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 .
Status of Claims
The following claim(s) is/are pending in this office action: 1-2, 4-10, 12-16
The following claim(s) is/are amended: 1, 8-9, 16
The following claim(s) is/are cancelled: 3, 11
The following claim(s) is/are new: -
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-10, 12-16 is/are rejected. Claims 4, 6, 12 and 14 are objected to. This rejection is FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed in the amendment filed 2/3/2026, have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. The reasons set forth below.
Applicant’s Invention as Claimed
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 6, 12 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 1-2, 5, 7-10, 13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chasko (US Pub. 2020/0136808) in view of Luu (Luu et. al., “Smartpool: Practical Decentralized Pooled Mining”, 2017) and further in view of Nogayama (US Pub. 2021/0058231).
With respect to Claim 1, Chasko teaches a method for proof-of-work (PoW) related to blockchain mining, (Fig. 2, paras. 21-22; blockchain mining.)
implemented by a processor, (para. 19, 50; processor)
and the method comprising: receiving, through a node, a block; (Fig. 1, paras. 16-19, 23-24; head end creates a block and sends the block to the nodes.)
determining, through the node, whether hash values of a plurality of nonces corresponding to the block meet a condition, comprising (paras. 21-29; head end sends a target value to the nodes. The nodes hash a nonce value for the block to calculate a hash value that is lower than the target value. If the hash value is less than the target value the node receives a proof of work.)
in response to a first hash value of a first nonce among the plurality of nonces corresponding to the block meeting the condition, (paras. 21-29; head end sends a target value to the nodes. The nodes hash a nonce value for the block to calculate a hash value that is lower than the target value. If the hash value is less than the target value the node receives a proof of work.)
and verifying, through the node, at least two collected nonces that meet the condition among the plurality of nonces. (A second hash/nonce will be taught later. paras. 22, 27-29; hash value compared to target value to see if it is less than target value. para. 46-47; head end and other devices in the chain verify the nonce satisfies the value. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to verify multiple nonces in order to ensure that multiple nonces are true solutions. See also Luu, Sections 3.1-3.3; Miner submits a batch of share claims. Section 3.4; Claims are verified.)
But Chasko does not explicitly teach collecting m nonces that meet the condition among the plurality of nonces, where m is a positive integer greater than one.
Luu, however, does teach generating, through the node, a new nonce corresponding to the block of the first nonce by changing the first nonce to the new nonce from the plurality of nonces corresponding to the block, and continuing to determine whether a second hash value of the new nonce among the plurality of nonces corresponding to the block meets the condition; (Sections 1, 2.1; In pooled mining, an operator assigns work to miners and miners find hashes of nonces that satisfy some smaller difficulty to gain a share. When an actual solution is found the rewards are split according to shares. Section 3.4; miners search for shares in a monotonic order, and when they find one they increase a counter by one and search for the next share. Sections 3.1-3.3; Miners submit shares in batches which may be up to a million shares. Therefore, the system does not find a single value but instead finds multiple values that meet a lower difficulty as proof that they are working to find the higher difficulty value.)
Collecting, through the node, m nonces that meet the condition among the plurality of nonces, where m is a positive integer greater than one, (Sections 3.1-3.3; Miner submits a batch of share claims.)
Wherein a nonce that does not meet the condition from among the plurality of nonces is not collected; (Section 3.4; System verifies that the claims are valid, and if the miner is caught cheating they are paid nothing. Therefore, the miner is not incentivized to submit nonces that do not meet the condition because it would result in forfeiting the reward when it fails to verify.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of Chasko with the greater than one nonce in order to allow mining pools to reward users who put in more work to mining a block. (Luu, Section 1)
But modified Chasko does not explicitly teach a confidence level.
Nogayama, however, does teach determining, through the node, m according to a confidence level of a computing power of a PoW; (Paras. 50-61; system calculates a confidence level of actual work based upon the submitted nonces such as a 95% confidence interval.)
Finding an average hash value representing the computing power of the PoW, wherein the average hash value is an average of the hash values of the m nonces, and each of the hash values of the m nonces is an integer. (paras. 63-66, 71-75, 113-115; system calculates a value which satisfies a confidence level, which allows the system to estimate how many calculations were made by a device based upon the number of hashes submitted. See, e.g., para. 75; system calculates N=13 to satisfy an average 95% confidence interval.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of modified Chasko with the confidence interval in order to allow for improved payments without overpaying in a pay-per-share system. (Nogayama, para. 50)
With respect to Claim 2, modified Chasko teaches the method for proof-of-work (PoW) related to blockchain mining according to claim 1, and Chasko also teaches wherein determine whether the hash values of the plurality of nonces corresponding to the block meet the condition comprises: determining whether a hash value of a block header where the plurality of nonces corresponding to the block are located is not greater than a target value. (paras. 22, 27-29; hash value compared to target value to see if it is less than target value. See also Luu, Sections 2, 5, Table 1; hash value of block header)
With respect to Claim 5, modified Chasko teaches the method for proof-of-work (PoW) related to blockchain mining according to claim 1, and Chasko also teaches further comprising: sending the m nonces for verification, in response to the number of nonces that meet the condition among the plurality of nonces being equal to m. (paras. 22, 27-29; hash value compared to target value to see if it is less than target value. para. 46-47; head end and other devices in the chain verify the nonce satisfies the value. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to verify multiple nonces in order to ensure that multiple nonces are true solutions. See also Luu Sections 3.1-3.3; Miner submits a batch of share claims.)
With respect to Claim 7, modified Chasko teaches the method for proof-of-work (PoW) related to blockchain mining according to claim 1, and Chasko also teaches further comprising: updating a new block, in response to verifying the at least two nonces that meet the condition among the plurality of nonces being successful. (para. 29; new block is added to blockchain in response to proof of work being accepted by a majority. See also Luu, Section 3.2; verclaimlist which has verified claims.)
With respect to Claim 8, modified Chasko teaches the method for proof-of-work (PoW) related to blockchain mining according to claim 1, and Nogayama also teaches further comprising: determining the confidence level of the computing power according to the m nonces having less value that meet the condition. (Paras. 50-59; system calculates a confidence level of actual work based upon the submitted nonces.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
With respect to Claim 9, it is substantially similar to Claim 1 and is rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying. Further, Chasko also teaches a computing device for proof-of-work (PoW) related to blockchain mining, comprising: a memory, for storing program codes; and a processor, coupled to the memory, and configured to load and execute the program codes to: (paras. 19, 50; memory and processor)
With respect to Claims 10, 13, 15, and 16 they are substantially similar to Claims 2, 5, 7, and 8, respectively, and are rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying.
Remarks
Applicant argues at Remarks, pgs. 9-11 that Luu does not teach the amended language. Examiner cited Nogayama to Claim 8, which was the only previous mention of a confidence level. Applicant does not discuss or dispute Nogayama, and in any case the amended features are more extensive and Examiner makes more citations. Consequently, Examiner asserts Nogayama teaches and moves it into the independent claims. Examiner also cites Hsueh (US Pub. 2020/0044854) for the record, which is relevant to the feature. Claims are rejected/objected to as above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 NICHOLAS P CELANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1205. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached on 571-272-7304. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/NICHOLAS P CELANI/Examiner, Art Unit 2449
Prosecution Insights