DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 5, and 7 have been amended.
Claims 2-3, 9-11, 15-16, and 20 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 4-8, 12-14, and 17-19 are currently pending and have been considered by the examiner.
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 .
Response to Arguments
112 Rejection:
Applicant’s arguments have been considered and have been deemed persuasive by the examiner. Thus, the previously issued 112 rejection has been rescinded.
Prior Art Rejection:
Applicant’s arguments have been considered and are moot in view of new grounds for rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-8, 12-14, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jianbin (CN 111708840) in view of Qiu et al. (US 20220292082 A1) in further view of Lai et al. (US 20200344233 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 7, 12-14, and 18 Jianbin discloses:
A chain structure transaction data processing method, wherein the method comprises:
merging Transaction Output (TXO) transaction data chains of a plurality of permission chain ledgers (See Jianbin: Para. [0007] – “The purpose of the present invention is to … provide a dynamic consensus method for a consortium chain based on the primary and secondary layers … through mutual coupling of the primary and secondary dual-layer blockchain structures”) which circulate a same token to generate a TXO transaction data chain of a logical general ledger of the token (See Jianbin: Para. [0012] – “The block structure of the main layer blockchain is … GTlist … GTlist is the trusted transaction list that meets global consistency” – Jianbin discloses that the main and sub-layer blockchain all circulate data/tokens with a global format), wherein the logical general ledger is generated by logically merging the plurality of permission chain ledgers (See Jianbin: Para. [0043] – Jianbin discloses a main-layer-secondary layer alliance chain architecture which is a merged combination of both a main-layer blockchain and a secondary-layer blockchain), the logical general ledger contains a two-layer structure (See Jianbin: Claim 1 – “A dynamic consensus method for a consortium chain based on primary and secondary layers. It is characterized by being based on a two-layer consortium chain architecture”), a first layer of ledger data is consensus-generated by a plurality of block header data of a plurality of permission chains (See Jianbin: Para. [0012] – “The block structure of the main layer block chain is (Header: PBn, GNsign, PHpre, PT | Body: GTlist), wherein the PBn is the current main layer block sequence number; GNsign is constructing node signature of the current block, PHpre is the hash value of the previous main layer block; PT is the time stamp of the current main layer block; the GTlist is a trusted transaction list meeting the global consistency;”), transaction data in ledger data of the permission chains mapped through the block header data of the permission chains serves as a second layer of ledger data of the logical general ledger (See Jianbin: Para. [0011] – “the block structure of the sub-layer block chain is (Header: SBn, Sid, Ssign, SHpre, ST, Elist, Tlist | Body: Tissue), wherein SBn is the current sub-layer block number; Sid is the identity identification of the main body, Ssign is the main signature, SHpre is the hash value of the previous sub-layer block, ST is the time stamp of the current sub-layer block, Elist is legal entity list, Tlist is the transaction list of the current block packing, Tdetail is the detailed information of the packed transaction”), and ledger data of the logical general ledger is jointly formed through the mapped transaction data, and the ledger data logically contains transaction data, wherein the logical general ledger is an abstract ledger (See Jianbin: Para. [0013] – “the global consistent transaction list GTlist structure is (Tid, TSid, TBn), wherein the Tid is the identification of the transaction, TSid is the main identity identification of the transaction, TBn is the transaction corresponding to the sub-layer block sequence number.”),
wherein before the merging the TXO transaction data chains of the plurality of permission chain ledgers which circulate the same token, the method further comprises: verifying, by a verifier, permission chain block data after being verified as passed, adding a block header hash value for indicating a block position to permission chain block header data to be put on-chain (See Jianbin: Para. [0024]),
when the permission chain block to be put on-chain does not contain a cross-permission chain transaction, recursively forwarding to a previous permission chain block containing a cross-permission chain transaction on the permission chain, finding a permission chain block header pointing to the permission chain block on the consortium blockchain, and adding a block header hash value in the permission chain block header for indicating the restricted consortium blockchain block position to permission chain block header data to be put on-chain at present or when the permission chain block to be put on-chain does not contain a cross-permission chain transaction, recursively forwarding to a permission chain block containing a cross-permission chain transaction on the permission chain, and adding a second preset value to permission chain block header data to be put on-chain at present (The examiner has determined that the aforementioned claim limitation constitutes a recitation of a contingent limitation. As per MPEP 2111.04, the “broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B.”. Thus, as the BRI of the claimed invention does not include the steps required to be performed when the permission chain block does not contain a cross-permissionc hain transaction, the examiner asserts that Jianbin discloses the BRI of the claimed limitation)
wherein a private blockchain of an institution is independent and does not belong to any consortium, when the private blockchain of the institution needs to circulate a consortium token, then joining the consortium: when the private blockchain of the institution needs to circulate a plurality of consortium tokens, then joining a plurality of consortiums at the same time when the private blockchain of the institution does not circulate the consortium tokens, then leaving the consortium (The examiner has determined that the aforementioned claim limitation constitutes a recitation of nonfunctional descriptive material. Specifically, the limitation appears to further describe a private blockchain of an institution which is not contained within the scope of the claimed method i.e. the description and actions of a private blockchain outside the scope of the invention imparts no meaningful limitation on any of the claimed method steps of the invention. Thus, the limitation cannot be given patentable weight. See MPEP 2114. For purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner cites the following: See Lai: Para. [0063] – “An advantage to an open, permissionless, or public, blockchain network is that guarding against bad actors is not required and no access control is needed. This means that applications can be added to the network without the approval or trust of others, using the blockchain as a transport layer. Conversely, permissioned (e.g., private) blockchains use an access control layer to govern who has access to the network. In contrast to public blockchain networks, validators on private blockchain networks are vetted, for example, by the network owner, or one or more members of a consortium. They rely on known nodes to validate transactions. Permissioned blockchains also go by the name of “consortium” or “hybrid” blockchains. Today, many corporations are using blockchain networks with private blockchains, or blockchain-based distributed ledgers, independent of a public blockchain system.”).
However, Jianbin fails to explicitly disclose:
Wherein the TXO transaction data chain of a permission chain ledger is a directed acyclic graph formed by all transaction data of an Unspent Transaction Output (UTXO) model, and the directed acyclic graph of the logical general ledger, namely the TXO transaction data chain of the logical general ledger, is generated by merging directed acyclic graphs of the plurality of permission chains.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Qiu discloses a method of storing blockchain ledger transaction data on a acyclic graph (See Qiu: Para. [0050] – “In some embodiments of the present disclosure, the dependency relationship is constructed by generating the directed acyclic graph, when a transaction with a lower serial number and a transaction with a higher serial number have a parameter conflict, a dependency edge is created from the transaction with the higher serial number to the transaction with the lower serial number in the directed acyclic graph, and the serial number indicates an order in which the transaction is packed. For example, the blockchain node determines whether the parameters of the integral recharge interface are mutually exclusive in order, according to an order of transaction packing. If the parameters of the integral recharge interface are mutually exclusive with all previous transaction parameters (referring to the transaction including the contract method for parallel execution), the parameters of the integral recharge interface will be regarded as a separate node in the DAG with an output of 0. If the parameters of the integral recharge interface are the same as the previous transaction parameters, the current transaction will build the dependency edge from the previous transaction with the same parameters, mainly adding an input edge for the current transaction, adding an output edge for the previous transaction with similar parameters, and the dependency relationship points from the previous transaction to the current transaction. The DAG allows the dependency relationship more intuitive and unambiguous.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the transaction data chain of both the permission chain ledger and logic general ledger disclosed by Jianbin to be implemented as directed acyclic graphs in the same manner as is disclosed by Qiu yielding the predictable result in an increase in the transparency of the system by making it more intuitive and unambiguous (See Qiu: Para. [0060]).
However, the combination of Jianbin and Qiu fails to explicitly disclose:
a restricted consortium blockchain block position wherein the restricted consortium blockchain block position is at least a maximum block position corresponding to an unspent output on the consortium blockchain referenced by a cross-permission chain transaction in the permission chain block wherein the adding the block header hash value for indicating the restricted consortium block position to the permission chain block header data to be put on- chain,
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Lai discloses:
a restricted consortium blockchain block position (See Lai: Para. [0063] – “An advantage to an open, permissionless, or public, blockchain network is that guarding against bad actors is not required and no access control is needed. This means that applications can be added to the network without the approval or trust of others, using the blockchain as a transport layer. Conversely, permissioned (e.g., private) blockchains use an access control layer to govern who has access to the network. In contrast to public blockchain networks, validators on private blockchain networks are vetted, for example, by the network owner, or one or more members of a consortium. They rely on known nodes to validate transactions. Permissioned blockchains also go by the name of “consortium” or “hybrid” blockchains. Today, many corporations are using blockchain networks with private blockchains, or blockchain-based distributed ledgers, independent of a public blockchain system.”) wherein the restricted consortium blockchain block position is at least a maximum block position corresponding to an unspent output on the consortium blockchain referenced by a cross-permission chain transaction in the permission chain block wherein the adding the block header hash value for indicating the restricted consortium block position to the permission chain block header data to be put on- chain (The examiner has determined that the aforementioned claim limitation constitutes a recitation of nonfunctional descriptive material. Specifically, the limitation is directed towards descriptions of the restricted consortium blockchain position which do not further limit any of the recited method step of the claimed invention. Thus, the limitations cannot be given patentable weight. See MPEP 2114.),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the restricted consortium blockchain disclosed by Lai within the method disclosed by Jianlin and Qiu yielding the predictable result of an increase in the security strength of the invention.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination discloses:
further comprising setting the block header hash value for indicating the restricted consortium blockchain block position in the permission chain block header data to be put on-chain to a first preset value when recursively forwarding to an originating block, which still does not contain a cross- permission chain transaction, on the permission chain (See Lai: Para. [0063] – “An advantage to an open, permissionless, or public, blockchain network is that guarding against bad actors is not required and no access control is needed. This means that applications can be added to the network without the approval or trust of others, using the blockchain as a transport layer. Conversely, permissioned (e.g., private) blockchains use an access control layer to govern who has access to the network. In contrast to public blockchain networks, validators on private blockchain networks are vetted, for example, by the network owner, or one or more members of a consortium. They rely on known nodes to validate transactions. Permissioned blockchains also go by the name of “consortium” or “hybrid” blockchains. Today, many corporations are using blockchain networks with private blockchains, or blockchain-based distributed ledgers, independent of a public blockchain system.”; See Jianbin: Para. [0012] – “The block structure of the main layer block chain is (Header: PBn, GNsign, PHpre, PT | Body: GTlist), wherein the PBn is the current main layer block sequence number; GNsign is constructing node signature of the current block, PHpre is the hash value of the previous main layer block; PT is the time stamp of the current main layer block; the GTlist is a trusted transaction list meeting the global consistency;”).
Regarding Claims 5 and 17, the combination disclsoes:
wherein the merging the TXO transaction data chains of the plurality of permission chain ledgers which circulate the same token to generate the TXO transaction data chain of the logical general ledger of the token, comprises: generating the first layer of ledger data of the logical general ledger after performing consensus on a plurality of block header data of a plurality of permission chains added with restricted block positions (See Jianbin: Para. [0012] – “The block structure of the main layer blockchain is … GTlist … GTlist is the trusted transaction list that meets global consistency” – Jianbin discloses that the main and sub-layer blockchain all circulate data/tokens with a global format), wherein ledger data of the permission chains mapped through the block header data of the permission chains serves as the second layer of ledger data of the logical general ledger, ledger data corresponding to the logical general ledger is jointly formed through the mapped transaction data, and the ledger data logically contains transaction data (The examiner has determined that the aforementioned claim limitation constitutes a recitation of nonfunctional descriptive material. Specifically, the limitation is directed towards descriptions of ledger data of the permission chains which do not further limit any of the recited method step of the claimed invention. Thus, the limitations cannot be given patentable weight. See MPEP 2114.);
wherein when merging ledger data of the consortium blockchain, a bookkeeper of the consortium blockchain carries out consensus on permission chain block header data endorsed and signed by a plurality of verifiers of the consortium blockchain to generate the first layer of ledger data of the consortium blockchain, and UTXO model transaction data corresponding to a permission chain block header is the second layer of ledger data constituting the consortium blockchain (The examiner has determined that the aforementioned claim limitation constitutes a recitation of nonfunctional descriptive material. Specifically, the limitation is directed towards descriptions of a bookkeeper of the consortium blockchain which do not further limit any of the recited method step of the claimed invention. Thus, the limitations cannot be given patentable weight. See MPEP 2114.).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination discloses:
wherein the generating the first layer of ledger data of the logical general ledger after performing consensus on the plurality of block header data of the plurality of permission chains added with restricted block positions, comprises: consensus-putting on-chain, by a bookkeeper, information to be put on-chain which meets a condition and is generated by the verifier, wherein the condition comprises, but is not limited to: being verified by more than a preset number of verifiers as passed, meeting a requirement for a restricted block position, and being endorsed and signed by the verifier (The examiner has determined that the aforementioned claim limitation constitutes a recitation of nonfunctional descriptive material. Specifically, the limitation is directed towards descriptions of a bookkeeper of the consortium blockchain which do not further limit any of the recited method step of the claimed invention. Thus, the limitations cannot be given patentable weight. See MPEP 2114.); wherein the meeting the requirement for the restricted block position, comprises: a block header hash value, corresponding to a permission chain block header to be put on-chain on the consortium blockchain, indicating a restricted consortium blockchain block position is equal to one of forward consortium blockchain block header hash values; permission chain block headers are sequentially put on-chain on the consortium blockchain, and a first block header data of a permission chain put on-chain on the consortium blockchain contains a first preset value (The examiner has determined that the aforementioned claim limitation constitutes a recitation of nonfunctional descriptive material. Specifically, the limitation is directed towards descriptions of the restricted block position requirements which do not further limit any of the recited method step of the claimed invention. Thus, the limitations cannot be given patentable weight. See MPEP 2114.).
Regarding Claims 8 and 19, the combination discloses
wherein the transactions in which the subject participates comprise: a first transaction between a first user managed by a first subject and the first subject, and a second transaction between the first subject and a second subject, generated by the first subject according to the first transaction, the second transaction is used for enabling the second subject to generate a third transaction between the second subject and a second user managed by the second subject to achieve a transaction between the first user and the second user; wherein an input of the second transaction comprises one or more references to the first transaction, an output of the second transaction comprises a cross-chain transaction address of the second subject and an output commitment address of the second user, and the cross-chain transaction address is used for the second subject to reference in an input of the third transaction (The examiner has determined that the aforementioned claim limitation constitutes a recitation of nonfunctional descriptive material. Specifically, the limitation is directed towards descriptions of the transactions in which the subject participates which do not further limit any of the recited method steps of the claimed invention. Thus, the limitations cannot be given patentable weight. See MPEP 2114.).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 K PHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6748. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 1 pm-9 pm 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, Neha Patel can be reached on 571-270-1492. 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.
/NICHOLAS K PHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3699 /NEHA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights