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
Claims 1-10 are presented for examination.
Claims 1, 6 and 7 were amended.
This is a Final Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
101 abstract idea has been obviated due to current amendment to the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 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 1-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (US 2021/0099312) in view of Kanza et al. (US 11,088,827)
1. Guo teaches, An information processing device comprising a processor configured to execute operations (Paragraph 37-38 - teaches a network node (information processing device) with a processor executing instructions for blockchain/validator node operations , Guo) comprising:
selecting, by the predetermined node among a plurality of nodes of a blockchain network, a requestor node that has made a request for adding an Inbound adjacent node as an Inbound adjacent node, wherein the blockchain network extends over a plurality of regions; (Paragraph 47 & 61 - teaches selection of requestor node (candidate) by validator nodes to join as a new adjacent/committee node (directly mapping to inbound node selection), Guo)and
receiving, by the predetermined node, the request for adding an Inbound adjacent node from a predetermined requestor node (Paragraph 75 - teaches receiving a request from a requestor node to join as an inbound/validator node, Guo).
Guo does not explicitly teach, except when a region to which a predetermined requestor node belongs is distinct from a predetermined region to which the predetermined node belongs and a predetermined value of nodes belonging to the region is different from the predetermined region that is selectable as Inbound adjacent nodes has been reached; and
… wherein upper limit value, a first predetermined value and a second predetermined value between the Inbound adjacent node and an Outbound adjacent node are unified.
However, Kanza teaches,
except when a region to which a predetermined requestor node belongs is distinct from a predetermined region to which the predetermined node belongs and a predetermined value of nodes belonging to the region is different from the predetermined region that is selectable as Inbound adjacent nodes has been reached: (Col 5: lines 40-41; Col 9: lines 18-22 and Col 10: lines 62- Col 11: lines 1-4- teaches that blockchain network are divided by regions (geospatial hierarchy), and transactions/nodes are restricted once cross-region limits/conditions are reached. This maps to the “except when region… predetermined value reached”, )
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to allow Guo to be combined with Kanza as mapped because both prior arts are in the same field of endeavor of addressing the problem of uncontrolled cross-region node selection, which could lead to inefficiency, high latency or security issues, the emphasis on scalability and removing unreliable/untrusted nodes from Guo and efficiency and security by restricting cross-region blockchain operations by Kanza would reasonably combine these known solutions to achieve a more efficient and secure distributed system.
Also Destefanis teaches,
… wherein upper limit value, a first predetermined value and a second predetermined value between the Inbound adjacent node and an Outbound adjacent node are unified (Paragraphs 19 - teaches setting a number of peer nodes and a maximum number of peer nodes connectable to the node according to said monitored data and the maximum number of peers connectable to the node - disclosing explicit upper and lower limits on peer node connections and predetermined value limits between node connections; Paragraph 191-193 – teaches the minimum number of peer nodes (m.sub.min) and maximum number of peer nodes (m.sub.max)… - thus disclosing first predetermined value (minimum connection limit) and upper limit value (maximum connection limit); Paragraphs [177-179] – teaches Bandwidth B depends on the different bandwidth requirements for the input and output traffic … B.sub.j=B.sub.j.sup.i+B.sub.j.sup.o – disclosing that inbound and outbound connections are jointly controlled within the same connection management framework, supporting the claim’s concept that limits between inbound and outbound nodes are handled together (unified).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to further combine Destefanis with Guo and Kanza because all three references relate to improving connectivity and efficiency in distributed blockchain networks. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Destefanis’ connection-limit mechanism into the node-selection framework of Guo, as constrained by Kanza’s regional rules, in order to manage node connectivity and improve scalability and network stability in a distributed blockchain system.
2. The combination of Guo, Kanza and Destefanis teach, The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the receiving further comprises receiving identification information, wherein the identification information identifies the predetermined requestor node on Internet from the predetermined requestor node (Paragraph 68 - teaches that candidate requests include IP address/public key, serving as identification information for requestor nodes, Guo), the processor further configured to execute operations comprising:
determining whether the region to which the predetermined requestor node belongs is different from the predetermined region based on the identification information (Col 5: lines 40-50 & Col 10: lines 62-Col 11: lines 1-4 - teaches determining region of a node/wallet based on location-related identifiers (certificates, partitions), Kanza), and the selecting further comprises selecting the requestor node except when the region to which the predetermined requestor node belongs is different from the predetermined region and the predetermined value has been reached (Col 5: lines 66-Col 5: lines 1-4 & Col 1-: lines 62-Col 11: lines 1-4 – teaches restricting node selection/transaction once cross region threshold are hit, , Kanza).
3. The combination of Guo, Kanza and Destefanis teach, The information processing device according to claim 1,wherein the predetermined value is smaller than an average value of a number of selected nodes belonging to a region different from the predetermined region in a case where the selecting selects the Inbound adjacent node substantially at random (Paragraph 77-78 - teaches probabilistic/randomized selection strategies with thresholds smaller than average values (i.e. predetermined value smaller than random selection averages), Guo).
4. The combination of Guo, Kanza and Destefanis teach, The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the selecting further comprises selecting a predetermined possible node as an Outbound adjacent node (Paragraphs 17 & 47 - teaches selection of outbound roles by moving nodes between roles (common <-> validator), Guo), and the selecting further comprises selecting the predetermined possible node as an Outbound adjacent node except when a region to which the predetermined possible node belongs is different from the predetermined region and a predetermined value of nodes belonging to a region that is different from the predetermined region that is selectable as Outbound adjacent nodes has been reached (Col 12: lines 11-19 - teaches supports restricting outbound node/transaction selection once cross-region quota is reached, Kanza).
5. The combination of Guo, Kanza and Destefanis teach, The information processing device according to claim 4, wherein an upper limit value selectable as Inbound adjacent nodes is the same as an upper limit value selectable as Outbound adjacent nodes (Paragraph 82 - teaches symmetrical threshold across inbound/outbound validators (same formula applies), Guo), and a predetermined value of nodes belonging to a region different form the predetermined region that is selectable as Inbound adjacent nodes is the same as a predetermined value of nodes belonging to a region different from the predetermined region that is selectable as Outbound adjacent nodes (Col 10: lines 62-Col 11: lines 1-4 - teaches uniform cross-region restrictions, aligning inbound and outbound threshold, Kanza).
Claim 6 recites limitations similar to those recited in claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Claim 6 differs from Claim 1 in that the regional restriction is based on ratio of nodes belonging to a different region rather than a predetermined number of nodes. However, the cited prior art teaches proportional threshold conditions for node participation. Specifically, Guo teaches, proportional validator requirements such as 3f+1 validator nodes and receipt of 2f+1 validator decisions to tolerate f failed nodes (paragraph 82). These conditions represent ratio=based thresholds governing node participation in the network, which correspond to the claimed ratio-based condition for determining whether a requestor node may be selected as an inbound adjacent node. Expressing such participation limits as a ratio instead of an absolute number would have been an obvious design variation to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, Claim 6, is rejection under 35 USC 103 for the same reasons as claim 1. Claim 7-10 recite limitations substantially similar to those of Claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 AMRESH SINGH whose telephone number is (571)270-3560. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Ann J. Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9767. 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.
/AMRESH SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159