Detailed Action
Claims 1-14 are pending and are examined.
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, and 12-13 are currently amended.
Claim 14 is new.
Response to Remarks
35 U.S.C. § 101
The claims remain directed toward the abstract idea of data selection and deletion, determining aged transaction data and deleting portions from a block while retaining others (i.e. information management). The claim language is purely results-oriented and lacks any concrete, technology-specific implementation (e.g. no chameleon-hash/trapdoor rewrite, no Merkle update procedure for single-transaction redaction, no consensus/validation rules or messaging that materially limits the operation). Applicants assertion that the claims reduce blockchain size merely states an intended benefit and, like the cited paragraph 145, recites a result without explaining how the computer/ledger is technically improved beyond generic processing. Accordingly, this contention is unpersuasive.
35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103
Remark 1: Applicant argues “that the above-noted features of claim 1 are not disclosed, suggested, or otherwise rendered obvious by Maeda based on the following. . . Maeda fails to teach deleting transaction data from a block without deleting other transaction data in the same block. Accordingly, Maeda necessarily fails to teach "deleting the transaction data related to the first target from a block in the blockchain without deleting other transaction data included in the block, based on a determination result indicating that the transaction data related to the first target is present," as required by the above-noted features of claim 1.” (Applicant Arguments, 2025-09-25).
Response to Remark 1: Examiner respectfully disagrees, as the cited references (e.g. Maeda, Dongieux, Basu, and Winklevoss) still teach the currently amended independent claims, as shown at least in paragraphs 15-16 of Maeda, paragraphs 23-25 of Dongieux, and as further outlined in paragraphs 8-10 of this action. Indeed, Maeda teaches claim 1 by performing a time-based determination and then deleting the target transaction data from the block that contains it: defining a ‘retention period T’ and the node ‘determines whether a timestamp of the oldest block . . . is older than the current time plus T’; when true, the node ‘ deletes the oldest block in the blockchain’, thus deleting the targets transaction data from that block. Further, Dongieux describes targeted deletion of a designated portion of the ledger data (via chaincode) while blocks may contain many different transactions. Accordingly, this contention is unpersuasive.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-11
Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a computer-implemented method (i.e., process). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention, and thus must be further analyzed at Step 2A to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.03, subsection II).
Step 2A Prong One
In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Claim 1 recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea of time-based pruning of inactive blockchain transactions. Specifically, but for the additional elements, the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The certain method of organizing human activity grouping is used to describe fundamental economic principles or practices, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Fundamental economic principles or practices are relating to the economy and commerce, or recite hedging, insurance, and mitigating risks. Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people recite social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II. Also, but for the additional elements, the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The mental processes abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes recite observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Claims recite a mental process when they recite limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid. The use of a physical aid to help perform a mental step does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another. Further, claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. The claim limitations reciting the abstract ideas are grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas because the limitations recite fundamental economic principles or practices, as they recite mitigating risk, as they recite, and concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid. More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
A control method comprising: determining presence or absence of transaction data related to
a first target that has not been used for a predetermined period among targets each being transaction data stored in a blockchain;
and deleting the transaction data related to the first target from a block in the blockchain without deleting other transaction data included in the block, based on a determination result indicating that the transaction data related to the first target is present.
Step 2A Prong Two
In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. Here, claim 1 as a whole, looking at the identified additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. First, the non-underlined additional elements merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Additionally, regarding the specification and claims, there is no improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field present (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)), there is no applying or using the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition present (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)), there is no implementing the judicial exception with or using the judicial exception in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim present (MPEP § 2106.05(b)), there is no effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing present (MPEP § 2106.05(c)), and there is no applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment present, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05(e)). Thus, the claim as a whole is directed to a judicial exception and thus requires further analysis at Step 2B to determine if the claim as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the exception itself (See MPEP 2106.04, subsection II).
Step 2B
Step 2B determines whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the exception itself. Evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Here, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in claim 1, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements merely serve as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Dependent Claims:
Claims 2-11, and 14 have also been analyzed. However, the subject matter of these claims also fails to recite patent eligible subject matter for the following reasons:
Claim 2 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim further recites the abstract idea of user prompted transaction deletion. The non-underlined additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
obtaining delete request transaction data that is transaction
data created by a user who has created the first target and indicates that the first target is to be deleted, wherein when the delete request transaction data is recorded into the blockchain, the transaction data related to the first target is deleted.
Claim 3 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim further recites the abstract idea of age based deletion of inactive address data. The non-underlined additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
wherein when transaction data including an address indicating a target that is at least one of transaction data for making a monetary transaction, transaction data for deploying a smart contract, transaction data for calling up a smart contract, and other transaction data has not been obtained for the predetermined period, the target is regarded as the first target, and transaction data related to the target is deleted.
Claim 4 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim further recites the abstract idea of delete zero-balance wallet(s). The non-underlined additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
wherein when a blockchain wallet having a zero remaining amount of coins is found, the blockchain wallet is regarded as the first target
and transaction data related to the blockchain wallet is deleted.
Claim 5 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim further recites the abstract idea of cascade pruning of wallet transactions. The non-underlined additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The control method according to claim 1, wherein a header of metadata and transaction data for a plurality of transactions are stored in each of a plurality of blocks included in the blockchain, the metadata including a hash value of an immediately preceding block and a transaction tree in which the transaction data for the plurality of transactions included in the block is summarized in a Merkle tree, the transaction data for the plurality of transactions being body data, an account list is further stored in the header, the account list describing monetary transaction information related to an account provided when a blockchain wallet is created, and
when the first target is a first blockchain wallet, the deleting of the transaction data related to the first target includes: deleting, among transaction data including the first blockchain wallet as a transmission source or a transmission destination, first transaction data including a second blockchain wallet as a transmission source or a transmission destination, the second blockchain wallet being different from the first blockchain wallet and
having been deleted; and deleting information of the first blockchain wallet from one or more account lists describing the information of the first blockchain wallet among a plurality of account lists included in the plurality of blocks.
Claim 6 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim further recites the abstract idea of clearing a wallet state from memory prior to pruning. The non-underlined additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
wherein a world state indicating a state of an entire network of the blockchain is further stored in an in-memory database of each of the plurality of nodes, and when the first target is the first blockchain wallet, the control method further comprises:
before the deleting of the transaction data related to the first target, deleting information of the first blockchain wallet that is included in the world state.
Claim 7 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim further recites the abstract idea of erasing sender/recipient info from world state. The non-underlined additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
wherein the information of the first blockchain wallet that is included in the world state is information of a sender side and a recipient side that have used the first blockchain wallet.
Claim 8 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim further recites the abstract idea of deleting smart contract deployment transactions. The non-underlined additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
wherein the deleting of the transaction data related to the first target includes: when the first target is a first smart contract, deleting first transaction data for deploying the first smart contract.
Claim 9 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim further recites the abstract idea of deleting transaction data. The non-underlined additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
wherein the deleting of the transaction data related to the first target includes: deleting, together with the first transaction data for
deploying the first smart contract, second transaction data for calling up the first smart contract.
Claim 10 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim further recites the abstract idea of deleting smart contract call transactions when deployed. The non-underlined additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
wherein a header of metadata and transaction data for a plurality of transactions are stored in each of a plurality of blocks included in the blockchain, the metadata including a hash value of an immediately preceding block and a transaction tree in which the transaction data for the plurality of transactions included in the block is summarized in a Merkle tree, the transaction data for the plurality of transactions being body data,
an account list is further stored in the header, the account list describing information related to an account address created when the first smart contract is deployed, and
the deleting of the transaction data related to the first target
further includes: deleting information related to the account address from one or more account lists describing the account address among a plurality of account lists included in the plurality of blocks.
Claim 11 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim further recites the abstract idea of deleting smart contract data from memory. The non-underlined additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
wherein a world state indicating a state of an entire network of the blockchain is further stored in an in-memory database of each of the
plurality of nodes, and the control method further comprises:
before the deleting of the transaction data related to the first target, deleting information of the first smart contract that is included in the world state.
Claim 14 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim further recites the abstract idea of claim 1. The non-underlined additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
wherein a plurality of blocks are connected in the blockchain, the control method further comprises specifying one or more blocks that, among the plurality of blocks, include the transaction data related to the first target, and in the deleting, the transaction data related to the first target is deleted from the one or more blocks specified, without deleting transaction data other than the transaction data related to the first target.
Claim 12:
Step 1
Claim 12 is directed to a computer-implemented system (i.e., machine, and manufacture). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention, and thus must be further analyzed at Step 2A to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.03, subsection II).
Step 2A Prong One
In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Claim 12 recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea of time-based pruning of inactive blockchain transactions. Specifically, but for the additional elements, the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The certain method of organizing human activity grouping is used to describe fundamental economic principles or practices and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Fundamental economic principles or practices are relating to the economy and commerce, or recite hedging, insurance, and mitigating risks. Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people recite social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II. Also, but for the additional elements, the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The mental processes abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes recite observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Claims recite a mental process when they recite limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid. The use of a physical aid to help perform a mental step does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another. Further, claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. The claim limitations reciting the abstract ideas are grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas because the limitations recite fundamental economic principles or practices, as they recite mitigating risk, as they recite and concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid. More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
A server comprising: a processor; and memory, wherein
using the memory, the processor performs the following:
determining presence or absence of transaction data related to a first target that has not been used for a predetermined period among targets each being transaction data stored in a blockchain;
and deleting the transaction data related to the first target a block in the blockchain without deleting other transaction data included in the block, based on a determination result indicating that the transaction data related to the first target is present.
Step 2A Prong Two
In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. Here, claim 12 as a whole, looking at the identified additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. First, the non-underlined additional elements merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Additionally, regarding the specification and claims, there is no improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field present (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)), there is no applying or using the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition present (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)), there is no implementing the judicial exception with or using the judicial exception in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim present (MPEP § 2106.05(b)), there is no effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing present (MPEP § 2106.05(c)), and there is no applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment present, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05(e)). Thus, the claim as a whole is directed to a judicial exception and thus requires further analysis at Step 2B to determine if the claim as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the exception itself (See MPEP 2106.04, subsection II).
Step 2B
Step 2B determines whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the exception itself. Evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Here, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in claim 12, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements merely serve as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claim 13:
Step 1
Claim 13 is directed to a computer-implemented system (i.e., machine, and manufacture). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention, and thus must be further analyzed at Step 2A to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.03, subsection II).
Step 2A Prong One
In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Claim 13 recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea of time-based pruning of inactive blockchain transactions. Specifically, but for the additional elements, the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The certain method of organizing human activity grouping is used to describe fundamental economic principles or practices and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Fundamental economic principles or practices are relating to the economy and commerce, or recite hedging, insurance, and mitigating risks. Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people recite social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II. Also, but for the additional elements, the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The mental processes abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes recite observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Claims recite a mental process when they recite limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid. The use of a physical aid to help perform a mental step does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another. Further, claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. The claim limitations reciting the abstract ideas are grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas because the limitations recite fundamental economic principles or practices, as they recite mitigating risk, as they recite and concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid. More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
A non-transitory recording medium having recorded thereon a program for causing a computer to execute a control method including:
determining presence or absence of transaction data related to a first target that has not been used for a predetermined period among targets each being transaction data stored in a blockchain; and
deleting the transaction data related to the first target from a block in the blockchain without deleting other transaction data included in the block, based on a determination result indicating that the transaction data related to the first target is present.
Step 2A Prong Two
In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. Here, claim 13 as a whole, looking at the identified additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. First, the non-underlined additional elements merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Additionally, regarding the specification and claims, there is no improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field present (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)), there is no applying or using the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition present (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)), there is no implementing the judicial exception with or using the judicial exception in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim present (MPEP § 2106.05(b)), there is no effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing present (MPEP § 2106.05(c)), and there is no applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment present, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05(e)). Thus, the claim as a whole is directed to a judicial exception and thus requires further analysis at Step 2B to determine if the claim as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the exception itself (See MPEP 2106.04, subsection II).
Step 2B
Step 2B determines whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the exception itself. Evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Here, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in claim 13, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements merely serve as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 1, and 12-14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Maeda et al. (US20190265894A1) (hereinafter “Maeda”) in view of Dongieux et al. (US20210182240A1) (hereinafter “Dongieux”).
As per Claim 1, and 12-14, Maeda teaches:
A control method comprising: determining presence or absence of transaction data related to (“Disclosed herein is a method for deleting a block from a blockchain, and a computer program product and system as specified in the independent claims”, (Para. 0002); “in a method for deleting a block from a blockchain, where the blockchain maintained by a plurality of participant nodes in a network, a participant node of the plurality of participant nodes calculates a proof of work for a new block to be added to the blockchain. The participant node creates the new block including a block header. The participant node determines whether a timestamp in an oldest block in the blockchain is older than a current time plus a pre-configured retention period, and whether a current number of blocks in the blockchain is greater than or equal to a pre-configured minimum number of blocks to be maintained in the blockchain. When the timestamp in the oldest block in the blockchain is older than the current time plus the pre-configured retention period, and when the current number of blocks in the blockchain is greater than or equal to the pre-configured minimum number of blocks to be maintained in the blockchain, the participant node deletes the oldest block in the blockchain. The participant node adds a hash of an oldest remaining block and an original number of blocks of the blockchain to the block header of the new block. The participant node broadcasts a message announcing the new block to remaining participant nodes of the plurality of participant nodes.”, (Para. 0003)
a first target that has not been used for a predetermined period among targets each being transaction data stored in a blockchain; (The Office interprets the “target(s)” of claim 1 as any transaction that is older than a specific date or time period; “FIG. 2 illustrates a block structure according to embodiments of the present invention. A plurality of blocks 200 of the blockchain 102 are shown. For each block in the blockchain 102, the block header 202 includes a hash of a previous block 203, a nonce 204, and a root hash 207. The hash of the previous block points to the previous block thus creating the chain. The nonce is incremented each time a hash is tried. The root hash 207 is a hash of all transactions in the block 201. Embodiments of the present invention additionally stores in the block header 202 a hash of the oldest block 205 to be retained and an original number of blocks 206 in the blockchain 102.”, (Para. 0015); “Embodiments of the present invention provide a mechanism for deleting blocks from a blockchain. The embodiments define a retention period (T), a minimum number of blocks required of the blockchain (L), and a hash of the oldest block in the longest branch of the blockchain stored in the latest block added to the blockchain. When T, L, and the hash of the oldest block are used as described herein, blocks may be deleted from a blockchain while maintaining the tamperproof nature of the blockchain.”, (Para. 0013); “For example, T may be defined as five years in accordance with certain laws and regulations. The L may be configured based on a calculation pace of proof of work and the number of participant nodes. For example, L can be defined as the total number of blocks that 30% of participant nodes can create over a one-year period. In an alternative embodiment, when an environment meets a certain reliability threshold, L need not be defined or can be set to null. Embodiments of the present invention applies T, L, and the hash of the oldest block to the longest branch of the blockchain 102.”, (Para. 0014); “According to the rules in the original blockchain, the participant nodes 1-4 cannot add a new block without the proof of work. The new block 201 is then created (302), with the hash of the previous block 203, the nonce 204, and the root hash 207 in the block header 202. The participant node 1 determines whether a timestamp of the oldest block of the blockchain 102 is older than the current time plus T, and determines whether the current number of blocks in the blockchain 102 is greater than or equal to L (303). If the timestamp of the oldest block is older than the current time plus T and the current number of blocks is greater than or equal to L, then the oldest block can be deleted from the blockchain 102 while maintaining the integrity of the blockchain 102. Participant node 1 thus deletes the oldest block from the blockchain 102 (304). Otherwise, no block is deleted. The participant node 1 adds the hash of the oldest remaining block 205 and the original number of blocks 206 to the new block header 202 (305). When the oldest block has been deleted, the oldest remaining block is the oldest block in the blockchain after the deletion. When no block is deleted, the oldest remaining block is the same as the oldest block in the blockchain. Once the new block 201 is created and added to its copy of the transaction ledger 5, the participant node 1 broadcasts a message announcing the new block 201 to the other participant nodes 2-4 in the network 101 (306). The other participant nodes 2-4 may respond with a request either for the header of the new block or a copy of the new block itself.) (Para. 0016)
based on a determination result indicating that the transaction data related to the first target is present. (“The participant node creates the new block including a block header. The participant node determines whether a timestamp in an oldest block in the blockchain is older than a current time plus a pre-configured retention period, and whether a current number of blocks in the blockchain is greater than or equal to a pre-configured minimum number of blocks to be maintained in the blockchain. When the timestamp in the oldest block in the blockchain is older than the current time plus the pre-configured retention period, and when the current number of blocks in the blockchain is greater than or equal to the pre-configured minimum number of blocks to be maintained in the blockchain, the participant node deletes the oldest block in the blockchain. The participant node adds a hash of an oldest remaining block and an original number of blocks of the blockchain to the block header of the new block. The participant node broadcasts a message announcing the new block to remaining participant nodes of the plurality of participant nodes.”, (Para. 0003); “The participant node 1 determines whether a timestamp of the oldest block of the blockchain 102 is older than the current time plus T, and determines whether the current number of blocks in the blockchain 102 is greater than or equal to L (303). If the timestamp of the oldest block is older than the current time plus T and the current number of blocks is greater than or equal to L, then the oldest block can be deleted from the blockchain 102 while maintaining the integrity of the blockchain 102. Participant node 1 thus deletes the oldest block from the blockchain 102 (304). Otherwise, no block is deleted. The participant node 1 adds the hash of the oldest remaining block 205 and the original number of blocks 206 to the new block header 202 (305). When the oldest block has been deleted, the oldest remaining block is the oldest block in the blockchain after the deletion.”, (Para. 0016); See also Fig. 3 – Step 304).
Maeda does not disclose:
• “and deleting the transaction data related to the first target from a block in the blockchain without deleting other transaction data included in the block” (claim 1).
However, as per Claim 1, Dongieux in the analogous art of securing blockchain transactions, teaches: “and deleting the transaction data related to the first target from a block in the blockchain without deleting other transaction data included in the block”. (“an operation 214 uploads the data and hash of the data indexed for future deletion to various nodes, such as nodes 104, 106 of the DL. Also, an operation 216 generates a hash of the designated space referenced by the index for future overwrite and/or deletion and such hash may also be stored on the various nodes of the DL” (Para. 0023); “execution includes one or more of the deletion request entering a ‘grace period’ which encapsulates manual deletion protocol if said grace period was defined in the TOS, executing manual or automated forced deletion, and writing designated space with random data, and deleting overwritten designated space and the index reference to designated space” (Para. 0025); “transactions generated by deletion requests may also include accompanying metadata that is generated by those transactions to specify and differentiate deletion requests from other transactions” (Para. 0024)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Maeda with the technique of Dongieux to include transaction-level record deletion procedures within a transaction authorization process. Therefore, the incentives of providing increased granularity of data interaction for the user provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda in view of Dongieux et al. (US20210182240A1) (hereinafter “Dongieux”).
As per Claim 2, Maeda teaches:
The control method according to claim 1, further comprising: . . ., wherein when the delete request transaction data is recorded into the blockchain, the transaction data related to the first target is deleted.
Maeda does not disclose:
• “obtaining delete request transaction data that is transaction data created by a user who has created the first target and indicates that the first target is to be deleted” (claim 2).
However, as per Claim 2, Dongieux in the analogous art of securing blockchain transactions, teaches: “obtaining delete request transaction data that is transaction data created by a user who has created the first target and indicates that the first target is to be deleted”. (“FIG. 3 illustrates operations 300 of the system using DL, such as a blockchain, to provide for secure deletion of the data. An operation 302 receives a delete request. For example, the delete request may be received from one of the users 111. In response, an operation 304 broadcasts the delete request to various nodes of the DL. An operation 306 determines validity of deletion request by all nodes verifying that consensus can be made. Such verification of the deletion request may include the implementation of peer nodes specifically designed to process blocks of ordered and broadcasted transactions from operation 304. These peer nodes check the correctness of the ordered results including checking endorsement policy defined by chaincode, possible “double spending”, syntax errors, and the overall correctness of the consensus block presented to them by the ordering nodes tasked with organizing consensus. These peer nodes tasked with consensus validation then update the distributed network database with the most current state of the ledger. The transactions generated by deletion requests may also include accompanying metadata that is generated by those transactions to specify and differentiate deletion requests from other transactions. This metadata is also validated by the DL as stated and facilitates an auditable trail into “human readable” form. Once the deletion request is verified, an operation 308 notifies flagged user, such as a user 111 B, B′, B″ etc., of the deletion request. A node is not “notified” via the UI Client unless they are a directly flagged recipient of the deletion request. Thus, for example, the operation 308 is a description of activity happening primarily at the UI Client level, such as the UI client 120. An operation 310 determines the compliance of the deletion request with the deletion TOS. For example, determining such compliance of the deletion request with the deletion TOS may include ensuring that the party initiating the deletion request has the authorization to do so and that the deletion request in consistent with one of more terms of the TOS.”, (Para. 0024); “A hyperledger is one variation of an immutable ledger that will log every Creation, Update, Access, Read & Delete to programmatically implement the stated rules & chain code (smart contracts) and keep track of such actions the for the final deletion consensus in which all copied instances of data flagged for deletion are overwritten & deleted. Data flagged for deletion by the IDAS is not considered deleted until all instances of that data have been through the chain code algorithm and final consensus of the deletion confirmation is reached. The DL 102 may include a large number of nodes or blocks such as blocks 104, 106 where each block stores a large number of transactions. For example, the block 104 stores transactions 104 a, 104 b, . . . and block 106 stores transactions 106 a, 106 b, etc.” (Para. 0014); “At operation 314, a chaincode begins to execute deletion per TOS. The chaincode may be stored at various locations and on various nodes as needed and defined by the implementation of the chaincode business logic.” (Para. 0025)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Maeda with the technique of Dongieux to include record deletion procedures within a transaction authorization process. Therefore, the incentives of providing increased data interaction for the user provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
Claims 3, and 5-11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda in view of Dongieux in further view of Basu et al. (US20200286049A1) (hereinafter “Basu”).
As per Claim 3, Maeda teaches:
The control method according to claim 1, wherein when transaction data including an address indicating . . ., the target is regarded as the first target, and transaction data related to the target is deleted.
Maeda does not disclose:
• “a target that is at least one of transaction data for making a monetary transaction, transaction data for deploying a smart contract, transaction data for calling up a smart contract, and other transaction data has not been obtained for the predetermined period” (claim 3).
However, as per Claim 1, Basu in the analogous art of securing blockchain transactions, teaches: “a target that is at least one of transaction data for making a monetary transaction, transaction data for deploying a smart contract, transaction data for calling up a smart contract, and other transaction data has not been obtained for the predetermined period”. (“The systems and methods of self-administering, further comprising of: periodically storing the state as secure key value storage and discovering missing keys; recovering a state based on lack of usage for a period of time; fetching missing data in batches.”, (Para. 0020); “The systems and methods of self-administering, further comprising of: pruning the state of the smart contracts and the global state of the blockchain platform.”, (Para. 0021)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Maeda with the technique of Basu to monitoring and pruning unused resources/objects within a database. Therefore, the incentives of providing increased data accessibility for the user provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
As per Claim 5, Maeda teaches:
The control method according to claim 1, . . ..
Maeda does not disclose:
• “wherein a header of metadata and transaction data for a plurality of transactions are stored in each of a plurality of blocks included in the blockchain, the metadata including a hash value of an immediately preceding block and a transaction tree in which the transaction data for the plurality of transactions included in the block is summarized in a Merkle tree, the transaction data for the plurality of transactions being body data, an account list is further stored in the header, the account list describing monetary transaction information related to an account provided when a blockchain wallet is created, and when the first target is a first blockchain wallet, the deleting of the transaction data related to the first target includes: deleting, among transaction data including the first blockchain wallet as a transmission source or a transmission destination, first transaction data including a second blockchain wallet as a transmission source or a transmission destination, the second blockchain wallet being different from the first blockchain wallet and having been deleted; and deleting information of the first blockchain wallet from one or more account lists describing the information of the first blockchain wallet among a plurality of account lists included in the plurality of blocks” (claim 5).
However, as per Claim 5, Basu in the analogous art of securing blockchain transactions, teaches: “wherein a header of metadata and transaction data for a plurality of transactions are stored in each of a plurality of blocks included in the blockchain, the metadata including a hash value of an immediately preceding block and a transaction tree in which the transaction data for the plurality of transactions included in the block is summarized in a Merkle tree, the transaction data for the plurality of transactions being body data, an account list is further stored in the header, the account list describing monetary transaction information related to an account provided when a blockchain wallet is created, and when the first target is a first blockchain wallet, the deleting of the transaction data related to the first target includes: deleting, among transaction data including the first blockchain wallet as a transmission source or a transmission destination, first transaction data including a second blockchain wallet as a transmission source or a transmission destination, the second blockchain wallet being different from the first blockchain wallet and having been deleted; and deleting information of the first blockchain wallet from one or more account lists describing the information of the first blockchain wallet among a plurality of account lists included in the plurality of blocks”. (“The systems and methods, further comprising: maintaining consistent state with ongoing network partition of the blockchain platform by delaying the join or drop-off to occur only after completion of the network partition.”, (Para. 0017); “The systems and methods, wherein self-administering the action of view-change is further comprising of: allowing a miner to join or drop-off using partial state synchronization; setting the time period for the miner to synchronize to the global state of the blockchain platform.”, (Para. 0016); “The systems and methods of self-administering, further comprising of: pruning the state of the smart contracts and the global state of the blockchain platform.”, (Para. 0021))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Maeda with the technique of Basu to include a cascading wallet clean-up feature within a blockchain platform. Therefore, the incentives of providing increased data throughput for the user provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
As per Claim 6, Maeda teaches:
The control method according to claim 5, . . ..
Maeda does not disclose:
• “wherein a world state indicating a state of an entire network of the blockchain is further stored in an in-memory database of each of the plurality of nodes, and when the first target is the first blockchain wallet, the control method further comprises: before the deleting of the transaction data related to the first target, deleting information of the first blockchain wallet that is included in the world state” (claim 6).
However, as per Claim 6, Basu in the analogous art of securing financial transactions, teaches: “wherein a world state indicating a state of an entire network of the blockchain is further stored in an in-memory database of each of the plurality of nodes, and when the first target is the first blockchain wallet, the control method further comprises: before the deleting of the transaction data related to the first target, deleting information of the first blockchain wallet that is included in the world state”. (“The systems and methods, further comprising: maintaining consistent state with ongoing network partition of the blockchain platform by delaying the join or drop-off to occur only after completion of the network partition.”, (Para. 0017); “The systems and methods, wherein self-administering the action of view-change is further comprising of: allowing a miner to join or drop-off using partial state synchronization; setting the time period for the miner to synchronize to the global state of the blockchain platform.”, (Para. 0016); “The systems and methods of self-administering, further comprising of: pruning the state of the smart contracts and the global state of the blockchain platform.”, (Para. 0021))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Maeda with the technique of Basu to include resetting world-state memory before pruning within a blockchain platform. Therefore, the incentives of providing increased data throughput for the user provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
As per Claim 7, Maeda teaches:
The control method according to claim 6, . . ..
Maeda does not disclose:
• “wherein the information of the first blockchain wallet that is included in the world state is information of a sender side and a recipient side that have used the first blockchain wallet” (claim 7).
However, as per Claim 7, Basu in the analogous art of securing financial transactions, teaches: “wherein the information of the first blockchain wallet that is included in the world state is information of a sender side and a recipient side that have used the first blockchain wallet”. “The systems and methods, wherein self-administering the action of view-change is further comprising of: allowing a miner to join or drop-off using partial state synchronization; setting the time period for the miner to synchronize to the global state of the blockchain platform.”, (Para. 0016); “The systems and methods of self-administering, further comprising of: pruning the state of the smart contracts and the global state of the blockchain platform.”, (Para. 0021))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Maeda with the technique of Basu to include sender/recipient info in the world-state within blockchain platform. Therefore, the incentives of providing increased data analysis for the user provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
As per Claim 8, Maeda teaches:
The control method according to claim 1, . . ..
Maeda does not disclose:
• “wherein the deleting of the transaction data related to the first target includes: when the first target is a first smart contract, deleting first transaction data for deploying the first smart contract” (claim 8).
However, as per Claim 8, Basu in the analogous art of securing financial transactions, teaches: “wherein the deleting of the transaction data related to the first target includes: when the first target is a first smart contract, deleting first transaction data for deploying the first smart contract”. (“The systems and methods, wherein self-administering the action of self-forking is further comprising of: locking tokens on a main chain of the blockchain platform; allocating shadow tokens on a side chain created; allowing bonding, minting, burn or unbonding transactions.”, (Para. 0014); “The systems and methods of self-administering, further comprising of: pruning the state of the smart contracts and the global state of the blockchain platform.”, (Para. 0021); “A method of self-administered protocols on a blockchain platform, comprising: joining the blockchain platform network without first syncing an entire state based on a full list of transactions; waiting for a notarized block; syncing the partial state changes that would result if the notarized block was processed under normal operations; incrementally syncing to the entire state.”, (Para. 0022))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Maeda with the technique of Basu to include a deploy deletion feature for smart contracts within a blockchain platform. Therefore, the incentives of providing increased data analysis for the user provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
As per Claim 9, Maeda teaches:
The control method according to claim 8, . . ..
Maeda does not disclose:
“wherein the deleting of the transaction data related to the first target includes: deleting, together with the first transaction data for deploying the first smart contract, second transaction data for calling up the first smart contract” (claim 9).
However, as per Claim 9, Basu in the analogous art of securing blockchain transactions, teaches: “wherein the deleting of the transaction data related to the first target includes: deleting, together with the first transaction data for deploying the first smart contract, second transaction data for calling up the first smart contract”. (“The systems and methods, wherein self-administering the action of self-forking is further comprising of: locking tokens on a main chain of the blockchain platform; allocating shadow tokens on a side chain created; allowing bonding, minting, burn or unbonding transactions.”, (Para. 0014); “The systems and methods of self-administering, further comprising of: pruning the state of the smart contracts and the global state of the blockchain platform.”, (Para. 0021); “The systems and methods of self-administering, further comprising of: periodically storing the state as secure key value storage and discovering missing keys; recovering a state based on lack of usage for a period of time; fetching missing data in batches.” (Para. 0020).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Maeda with the technique of Basu to include call-up/deploy transaction deletion feature within a blockchain platform. Therefore, the incentives of providing increased data interactivity for the user provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
As per Claim 10, Maeda teaches:
The control method according to claim 9, . . ..
Maeda does not disclose:
• “wherein a header of metadata and transaction data for a plurality of transactions are stored in each of a plurality of blocks included in the blockchain, the metadata including a hash value of an immediately preceding block and a transaction tree in which the transaction data for the plurality of transactions included in the block is summarized in a Merkle tree, the transaction data for the plurality of transactions being body data, an account list is further stored in the header, the account list describing information related to an account address created when the first smart contract is deployed, and the deleting of the transaction data related to the first target further includes: deleting information related to the account address from one or more account lists describing the account address among a plurality of account lists included in the plurality of blocks” (claim 10).
However, as per Claim 10, Basu in the analogous art of securing blockchain transactions, teaches: “wherein a header of metadata and transaction data for a plurality of transactions are stored in each of a plurality of blocks included in the blockchain, the metadata including a hash value of an immediately preceding block and a transaction tree in which the transaction data for the plurality of transactions included in the block is summarized in a Merkle tree, the transaction data for the plurality of transactions being body data, an account list is further stored in the header, the account list describing information related to an account address created when the first smart contract is deployed, and the deleting of the transaction data related to the first target further includes: deleting information related to the account address from one or more account lists describing the account address among a plurality of account lists included in the plurality of blocks”. (“wherein a header of metadata and transaction data for a plurality of transactions are stored in each of a plurality of blocks included in the blockchain, the metadata including a hash value of an immediately preceding block and a transaction tree in which the transaction data for the plurality of transactions included in the block is summarized in a Merkle tree, the transaction data for the plurality of transactions being body data, an account list is further stored in the header, the account list describing information related to an account address created when the first smart contract is deployed, and the deleting of the transaction data related to the first target further includes: deleting information related to the account address from one or more account lists describing the account address among a plurality of account lists included in the plurality of blocks”, (Para. 0022); “The systems and methods of self-administering, further comprising of: periodically storing the state as secure key value storage and discovering missing keys; recovering a state based on lack of usage for a period of time; fetching missing data in batches.”, (Para. 0020); “The systems and methods of self-administering, further comprising of: pruning the state of the smart contracts and the global state of the blockchain platform.”, (Para. 0021))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Maeda with the technique of Basu to remove addresses from block headers within a transaction authorization process. Therefore, the incentives of providing increased data throughput for the user provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
As per Claim 11, Maeda teaches:
The control method according to claim 8, . . ..
Maeda does not disclose:
• “wherein a world state indicating a state of an entire network of the blockchain is further stored in an in-memory database of each of the plurality of nodes, and the control method further comprises: before the deleting of the transaction data related to the first target, deleting information of the first smart contract that is included in the world state” (claim 11).
However, as per Claim 11, Basu in the analogous art of securing blockchain transactions, teaches: “wherein a world state indicating a state of an entire network of the blockchain is further stored in an in-memory database of each of the plurality of nodes, and the control method further comprises: before the deleting of the transaction data related to the first target, deleting information of the first smart contract that is included in the world state”. (“The systems and methods, wherein self-administering the action of view-change is further comprising of: allowing a miner to join or drop-off using partial state synchronization; setting the time period for the miner to synchronize to the global state of the blockchain platform.”, (Para. 0016); “The systems and methods, further comprising: maintaining consistent state with ongoing network partition of the blockchain platform by delaying the join or drop-off to occur only after completion of the network partition.”, (Para. 0017); “The systems and methods of self-administering, further comprising of: pruning the state of the smart contracts and the global state of the blockchain platform.”, (Para. 0021))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Maeda with the technique of Basu to delete contract information from the world-state before pruning within a transaction authorization process. Therefore, the incentives of providing increased data throughput for the user provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda in view of Dongieux in further view of Winklevoss et al. (US10650376) (hereinafter “Winklevoss”).
As per Claim 4, Maeda teaches:
The control method according to claim 1, . . ..
Maeda does not disclose:
• “wherein when a blockchain wallet having a zero remaining amount of coins is found, the blockchain wallet is regarded as the first target, and transaction data related to the blockchain wallet is deleted” (claim 4).
However, as per Claim 4, Winklevoss in the analogous art of securing blockchain transactions, teaches: “wherein when a blockchain wallet having a zero remaining amount of coins is found, the blockchain wallet is regarded as the first target, and transaction data related to the blockchain wallet is deleted”. (“When a private key is swept, a transaction is automatically broadcast so that the entire balance held by the private key is sent or transferred to another address” (col. 16, ln. 64-66); “digital wallets may be deleted or otherwise destroyed following the storage of their associated keys.” (col. 22, ln. 24-25); “In embodiments, the trust computer system may delete or destroy one or more wallets involved in the transaction, e.g., the AP custody wallet and/or any vault wallets that were emptied. . . In step S214, the trustee may cancel and/or instruct to cancel, e.g., using the third-party clearing agency 250 (e.g., DTC), the AP' s shares corresponding to the number of assets withdrawn and delivered to the AP.” (col. 60, ln. 15-23)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Maeda with the technique of Winklevoss to removing empty resources within a blockchain platform. Therefore, the incentives of providing increased data throughput for the user provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
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.
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US20190296915A1 (Lancashire), discussing “[i]n the transient blockchain 305, a certain number of blocks may be maintained as actively on-ledger while older blocks are simply discarded. Payment slips and other data that is contained in blocks that have fallen off the tail-end of the chain can no longer be referenced in new transactions through the consensus mechanisms of the blockchain, such as a transaction slip in a previous block being used as an input to a new transaction. The simplest version of this is to maintain only a set of number of blocks in the blockchain, however, more complicated variants are possible—the strict requirement is just that all nodes to come to an agreement when adding new data to the chain about what old data may be pruned from the blockchain. Note that none of the transactions in this system are automatically rebroadcast. All attempts to keep data on the blockchain require manual intervention by the originators of the transactions or their authorized agents who must monitor the blockchain and take action to ensure their transactions, contracts, or data do not fall off the chain.” (Para. 0157)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Justin A. Jimenez whose telephone number is (571) 270-3080. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John W. Hayes can be reached on 571-272-6708. 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.
/Justin Jimenez/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3697
/JOHN W HAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3697