia proof of Space Construction” (Cited in IDS on 01/27/2023), hereinafter “Chia”.
Regarding Claim 18, Cohen teaches The method of claim 15. Cohen does not teach:
wherein the compression step utilizes a Huffman compression method.
However, Chia explains how Huffman encoding is used for compression of data on disk representation. Chia explains “In order to compress the on disk representation, we can store deltas between each , which are small, since there are approximately uniformly distributed integers of size . We can efficiently encode these deltas with a variable scheme like Huffman encoding.” (Chia: Page 8 Checkpoint Tables)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine the Huffman encoding for compression of data as taught by Chia with the compression method as taught by Cohen. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose Proof-of-space blockchains using plotting of tables, and Chia enhances the model of Cohen by compressing data for disk representation. See Chia: Page 8 Checkpoint Tables.
Regarding Claim 19, Cohen teaches The method of claim 15. Cohen does not teach:
wherein the compression method utilizes a modified park storage format.
However, Chia teaches:
wherein the compression method utilizes a modified park storage format (Page 8 Checkpoint Tables, e.g., Compression using Huffman encoding involved storing entries in parks).
The motivation to combine provided with respect to claim 18 applies equally to claim 19.
Claims 1 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen in view of Bahar et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: US 20190377508 A1), hereinafter “Bahar”.
Regarding Claim 1, Cohen teaches:
A device (¶0082, e.g., instructions can be implemented in a user computer) comprising:
a processor (¶0082, e.g., computer-executable component can be a processor);
…
a proof of space cryptocurrency logic (¶0010, ¶0058-0060, e.g., Proof-of-space executes a cryptographic hash; ¶0082, e.g., instructions can be performed in software) configured to:
utilize a proof of space cryptocurrency process comprising a first data generation stage and a second data verification stage (¶0036, e.g., space server can allocate an amount of drive storage for generating proofs-of-space. Each plot file cryptographically verifies data);
wherein during the data generation stage, one or more data redundancy processes are utilized to reduce the size of data required during the first data generation stage (¶0053, e.g., compression of set of tables can be performed during the generating of entries).
Cohen does not teach:
a memory array comprising a plurality of memory devices; and
a controller communicatively coupled to the memory array;
However, Bahar teaches:
a memory array comprising a plurality of memory devices (¶0042, e.g., flash memory devices include plurality of memory cells; Fig. 4); and
a controller communicatively coupled to the memory array (Fig. 4, e.g., shows controller coupled to flash memory area);
Cohen further discloses the computer readable medium can store instructions, where this computer readable medium can be a flash memory. See Cohen ¶0082. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine the storage device including the controller and memory devices having a plurality of memory cells as taught by Bahar with the user computer as taught by Cohen. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose optimizing of storage devices, and Bahar enhances the model of Cohen by allowing for the proof-of-space generation to be implemented in a computer device including a flash memory, and a controller to read and write data to the flash memory. See Bahar: ¶0028.
Regarding Claim 20, Cohen teaches:
A device (¶0082, e.g., instructions can be implemented in a user computer) comprising:
a processor (¶0082, e.g., computer-executable component can be a processor);
…
a proof of space cryptocurrency logic (¶0010, ¶0058-0060, e.g., Proof-of-space executes a cryptographic hash; ¶0082, e.g., instructions can be performed in software) configured to generate cryptocurrency by:
generating a plot … (¶0036, e.g., the space server can generate a plot file), comprising:
a plurality of tables populated with data entries (¶0037, e.g., plotting generates a set of tables of entries) which are processed utilizing at least:
a forward propagation step wherein one or more redundant entries are removed;
a backward propagation step (¶0050, e.g., forward-propagation and backpropagation is performed; ¶0054, e.g., space server can compress sets of tables that contain redundant information); and
a compression step (¶0053, e.g., compression of set of tables can be performed during the generating of entries); and
retrieving, in response to a challenge, one or more proofs of ownership of the generated plot (¶0014, e.g., space server retrieves proof-of-space (i.e., a series of tuples from the plot file) that confirms the presence of the plot file on disk and is responsive to the challenge).
Cohen does not teach:
a memory array comprising a plurality of memory devices; and
a controller communicatively coupled to the memory array;
generating a plot within the memory array
However, Bahar teaches:
a memory array comprising a plurality of memory devices (¶0042, e.g., flash memory devices include plurality of memory cells; Fig. 2; and
a controller communicatively coupled to the memory array (Fig. 2 e.g., shows controller coupled to flash memory area);
Cohen further discloses the computer readable medium can store instructions, where this computer readable medium can be a flash memory. See Cohen ¶0082. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine the storage device including the controller and memory devices having a plurality of memory cells as taught by Bahar with the user computer as taught by Cohen. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose optimizing of storage devices, and Bahar enhances the model of Cohen by allowing for the proof-of-space generation to be implemented in a computer device including a flash memory, and a controller to read and write data to the flash memory. See Bahar: ¶0028. Combination would yield the generation of plot files within the flash memory area (memory array).
Claims 2-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen in view of Bahar, further in view of Chia.
Regarding Claim 2, Cohen in view of Bahar teach:
The device of claim 1, wherein … the first data generation stage is a plotting stage (Cohen: ¶0036, e.g., the space server can generate a plot file).
Cohen in view of Bahar do not teach:
wherein the cryptocurrency process is a Chia
However, Chia explains plots are part of a Chia blockchain. Chia specifically argues “In the Chia Blockchain, these provers are referred to as farmers, since they create and maintain the plots.” (Chia: Page 5, Last paragraph)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine chia blockchain as taught by Chia with the blockchain of the space server as taught by Cohen in view of Bahar. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose Proof-of-space blockchains using plotting of tables, and Chia enhances the model of Cohen in view of Bahar because farmers that create the plotting creates and efficiently stores data on disk. See Chia Page 5, Last paragraph.
Regarding Claim 3, Cohen in view of Bahar in view of Chia teach:
The device of claim 2, wherein the plotting stage comprises generating a plurality of tables of entries (Cohen: ¶0037, e.g., plotting generates a set of tables of entries).
Regarding Claim 4, Cohen in view of Bahar in view of Chia teach:
The device of claim 3, wherein the plurality of tables comprises seven tables of entries (Cohen: ¶0065, e.g., plot files include a set of seven tables).
Regarding Claim 5, Cohen in view of Bahar in view of Chia teach:
The device of claim 4, wherein entries within one table reference at least one entry in another table (Cohen: Fig. 4; ¶0053, e.g., entries are forward-propagated to subsequent tables).
Regarding Claim 6, Cohen in view of Bahar in view of Chia teach:
The device of claim 5, wherein the data stored within a table is in a two-dimensional format (Cohen: ¶0053, e.g., Compression of set of tables replaces the position-offset format with a double-pointer format).
Regarding Claim 7, Cohen in view of Bahar in view of Chia teach:
The device of claim 6, wherein the one or more redundancy processes include a compression method (Cohen: ¶0053, e.g., Compression of set of tables replaces the position-offset format with a double-pointer format).
Regarding Claim 8, Cohen in view of Bahar in view of Chia teach:
The device of claim 7, wherein the compression method converts data from a two- dimensional format to a one-dimension format (Cohen: ¶0053, e.g., Compression of set of tables replaces the position-offset format with a double-pointer format).
Regarding Claim 9, Cohen in view of Bahar in view of Chia teach:
The storage device of claim 4, wherein the one or more redundancy processes include a multi-directional propagation method (Cohen: ¶0050, e.g., forward-propagation and backpropagation is performed).
Regarding Claim 10, Cohen in view of Bahar in view of Chia teach:
The storage device of claim 9, wherein the multi-directional propagation method includes a forward and backward propagation wherein a backward propagation directly after each forward propagation (Cohen: ¶0050, e.g., forward-propagation and backpropagation is performed).
Regarding Claim 11, Cohen in view of Bahar in view of Chia teach:
The device of claim 10, wherein the forward and backward propagation method identifies and removes redundant entries within the plurality of tables (Cohen: ¶0050, e.g., forward-propagation and backpropagation is performed; ¶0054, e.g., space server can compress sets of tables that contain redundant information).
Prior Art Made of Record
NPL: “The Liquidum Blockchain” (mgraczyk.com/liquidum_whitepaper.pdf) – teaches Chia using a Proof-of-Space mechanism. See Section 2.5 “Chia”. This is pertinent to the Chia blockchain included in the proof of space blockchain system as disclosed in the instant application on ¶0053 of the specification.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS H DE LA GARZA whose telephone number is (571)272-0474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-6PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Caldwell can be reached at (571) 272-3702. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.H.D./
Carlos H. De La GarzaExaminer, Art Unit 2182 (571)272-0474
/EMILY E LAROCQUE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2182
Prosecution Insights