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, 4-7, 9-10, 12-15
The following claim(s) is/are amended: 1, 4, 9, 12
The following claim(s) is/are cancelled: 3, 8, 11, 16
The following claim(s) is/are new: -
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7, 9-10, 12-15 is/are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed in the amendment filed 6/12/2026, 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7, 9-10, 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7, 9-10, 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to math without significantly more. Claim 1 is representative. The claim(s) recite(s) determining, through the node, whether hash values of a plurality of nonces corresponding to the block meet a condition, comprising in response to a first hash value of a first nonce among the plurality of nonces corresponding to the block meeting the condition, 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; and determining, through the node, m according to a confidence level and a coefficient of variation of a computing power of a PoW, wherein the confidence level of the computing power is 1 minus the coefficient of variation of the computing power; collecting, through the node, m nonces that meet the condition among the plurality of nonces, where m is a positive integer greater than one, wherein the coefficient of variation of the computing power is (m+1)/(m^2 +m+1) in which the m nonces are collected in n trials, a nonce that does not meet the condition among the plurality of nonces is not collected; verifying, through the node, at least two collected nonces that meet the condition among the plurality of nonces; and 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.” This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim merely requires calculated a hash value and does not apply the hash value in any manner. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional features of a processor and receiving a block are conventional computer hardware and blockchain features. The dependent claims either include (1) further math or (2) conventional features as evidenced in the 3/31/2026 Final action.
Claims not specifically mentioned are rejected by virtue of dependency and because they do not obviate the above-recited deficiencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7, 9-10, 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for “determining, through the node, m according to a confidence level and a coefficient of variation” and “collecting through the node, m nonces that meet the condition among the plurality of nonces, where m is a positive integer greater than one, wherein the coefficient of variation of the computing power is (m+1)/(m^2+m+1) in which the m nonces are collected in n trials”, does not reasonably provide enablement for doing both of them together. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to do both of them together because the act is circular. Rather, the specification identifies that if one knows the value of m (e.g. m=10) they can calculate the confidence level (90.09%). Separately, the specification identifies that if one selects a confidence level C they can calculate the m necessary to reach the confidence level. A person of ordinary skill would recognize that Claim 1 as written cannot simultaneously define m according to a coefficient of variation and define a coefficient of variation according to m. See Spec, para. 26.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7, 9-10, 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. For the reasons above with respect to enablement, Spec, para. 26 does not provide support for the claims as written. Spec, para. 26 supports determining m for a selected confidence level, and separately supports calculating a coefficient of variation (and therefore a confidence level) for an amount of collected m nonces that meet the condition, but does not support determining m for a coefficient of variation where the coefficient of variation is defined by m nonces being collected.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7, 9-10, 12-15 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. For the reasons above with respect to 112a, the definitions of m and coefficient of variation are circular as written.
The above cited rejections are merely exemplary.
The Applicant(s) are respectfully requested to correct all similar errors.
Claims not specifically mentioned are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Remarks
Applicant amends Claim 1 to relevantly include “determining [] m according to a confidence level and a coefficient of variation, wherein the confidence level of the computing power is 1 minus the coefficient of variation of the computing power; collecting [] m nonces that meet the condition among the plurality of nonces, where m is a positive integer greater than one, wherein the coefficient of variation of the computing power is (m+1)/(m^2+m+1) in which the m nonces are collected in n trials.”
Examiner notes that previous Claim 8 required determining a confidence level of the computing power according to m nonces. Examiner cited Nogayama, paras. 50-59 to teach, which teach a confidence interval. Applicant distinguishes the claimed confidence level from a confidence interval by relying upon the math involved. Applicant further distinguishes Nogayama by saying that Nogayama is used to distribute rewards, while the current system “is further used to order events.” (Remarks, pg. 10)
Examiner finds the argument persuasive as to obviousness and withdraws the rejection because Examiner finds no reference that identifies the CV=(m+1)/(m^2+m+1) equation that is explicitly claimed. However, Examiner will make two new rejections due to amendment. First, the claims are now circular, because the claim requires “determining m according to a confidence level and a coefficient of variation” and further defines the confidence level as one minus the coefficient of variation. Therefore, m is determined based upon the coefficient of variation. However, the claim also requires that “m is a positive integer greater than one” and that “the coefficient of variation of the computing power is (m+1)/(m^2+m+1).” Therefore, the coefficient of variation is determined based on m, which is determined based on the coefficient of variation. Therefore the definition as written is circular.
Examiner reads Spec, para. 26 (which Applicant cites as support for the claim language) as stating that a confidence level C is chosen, that C controls CV (because C=1-CV), and that CV controls m (because CV=(m+1)/(m^2+m+1)). Conversely, if one already has collected m nonces, they can calculate the confidence level C of that collection (by following the two equations in reverse). But these are two separate embodiments of application of the same equations and Applicant is claiming them both together, which makes them circular. One cannot “determine m according to a confidence level” at the same time one defines a coefficient of variation as based on collected m nonces in n trials. Examiner makes both 112b and 112a rejections.
In addition, Applicant’s argument against Nogayama identifies a 101 issue with the instant claimset. Examiner assumes the reference to “further used to order events” at Remarks, pg. 10 refers to Spec, para. 40, which extolls that GPoW can be employed to reduce the energy consumption or optimization design of a system “such as the distributed synchronization and the global event ordering.” But the instant claims do not put GPoW to any use. The instant claims receive a block and then “determin[e] [] whether hash values of a plurality of nonces meet a condition” and then “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.” In other words, the claims employ math to arrive at a value. The specification identifies that once that value is known, a system can be optimized to reduce power consumption. But no claims include steps that employ the average hash value in any manner. The claims are not a practical application because “if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification.” (MPEP2106.04(d)(1)) The claims stop at using math to determine an average hash value. Therefore the claims fail to include components or steps that provide any improvement because the functioning of the system is not modified using the represented computing power of the PoW.
Consequently, all claims are rejected.
Conclusion
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