Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This office action is in response to the documents filed on 12/22/2025. Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 10, 14, 16 and 17 have been amended. Claims 1 – 5, 7 – 14, 16 – 17 and 19 – 21 dated by 12/22/2025 are pending for consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) dated 12/22/2025 have been received and considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments in Arguments/Remarks filed on 12/22/2025 (hereafter Remarks) referring to the Office Action on 09/24/2025 (hereafter OA) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On p. 8 of the Remarks applicant rejected proposed consolidation of independent claims 1 and 5 (14 and 16) both claiming a method (a device). Applicant argued that recited claims disclose different examples, i.e., implementation of the declared method (device) in different situations.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims 1 and 5 (14 and 16) declaring a method (a device) are based on the same inventive concept implemented in different situations. This clearly corresponds to the “indistinct variations of the same invention” thus making respective claims not patentably distinct, as clarified in MPEP 1504.6.
Amendments indeed disclose additional important features of the invention. However, claims 1 and 5 (14 and 16) individually do not offer enough to justify allowance based on the concept of generating a placeholder block until proof-of-work solution is completed so as to allow data to be appended subsequently or synchronized. Consolidating claims 1 and 5 (14 and 16) may be a way to achieve a condition of allowance; subject to further search and consideration. Other arguments are moot in view of new ground of rejection.
Accordingly, rejection under 103 maintained.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 – 4, 12 – 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Setty et al. (US 10984134) (hereafter Setty), in view of Mahoney (US 20200366495) (hereafter Mahoney), and in view of Padmanabhan et al. (2021/0240498) (hereafter Padmanabhan).
As per claim 1, Setty discloses: A computer-implemented method of propagating block solutions in a blockchain network, comprising:
[ while hashing a candidate block at a first miner in search of a proof-of-work,]
building and storing, at [[a]] the first miner, append only lists of respective ordered sets of transactions in respective block candidates (Examiner note: building an append-only list/set of transactions is met by creation in Setty an append-only sets of transactions included into a ledger, i.e., “solved block”, for transmission, i.e., propagation, in the blockchain subsystem, defined as “volt”) (Setty, col. 1, ll.40-43: a system referred to as "volt," which can enable a group of mutually distrusting participants to securely share state and then agree on a linear history of operations on that shared state. Setty, col. 1, ll.45-47: One aspect of volt is the abstraction of a blockchain service provider (BSP) 102, which creates and updates an append-only, tamper-resistant ledger 104. Setty, col. 12, ll.44-46: FIG. 5 depicts life of a transaction in volt. At 510(1) the coordinator service (R) batches transactions and sends them to the state transition service (T).);
being mined by other miners based on append messages received from those other miners containing references to transactions to be appended to their respective append only lists; (Setty, col. 4, ll.29-32: The blockchain is maintained by miners in a decentralized network, and the miners agree on the current state of blockchain via mining. Miners solve computational puzzles to append new blocks to the chain.);
[receiving, from one of the other miners, a block finalize message providing a block solution for a final candidate block and including synchronization data,]
[wherein the synchronization data enables the first miner to roll-back the append only list associated with said one of the other miners to an earlier version that matches a transaction list in the final candidate block solved by said one of the other miners;]
determining, based on the synchronization data that one or more transactions appended to the append only list associated with said one of the other miners are not included in the final candidate block for which the block solution was found; (Examiner note: update of the append-only list based on synchronization is met in Setty by the synchronization-based update of the append-only transaction ledger) (Setty, col. 18, ll.34-39: the updating comprises appending the append-only tamper-resistant ledger to reflect setup information for the blockchain, transaction information for the blockchain, and synchronization information that specifies parts of the blockchain that have already been downloaded.);
[removing said one or more transactions from the append only list associated with said one of the other miners to produce a final append only list;]
constructing a solved block from the final append only list and the block solution; (Examiner note: as noted above, building an append-only list/set of transactions is met by creation in Setty within a volt blockchain system, an append-only sets of transactions included into a ledger, i.e., “solved block”); (Setty, col. 1, ll.45-47: One aspect of volt is the abstraction of a blockchain service provider (BSP) 102, which creates and updates an append-only, tamper-resistant ledger 104); and validating the solved block (Setty, col. 5, ll.25-29: When a volt blockchain network 100 is initialized, member nodes 108 collectively define rules that govern the network. This includes the current list of participants, initial state of the network, and rules to authenticate and validate transactions.).
Setty fails to specifically disclose: variety of the operations on transactions in a blockchain system based on a synchronization.
However, Mahoney discloses: receiving, from one of the other miners, a block finalize message providing a block solution for a final candidate block and including synchronization data. (Examiner note: the limitation “block finalize message” is disclosed by Applicant in SPECS [0023] as a set of information for a final candidate block comprising synchronization data. This limitation is met in Mahoney by the transaction ballot, i.e., a message comprising synchronization data.) (Mahoney, [0038]: The transaction balloting process (or method) may synchronize transaction information across the nodes in the network. Operationally, each node may maintain a transaction ballot containing a time-ordered list of transactions based upon the node's understanding of the state of the network at that time. Mahoney, [0007]: A block consensus method that generates mining rewards for collaborative participation in block generation while also providing attack vector mitigation. Mahoney, [0144]: As long as the cost associated with mining is less than the reward for participation, rational nodes may continue to participate.);
removing said one or more transactions from the append only list associated with said one of the other miners to produce a final append only list; (Examiner note: flagging nodes/information, i.e., transactions, to be ignored is equivalent to removal the respective items) (Mahoney, [0043]: Provided there is a sufficient number of honest nodes sharing and synchronizing a valid set of information, dishonest or corrupted nodes may quickly be flagged and information being propagated from these nodes may be readily ignored);
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Setty, in view of the teaching of Mahoney, because both disclose operations on append-only transactions in a blockchain systems. The motivation to combine would be to modify Setty by teaching of Mahoney of specific synchronization-based operations in order to improve security of the system.
Setty as modified fails to specifically disclose: hashing of blocks by POW operations as well as enabling rollback operation by data synchronization. However, Padmanabhan, discloses:
while hashing a candidate block at a first miner in search of a proof-of-work, (Padmanabhan, discloses time-stamping operations, such as POW, [0078], in blockchain, using hash pointers technique [0031], i.e., a search technique, per search logic 724 [0100] depicted in Fig. 7);
wherein the synchronization data enables the first miner to roll-back the append only list associated with said one of the other miners to an earlier version that matches a transaction list in the final candidate block solved by said one of the other miners; (Padmanabhan, discloses in para. [0115] and in Fig. 7 a virtual chain interface configured to handle rollback transactions by data synchronization in a blockchain system).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Setty-Mahoney, in view of the teaching of Padmanabhan, because all disclose operations data/transactions synchronization in a blockchain systems. The motivation to combine would be to modify Setty-Mahoney by teaching of Padmanabhan of synchronization-based operations including rollback actions in order to improve security of the system.
As per claim 2, Setty as modified discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein each append message from said one of the other miners has a respective associated sequence number, and wherein the synchronization data indicates a specific sequence number associated with the transaction list included in the final candidate block. (Examiner note: sequence number identifying transactions is met in Mahoney by a transaction descriptor identifying the transaction in the blockchain system) (Mahoney, [0009]: a transaction descriptor for a transaction associated with transaction Information. Mahoney, [0010]: Append a transaction descriptor for a transaction associated with transaction information).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Setty, in view of the teaching of Mahoney, because both disclose operations on append-only transactions in a blockchain systems. The motivation to combine would be to modify Setty by teaching of Mahoney of specific transaction-related operations including identifier/descriptor in order to improve security of the system.
As per claim 3, Setty as modified discloses: The method of claim 2, wherein removing includes removing said or more transactions (Examiner note: flagging nodes/information, i.e., transactions, to be ignored is equivalent to removal the respective items) (Mahoney, [0043]: Provided there is a sufficient number of honest nodes sharing and synchronizing a valid set of information, dishonest or corrupted nodes may quickly be flagged and information being propagated from these nodes may be readily ignored);
on the basis that they were specified in append messages having subsequent respective sequence numbers to the specific sequence number (Examiner note: as noted above, sequence number identifying transactions is met in Mahoney by a transaction descriptor identifying the transaction in the blockchain system) (Mahoney, [0009]: a transaction descriptor for a transaction associated with transaction Information. Mahoney, [0010]: Append a transaction descriptor for a transaction associated with transaction information).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Setty, in view of the teaching of Mahoney, because both disclose operations on append-only transactions in a blockchain systems. The motivation to combine would be to modify Setty by teaching of Mahoney of specific synchronization-based operations in order to improve security of the system.
As per claim 4, Setty as modified discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein the synchronization data specifies said one or more transactions to be removed (Examiner note: flagging nodes/information, i.e., transactions, to be ignored is equivalent to removal the respective items) (Mahoney, [0043]: Provided there is a sufficient number of honest nodes sharing and synchronizing a valid set of information, dishonest or corrupted nodes may quickly be flagged and information being propagated from these nodes may be readily ignored);
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Setty, in view of the teaching of Mahoney, because both disclose operations on append-only transactions in a blockchain systems. The motivation to combine would be to modify Setty by teaching of Mahoney of specific synchronization-based operations in order to improve security of the system.
As per claim 12, Setty as modified discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein the append messages include at least some compressed transaction identifiers (Examiner note: compression of transaction identifiers is disclosed by Applicant in para. [0060] of SPECS as processing only a portion of the transaction related information. The compression is met in Mahoney by processing of a portion of transaction related information depicted in Fig. 2D showing a structure of a transaction queue comprising identifiers, data fields etc.) (Mahoney, [0061]: the network node may transmit all or a portion of its random peers queue to a peer node).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Setty, in view of the teaching of Mahoney, because both disclose operations on append-only transactions in a blockchain systems. The motivation to combine would be to modify Setty by teaching of Mahoney of processing a portion of specific transaction-related operations including identifier/descriptor in order to improve security of the system.
As per claim 13, Setty as modified discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein the append messages include at least one index to another mining node's list of transaction identifiers (Mahoney, [0078]: the network node may execute step 606 to append the transaction to the unconfirmed transactions queue. Mahoney, [0082]: unconfirmed transactions may be validated, ordered by time stamp for inclusion in each ballot submission endorsed by each node, and propagated to peer nodes).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Setty, in view of the teaching of Mahoney, because both disclose operations on append-only transactions in a blockchain systems. The motivation to combine would be to modify Setty by teaching of Mahoney of processing specific transaction-related operations including identifier/descriptor in order to improve security of the system.
As per claim 14, claim 14 encompasses same or similar scope as claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 is rejected based on the same reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 1.
As per claim 17, claim 17 encompasses same or similar scope as claim 2. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected based on the same reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 2.
Claims 5, 7 – 11, 16, and 19 – 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahoney (US 20200366495) (hereafter Mahoney), in view of Haldar et al. (US 20210117385) (Hereafter Haldar), and in view of Padmanabhan et al. (2021/0240498) (hereafter Padmanabhan).
As per claim 5, Mahoney discloses: A computer-implemented method of propagating block solutions in a blockchain network, comprising: [Building, by a first miner,] a candidate block containing an ordered list of transactions; (Mahoney, [0083]: each node may be satisfied that it has an ordered set of unconfirmed validated transactions synchronized with the rest of the network.);
providing the candidate block to mining units to search for a proof of work; (Mahoney, [0004]: Proof of work block consensus, a dominant voting technique used by conventional blockchains, has massive processing and network footprints.);
[while the mining units hash the candidate block in search of a proof-of-work solution,]
generating an append message specifying the ordered list of transactions; (Mahoney, [0078]: the network node may execute step 606 to append the transaction to the unconfirmed transactions queue. Mahoney, [0082]: unconfirmed transactions may be validated, ordered by time stamp for inclusion in each ballot submission endorsed by each node, and propagated to peer nodes);
transmitting the append message to other mining nodes; (Mahoney, [0083]: The network nodes receiving the ballots append to their respective universal set the transactions. Mahoney, [0040]: there is no competitive mining as in the conventional blockchain implementations.);
repeatedly, until notice of a block solution is received, adding additional transactions to the ordered list of transactions in the candidate block to produce a new version of the candidate block (Mahoney, [0081]: To generate and append a block to the blockchain, the network nodes may have to form a network wide consensus about the set of transactions to be included in the block.);
providing the new version of the candidate block to at least one of the mining units, generating a further append message specifying the additional transactions, each further append message having a successive sequence number (Examiner note: as noted above, sequence number identifying transactions is met in Mahoney by a transaction descriptor identifying the transaction in the blockchain system) (Mahoney, [0009]: a transaction descriptor for a transaction associated with transaction Information. Mahoney, [0010]: Append a transaction descriptor for a transaction associated with transaction information),
and transmitting the further append message to the other mining nodes; (Mahoney, [0062]: the network node may append the randomly shuffled first c/2-1 descriptors in the random-peers queue to the push buffer. In step 306, the network node may transmit the push buffer to the selected peer node);
Mahoney fails to specifically disclose: operation of specifically configured processing nodes, i.e. mining nodes, deployed for data synchronization in the blockchain systems. However, Haldar discloses:
Building, by a first miner
and receiving the notice of the block solution from one of the mining units, wherein the notice indicates a version of the candidate block; (Haldar, [0070]: In structure 362, valid transactions are formed into a block and sealed with a lock (hash). This process may be performed by mining nodes among the nodes 354. Mining nodes may utilize additional software specifically for mining and creating blocks).
in response to receiving the notice of the block solution from the one of the mining units, determining synchronization data and sending the synchronization data and the block solution to the other mining nodes (Haldar, [0047]: any of the peer nodes of the permissioned blockchain 110 may start-up, restore, or otherwise synchronize their own copy of the blockchain ledger with the state recorded in the remote storage. Haldar, [0152]: nodes communicate the information they received in the previous round from other nodes.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mahoney, in view of the teaching of Haldar, because both disclose operations on append-only transactions in a blockchain systems. The motivation to combine would be to modify Mahoney by teaching of Haldar of deploying mining nodes for more secure synchronized data processing in the system.
Mahoney as modified fails to specifically disclose: hashing of blocks by POW operations as well as enabling rollback operation by data synchronization. However, Padmanabhan, discloses:
while the mining units hash the candidate block in search of a proof-of-work solution, (Padmanabhan, discloses time-stamping operations, such as POW, [0078], in blockchain, using hash pointers technique [0031], i.e., a search technique, per search logic 724 [0100] depicted in Fig. 7);
wherein the other mining nodes have an append only list associated with the first miner and built based on the append messages, and wherein the synchronization data enables the other mining nodes to roll-back the append only list to an earlier version that matches the version of the candidate block solved by said one of the mining units. (Padmanabhan, discloses in para. [0100, 0115] and in Fig. 7 a virtual chain interface configured to handle rollback transactions by data synchronization in a blockchain system).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mahoney-Haldar, in view of the teaching of Padmanabhan, because all disclose operations data/transactions synchronization in a blockchain systems. The motivation to combine would be to modify Setty-Mahoney by teaching of Padmanabhan of synchronization-based operations including rollback actions in order to improve security of the system.
As per claim 7, Mahoney discloses: The method of claim 5, wherein the synchronization data includes an append message sequence number corresponding to the version of the candidate block (Mahoney, [0062]: the network node may append the randomly shuffled first c/2-1 descriptors in the random-peers queue to the push buffer. In step 306, the network node may transmit the push buffer to the selected peer node. Mahoney, [0038]: The transaction balloting process (or method) may synchronize transaction information across the nodes in the network).
As per claim 8, Mahoney discloses: The method of claim 5, wherein the synchronization data (Mahoney, [0038]: The transaction balloting process (or method) may synchronize transaction information across the nodes in the network. Mahoney, [0083]: each node may be satisfied that it has an ordered set of unconfirmed validated transactions synchronized with the rest of the network) includes one or more delete instructions identifying one or more transaction identifiers (Examiner note: flagging nodes/information, i.e., transactions, to be ignored is equivalent to removal/deletion the respective items) (Mahoney, [0043]: Provided there is a sufficient number of honest nodes sharing and synchronizing a valid set of information, dishonest or corrupted nodes may quickly be flagged and information being propagated from these nodes may be readily ignored);
As per claim 9, Mahoney discloses: The method of claim 8, wherein the one or more delete instructions identify transaction identifiers included in append messages relating to later versions of the candidate block than the version of the candidate specified in the notice. (Examiner note: flagging nodes/information, i.e., transactions, to be ignored is equivalent to removal the respective items) (Mahoney, [0043]: Provided there is a sufficient number of honest nodes sharing and synchronizing a valid set of information, dishonest or corrupted nodes may quickly be flagged and information being propagated from these nodes may be readily ignored. Mahoney, [0062]: the network node may append the randomly shuffled first c/2-1 descriptors in the random-peers queue to the push buffer. In step 306, the network node may transmit the push buffer to the selected peer node).
As per claim 10, Mahoney discloses: The method of claim 5, wherein sending the synchronization data includes sending a finalize message containing the block solution and the synchronization data (Mahoney, [0083]: each node may be satisfied that it has an ordered set of unconfirmed validated transactions synchronized with the rest of the network. Mahoney, [0119]: the requesting node may send a request message to each of its connected) active peers.).
As per claim 11, Mahoney discloses: The method of claim 5, wherein transmitting the append message and transmitting the further append message occur over authenticated connections between mining nodes (Mahoney, [0047]: The proof of majority method may use elliptical curve cryptography or quantum computing resistant cryptography to ensure confidentiality, authenticity, and non-reputability of all transactions).
As per claim 16, claim 16 encompasses same or similar scope as claim 5. Therefore, claim 8 is rejected based on the same reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 5.
As per claims 19 – 21, claims 19 – 21 encompass same or similar scope as claims 7 – 9, respectively. Therefore, claims 19 – 21 are rejected based on the same reasons set forth above in rejecting claims 7 – 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Dickerson US_20190087793, Haleem US_11399284, Hughes US_20200272618, Klianev US_20190251199, Smith US_20190044976, Viale US_20200387395, Wertheim US_20210273807.
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 extension fee 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 VLADIMIR IVANOVICH GAVRILENKO whose telephone number is (313) 446-6530. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 EST.
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, Lynn Feild can be reached on (571) 272-2092. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Vladimir I. Gavrilenko/Examiner, Art Unit 2431
/LYNN D FEILD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2431
Prosecution Insights