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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/08/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Office action has been issued in response to amendment filed on 06/08/2026.
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are pending and claim 10 is cancelled. Applicants' arguments have been carefully and respectfully considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the amended claims were fully considered. Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are rejection under the new ground of rejection.
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.
Claims 1-9, 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With regard to claim 1:
Step 2A, Prong One:
Claims 1-8 recite the following limitations which are drawn towards an abstract idea,
obtaining a blockchain uniform resource indicator (BURI) character string comprising one or more Merkle proof portions and a transaction identifier portion separated by delimiter characters;
(recites mental process steps of obtaining and processing data that can be performed mentally with a human managing data blocks).
parsing the BURT character string to identify delimiter characters therein, and thereby extracting the one or more Merkle proof portions and the transaction identifier portion separated by the delimiter characters, the one or more Merkle proof portions for verifying that the identified transaction belongs to an identified block;
(recites mental process steps of identifying/deriving an identifier from token that can be performed mentally with a human managing data blocks).
using at least part of the BURI to obtain a Merkle root hash; and using the one or more Merkle proof portions to determine whether the transaction identifier portion is valid against the Merkle root hash, thereby verifying the identified transaction using the BURI character string, without accessing a payload of the identified block. (recites mental process steps of evaluation and judgement that can be performed mentally with a human reviewing the data and making a compliance determination).
The claims 9 and 11-18 recite the following limitations which are drawn towards an abstract idea:
providing, in an output at a first index of the referencing blockchain transaction, a blockchain uniform resource indicator (BURI) character string for referencing an identified transaction previously stored on the blockchain in an identified block, the BURI comprising a transaction identifier portion and a further portion, wherein the further portion comprises one or more Merkle proof portions, the transaction identifier portion and the further portion being separated by at least one delimiter character, the further portion being a hierarchical component for further defining the identified transaction;
(recites mental process steps of generating an identifier that can be performed mentally with a human managing data blocks).
and providing the referencing blockchain transaction to one or more nodes of a blockchain network
(recites mental process steps of using identifier to reference transaction that can be performed mentally).
As seen from above, the identified limitations recite concepts associated with an abstract idea and thus the respective claim recites a judicial exception (see 2106.04(a)) and thus requires further analysis as discussed below.
The claims 19-20 recite the following limitations which are drawn towards an abstract idea:
generating a blockchain uniform resource indicator (BURI) character string comprising one or more Merkle proof portions and a transaction identifier portion separated by a delimiter character) the one or more Merkle proof portions for verifying that the identified transaction belongs to an identified block;
(recites mental process steps of generating an identifier that can be performed mentally with a human managing data blocks).
and rendering the BURI available to the verifying entity for accessing the data.
(recites mental process steps of evaluation and judgement that can be performed mentally with a human reviewing the data).
As seen from above, the identified limitations recite concepts associated with an abstract idea and thus the respective claim recites a judicial exception (see 2106.04(a)) and thus requires further analysis as discussed below.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The following limitations have been identified as being additional elements as discussed below,
Claim 1 –
using at least part of the BURI to obtain a Merkle root hash; and using the one or more Merkle proof portions to determine whether the transaction identifier portion is valid against the Merkle root hash (recites well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of evaluating data), see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Claim 9 - providing, in an output at a first index of the referencing blockchain transaction, a blockchain uniform resource indicator (BURI) character string for referencing an identified transaction previously stored on the blockchain in an identified block, the BURI comprising a transaction identifier portion and a further portion, wherein the further portion comprises one or more Merkle proof portions, the transaction identifier portion and the further portion being separated by at least one delimiter character, the further portion being a hierarchical component for further defining the identified transaction; network (recites insignificant extrasolution activity of electronic recordkeeping, see MPEP 2106.05(g)),
and providing the referencing blockchain transaction to one or more nodes of a blockchain network (recites insignificant extrasolution activity of storing and sharing information, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
As seen from the above discussion, the identified limitations did not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Claim 19-
generating a blockchain uniform resource indicator (BURI) character string comprising one or more Merkle proof portions and a transaction identifier portion separated by a delimiter character) the one or more Merkle proof portions for verifying that the identified transaction belongs to an identified block;
(recites insignificant extrasolution activity of electronic recordkeeping, see MPEP 2106.05(g)),
and rendering the BURI available to the verifying entity for accessing the data.
(recites mental process steps of evaluation and judgement that can be performed mentally with a human reviewing the data and making a compliance determination).
As seen from above, the identified limitations recite concepts associated with an abstract idea and thus the respective claim recites a judicial exception (see 2106.04(a)) and thus requires further analysis as discussed below.
Step 2B:
Below is the analysis of the claims:
Claim 1-
using at least part of the BURI to obtain a Merkle root hash; and using the one or more Merkle proof portions to determine whether the transaction identifier portion is valid against the Merkle root hash(recites well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of electronic recordkeeping, see MPEP 2106.05(d)),
2. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the BURI character string is received in or extracted from a subsequent transaction stored in the blockchain which relates to mental process steps of evaluating and making a decision/judgement.
3. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more Merkle proof portions comprises a Merkle index of the identified transaction which relates to mental process steps of evaluating and making a decision/judgement.
4. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 3, wherein the one or more Merkle proof portions further comprises a subset of Merkle proof hashes required to determine whether the identified transaction is verified by the Merkle root hash which relates to mental process steps of evaluating and making a decision/judgement.
5. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 3, wherein the method further comprises obtaining, from a third party computing device, a subset of Merkle proof hashes required to determine whether the identified transaction is verified by the Merkle root hash by implementing the steps of: transmitting, to the third party computing device, the Merkle index and the transaction identifier portion; and receiving, from the third party computing device, the subset of Merkle proof hashes required to determine whether the identified transaction is verified by the Merkle root hash which relates to mental process steps of evaluating and making a decision/judgement.
6. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 5, wherein the third party computing device is a Merkle proof entity configured to store a set of transaction identifiers of respective blockchain transaction identifiers of respective blockchain transactions but not to publish new blockchain blocks to a blockchain network which relates to mental process steps of evaluating and making a decision/judgement.
7. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 3, wherein the Merkle index is in binary form which relates to mental process steps of generating an index.
8. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 1, wherein the step of parsing the BURT character string to identify delimiter characters therein thereby further extracts a block identity portion which relates to mental process steps of generating an index.
Claim 9 -
providing, in an output at a first index of the referencing blockchain transaction, a blockchain uniform resource indicator (BURI) character string for referencing an identified transaction previously stored on the blockchain in an identified block, the BURI comprising a transaction identifier portion and a further portion, wherein the further portion comprises one or more Merkle proof portions, the transaction identifier portion and the further portion being separated by at least one delimiter character, the further portion being a hierarchical component for further defining the identified transaction;
(recites well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of electronic recordkeeping, see MPEP 2106.05(d)),
and providing the referencing blockchain transaction to one or more nodes of a blockchain network (recites well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing and retrieving information from memory, see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
11. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 9, wherein the one or more Merkle proof portions comprises a Merkle index of the identified transaction in the identified block which relates to mental process steps of generating an index.
12. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 11, wherein the one or more Merkle proof portions further comprises a subset of Merkle proof hashes required to determine whether the identified transaction is verified by a Merkle root hash of the identified block which relates to mental process steps of evaluating and making a decision/judgement
13. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 11, wherein the Merkle index is in binary form which relates to mental process steps of generating an index.
14. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 12, wherein each binary digit of the Merkle index is prepended to a corresponding hash of an ordered list of hashes which relates to mental process steps of generating an index.
15. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 9, wherein a block identity portion of the identified block is a block number of the identified block which relates to mental process steps of generating an index.
16. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 9, wherein a block identity portion of the identified block is a block header hash of the identified block which relates to mental process steps of generating an index.
17. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 9[[10]], wherein the BURI further comprises a block identifying portion, separated from the transaction identifier portion and the one or more Merkle proof portion by at least one delimiter character which relates to mental process steps of generating an index.
18. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 9, wherein the BURI further comprises a fragment portion for identifying a fragment of the identified transaction which relates to mental process steps of generating an index.
Claim 19 -
generating a blockchain uniform resource indicator (BURI) character string comprising one or more Merkle proof portions and a transaction identifier portion separated by a delimiter character) the one or more Merkle proof portions for verifying that the identified transaction belongs to an identified block;
(recites well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of electronic recordkeeping, see MPEP 2106.05(d)),
and rendering the BURI available to the verifying entity for accessing the data.
(recites well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of electronic recordkeeping, see MPEP 2106.05(d)),
As seen from above, the respective claim elements taken individually do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. When taken as a whole (in combination), the claims also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements of generating an identifier and storing/providing/recordkeeping the observed data so that the data can be analyzed/evaluated.
20. (Previously Presented) The computer implemented method of claim 19, wherein the step of rendering the BURI available comprises storing the BURI in a transaction of a blockchain which relates to mental process steps of storing an index
Claim objection
Claim 19 is objected to because its status indicates the claim 19 is amended but no amendment was submitted.
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 1-4, 7-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Xinying Yang (hereinafter Yang) US Publication No 20210184837 in view of Foreign document No CN112256798 (hereinafter FOR-DOC).
As per claim 1, Yang teaches:
A computer-implemented method for verifying that an identified transaction is stored in a blockchain, the method comprising:
obtaining a blockchain uniform resource indicator (BURI) character string comprising one or more Merkle proof portions and a transaction identifier portion;
(Fig. 2-4 and Abstract and paragraphs ([0006]-[0008], [0102] and [0106] and [0113])
parsing the BURT character string, and thereby extracting the one or more Merkle proof portions and the transaction identifier portion, the one or more Merkle proof portions for verifying that the identified transaction belongs to an identified block;
(Fig. 2-4 and Abstract and paragraphs ([0006]-[0008], [0102] and [0106] and [0113])
using at least part of the BURI to obtain a Merkle root hash;
(Paragraphs [0031], [0033], [0035], [0106])
and using the one or more Merkle proof portions to determine whether the transaction identifier portion is valid against the Merkle root hash, thereby verifying the identified transaction using the BURI character string, without accessing a payload of the identified block.
(Paragraphs [0031], [0033], [0035], [0106])
Yang concealed data consisting of Merkle portion and transaction but does not explicitly teach obtaining a blockchain uniform resource indicator (BURI) character string comprising one or more Merkle proof portions and a transaction identifier portion separated by delimiter characters, however in analogous art of transaction management, FOR-DOC teaches:
obtaining a blockchain uniform resource indicator (BURI) character string comprising one or more Merkle proof portions and a transaction identifier portion separated by delimiter characters;
(Pages 1-2, wherein the block consists of transaction and Merkle trusted tree value separated by a delimiter/separator)
parsing the BURT character string to identify delimiter characters therein, and thereby extracting the one or more Merkle proof portions and the transaction identifier portion separated by the delimiter characters, the one or more Merkle proof portions for verifying that the identified transaction belongs to an identified block;
(Pages 1-2, wherein the block consists of transaction and Merkle trusted tree value separated by a delimiter/separator)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Yang and FOR-DOC by incorporating the teaching of FOR-DOC into the method of Yang. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the content management of FOR-DOC into the system of Yang for the purpose of managing block segment and avoiding data fork.
As per claim 2, Yang and FOR-DOC teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein the BURI character string is received in or extracted from a subsequent transaction stored in the blockchain.
(Paragraph [0060])(Yang)
As per claim 3, Yang and FOR-DOC teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more Merkle proof portions comprises a Merkle index of the identified transaction.
(Paragraphs [0081], [0101]-[0102])(Yang)
As per claim 4, Yang and FOR-DOC teach:
The method of claim 3, wherein the one or more Merkle proof portions further comprises a subset of Merkle proof hashes required to determine whether the identified transaction is verified by the Merkle root hash.
(Paragraphs [0031], [0033], [0035], [0106])(Yang)
As per claim 7, Yang and FOR-DOC teach:
The method of claim 3, wherein the Merkle index is in binary form.
(Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0035]-[0036])(Yang)
As per claim 8, Yang and FOR-DOC teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein the step of parsing the BURT character string to identify delimiter characters therein thereby further extracts a block identity portion.
(Pages 1-2, wherein the block consists of transaction and Merkle trusted tree value separated by a delimiter/separator)(FOR-DOC)
As per claim 9, Yang teaches:
A method of generating a referencing blockchain transaction, the method comprising:
referencing blockchain transaction comprising, providing, in an output at a first index of the referencing blockchain transaction, a blockchain uniform resource indicator (BUR) character string for referencing an identified transaction previously stored on the blockchain in an identified block, the BUR comprising a transaction identifier portion and a further portion, wherein the further portion comprises one or more Merkle proof portions,
and providing the referencing blockchain transaction to one or more nodes of a blockchain network.
(Fig. 2-4 and Abstract and paragraphs ( [0102] and [0106] and [0113])
Yang concealed data consisting of Merkle portion and transaction but does not explicitly teach the transaction identifier portion and the further portion being separated by at least one delimiter character, the further portion being a hierarchical component for further defining the identified transaction, however in analogous art of transaction management, FOR-DOC teaches:
the transaction identifier portion and the further portion being separated by at least one delimiter character, the further portion being a hierarchical component for further defining the identified transaction;
(Pages 1-2, wherein the block consists of transaction and Merkle trusted tree value separated by a delimiter/separator)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Yang and FOR-DOC by incorporating the teaching of FOR-DOC into the method of Yang. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the content management of FOR-DOC into the system of Yang for the purpose of managing block segment and avoiding data fork.
As per claim 11, Yang and FOR-DOC teach:
The method of claim 10, wherein the one or more Merkle proof portions comprises a Merkle index of the identified transaction in the identified block.
(Fig. 1 and Paragraphs [0033]-[0037])(Yang)
As per claim 12, Yang and FOR-DOC teach:
The method of claim 11, wherein the one or more Merkle proof portions further comprises a subset of Merkle proof hashes required to determine whether the identified transaction is verified by a Merkle root hash of the identified block.
(Fig. 1 and Paragraph [0033])(Yang)
As per claim 13, Yang and FOR-DOC teach:
The method of claim 11, wherein the Merkle index is in binary form.
(Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0035]-[0036])(Yang)
As per claim 14, Yang and FOR-DOC teach:
The method of claim 12, wherein each binary digit of the Merkle index is prepended to a corresponding hash of an ordered list of hashes.
(Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0035]-[0036])(Yang)
As per claim 15, Yang and FOR-DOC teach:
The method of claim 9, wherein a block identity portion of the identified block is a block number of the identified block.
(Paragraph [0060])(Yang)
As per claim 16, Yang and FOR-DOC teach:
The method of claim 9, wherein identity portion of the identified block is a block header hash of the identified block.
(Paragraph [0031]-[0032] and [0035])(Yang)
As per claim 17, Yang and FOR-DOC teach:
The method of claim 9, wherein the BURI further comprises a block identifying portion, separated from the transaction identifier portion and the one or more Merkle proof portion by at least one delimiter character.
(Pages 1-2)(FOR-DOC)
As per claim 18, Yang and FOR-DOC teach:
The method of claim 9, wherein the BURI further comprises a fragment portion for identifying a fragment of the identified transaction.
(Fig. 2-4 and Abstract and paragraphs ([0006]-[0008], [0034], [0054]-[0055], [0064 and [0067], wherein the marking character separating of transaction hash/ID I from the concealment is the delimiter)
As per claim 19, Yang teaches:
A computer implemented method of communicating data stored in an identified transaction to a verifying entity, the method comprising:
generating a blockchain uniform resource indicator (BURI) character string comprising one or more Merkle proof portions and a transaction identifier portion;
(Fig. 1-4 and Abstract and paragraphs ([0031-[0035], [0054]-[0055], [0064 and [0067], wherein the marking character separating of transaction hash/ID I from the concealment is the delimiter)
and rendering the BURI available to the verifying entity for accessing the data.
(Paragraphs [0033] and [0051])
Yang concealed data consisting of string comprising one or more character string comprising one or more Merkle proof portions and a transaction identifier portion separated by a delimiter character the one or more Merkle proof portions for verifying that the identified transaction belongs to the an identified block, however in analogous art of transaction management, FOR-DOC teaches:
generating a blockchain uniform resource indicator (BURI) character string comprising one or more Merkle proof portions and a transaction identifier portion separated by a delimiter character the one or more Merkle proof portions for verifying that the identified transaction belongs to an identified block;
(Pages 1-2, wherein the block consists of transaction and Merkle trusted tree value separated by a delimiter/separator)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Yang and FOR-DOC by incorporating the teaching of FOR-DOC into the method of Yang. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the content management of FOR-DOC into the system of Yang for the purpose of managing block segment and avoiding data fork.
As per claim 20, Yang and FOR-DOC teach:
The computer implemented method of claim 19, wherein the step of rendering the BURI available comprises storing the BURI in a transaction of a blockchain.
(Abstract and paragraphs [0053] and [0086])(Yang)
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable Yang and FOR-DOC in view of Biernat et al (hereinafter Biernat) US Publication No 20190340269.
As per claim 5, Yang and FOR-DOC do not explicitly teach transmitting, to third party computing device, the Merkle index and the transaction identifier portion, however in analogous art of transaction processing, Biernat teaches:
obtaining, from a third party computing device, a subset of Merkle proof hashes required to determine whether the identified transaction is verified by the Merkle root hash by implementing the steps of:
transmitting, to the third party computing device, the Merkle index and the transaction identifier portion;
(Fig. 10 and 17 and paragraph [0079]-[0080])
and receiving, from the third party computing device, the subset of Merkle proof hashes required to determine whether the identified transaction is verified by the Merkle root hash.
(Fig. 6, 10 and 17 and paragraph [0079]-[0080])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Yang and FOR-DOC and Biernat by incorporating the teaching of Biernat into the method of Yang and FOR-DOC. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the transaction management of Biernat into the system of Yang and FOR-DOC for the purpose of validating transaction across plurality of blockchains.
As per claim 6, Yang and FOR-DOC and Biernat teach:
The method of claim 5, wherein the third party computing device is a Merkle proof entity configured to store a set of transaction identifiers of respective blockchain transaction identifiers of respective blockchain transactions but not to publish new blockchain blocks to a
(Fig. 6, 10 and 17 and paragraph [0079]-[0080])( Biernat)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tarek Chbouki whose telephone number is 571-2703154. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00 am to 6:00 pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached at 571-2701760. 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.
/TAREK CHBOUKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165 7/21/2026
Prosecution Insights