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
In amendments dated 11/5/25, Applicant amended claims 1, 6, 11-16, 20-21and 25-27, canceled no claims, and added no new claims. Claims 1-16, 18-21, and 23-27 are presented for examination.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 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 1-16, 18-21, and 23-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mental processes without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 6, and 11 each recites identifying a next lead peer of the group of peers based on the metadata included in the view change message; generating, based at least in part on the plurality of signatures in the view change message, a view data message comprising a checkpoint of the blockchain ledger of the blockchain network. Identifying a lead peer is evaluating and a mental process and generating a message is recited broadly and is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper. Each claim recites additional elements of receiving a view change message with a request to change a role of a lead peer of a consensus process for a group of peers within a blockchain network, wherein the view change message comprises metadata and a plurality of signatures corresponding to the group of peers, wherein the plurality of signatures are based at least in part on a hash of a block being added to a blockchain ledger of the blockchain network before the lead peer of the group of peers experiences a fault, which is an input step and insignificant extra-solution activity; and transmitting the view data message to the next lead peer from among the group of peers with instructions to lead a next consensus process for the group of peers, which is an output step and also insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim 1 recites a network interface and a processor and claim 11 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions, which are each generic components of a computer system. Examiner notes that specification paragraph 0050 described how 2(2F+1) messages were needed for a view change and that this consumes a lot of time, and paragraphs 0051-0052 describe how the invention uses the content of a prepare message during an in-process update to include signatures from the other peers that are added to a view change message, at which point a new primary peer only needs to wait for one message instead of 2(2F+1) messages. Then “the new primary peer may only need to wait for one view data message (instead of 2f+1 view data messages) which includes a checkpoint/current state of the blockchain before transmitting the new view message,” and “by waiting for one view data message, the new primary peer can ensure that the in-flight change to the state of the blockchain identified in the view change messages matches the current state/checkpoint of the blockchain in the view data message,” to save time for in-flight processes where a view change occurs. Some of these steps are not recited, and the claim steps do not recite a particular improvement in any technology or function of a computer per MPEP 2106.04(d) and do not recite any unconventional steps in the invention per MPEP 2106.05(a). Therefore, the recited mental processes are not integrated into a practical application. Taking the claims as a whole, the input step and output step are recited highly generally and amount to sending or receiving data across a network per specification paragraphs 0002 and 0054 and figure 1A network 100, which is routine and conventional per list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II. The network interface, processor, and non-transitory computer-readable medium are still generic components of a computer system. Therefore these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the cited mental processes.
Independent claims 16 and 21 each recites generating a hash of the proposed data to be added to the blockchain ledger; and generating a prepare message which comprises a signature over the hash of the proposed data and a hash puzzle. Generating a hash is recited broadly and is a mental process per Personalweb Technologies LLC v. Google 8 F.4th 1310, 2021 U.S.P.Q.2d 853 (Fed. Cir. 2021, and generating a prepare message is recited broadly and is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper. Each claim recites additional elements of receiving, from a primary peer, a message which comprises proposed data to be added to a blockchain ledger, which is an input step and insignificant extra-solution activity; and transmitting the prepare message to a plurality of other consensus peers of the blockchain, which is an output step and insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim 16 also recites a network interface and a processor, which are generic components of a computer system. Examiner notes the descriptions of paragraphs 0050-0052 above. Some of these steps are also not recited in these claims, and the claim steps do not recite a particular improvement in any technology or function of a computer per MPEP 2106.04(d) and do not recite any unconventional steps in the invention per MPEP 2106.05(a). Therefore, the recited mental processes are not integrated into a practical application. Taking the claims as a whole, the input step and output step are recited highly generally and amount to sending or receiving data across a network per specification paragraphs 0002 and 0054 and figure 1A network 100, which is routine and conventional per specification paragraphs 0002 and 0054 and figure 1A network 100 and the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II. The network interface and processor are still generic components of a computer system. Therefore these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited mental processes.
Claims 2, 7, and 12 each recites wherein the network interface is further configured to: receive a plurality of messages from a plurality of peers in the group of peers (sending or receiving data across a network which is routine and conventional per specification paragraphs 0002 and 0054 and figure 1A network 100 and the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II), and the processor is further configured to: verify that the lead peer has faulted based on respective metadata included in the plurality of messages (verifying the lead peer had faulted is evaluating and a mental process). Claims 3, 8, and 13 each recites wherein the network interface is further configured to: receive a plurality of messages from a plurality of peers in the group of peers (sending or receiving data across a network which is routine and conventional per specification paragraphs 0002 and 0054 and figure 1A network 100 and the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II), and the processor is further configured to: verify sequence numbers based on respective metadata included in the plurality of messages (verifying is evaluating and a mental process). Claims 4, 9, and 14 each recites wherein metadata includes information corresponding to a current state of the blockchain ledger of the blockchain network (receiving data across a network which is routine and conventional per specification paragraphs 0002 and 0054 and figure 1A network 100 and the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II).
Claims 5, 10, and 15 each recites wherein the processor is further configured to receive a new block from the next lead peer (sending or receiving data across a network which is routine and conventional per specification paragraphs 0002 and 0054 and figure 1A network 100 and the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II), execute a blockchain consensus process with the next lead peer based on the new block (executing a process is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper), and commit the new block to the blockchain ledger of the blockchain network (storing data to the blockchain ledger which is routine and conventional per specification paragraphs 0002 and 0054 and figure 1A network 100 and the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II). Claims 18 and 23 each recites wherein the network interface is further configured to: receive a plurality of prepare messages sent from the plurality of other consensus peers (sending or receiving data across a network which is routine and conventional per specification paragraphs 0002 and 0054 and figure 1A network 100 and the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II); and determine that the plurality of prepare messages satisfy a predetermined threshold (determining is evaluating and a mental process). Claims 19 and 24 each recites wherein the processor is further configured to: generate a commit message that comprises a solution to the hash puzzle (generating a message is generating data which is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper); and transmit the commit message to the other consensus peers (sending or receiving data across a network which is routine and conventional per specification paragraphs 0002 and 0054 and figure 1A network 100 and the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II).
Claims 20 and 25 each recites wherein the processor is configured to add a view number and a sequence number to the prepare message prior to transmission of the prepare message to the plurality of other consensus peers (adding a signature to a message is adding data to the message which is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper). Claims 26 and 27 each recites wherein the view change message comprises a view number identifying the next lead peer (receiving data across a network which is routine and conventional per specification paragraphs 0002 and 0054 and figure 1A network 100 and the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II).
Relevant Prior Art
During his search for prior art, Examiner found the following reference to be relevant to Applicant's claimed invention. Said reference is listed on the Notice of References form included in this office action:
Yang (20200379852) teaches a view change protocol does not teach a checkpoint in a view data message or a view change message with signatures corresponding to a group of peers (paragraphs 0007, 0056-0057 figures 2C, 3B).
Responses to Applicant’s Remarks
Regarding objections to claims 1, 6, and 11 for unclear language “based at least in part of the view change message,” in view of amendments reciting “based at least in part on the plurality of signatures in the view change message,” these objections are withdrawn. Regarding rejections to claims 1-16, 18-21, and 23-27 under 35 U.S.C. 101 for reciting mental processed without significantly more, Applicant’s argents have been considered but are not persuasive. On pages 11-13 of his Remarks Applicant discusses Step 2A Prong One and asserts the claims recite features that cannot be performed in the human mind. Applicant asserts computing "hash of a block" and "plurality of signatures are based at least in part on a hash of a block being added to a blockchain ledger" but reciting “plurality of signatures are based at least in part on a hash of a block” does not explicitly recite computing a hash. Furthermore, "generate a view data message comprising a checkpoint of the blockchain ledger" is recited broadly without inventive detail on how the view data message is generated and the claim language does not recite verifying digital signatures or determining the state of a blockchain ledger to generate the checkpoint of the blockchain ledger. On pages 13-15 Applicant discusses Step 2A Prong Two and asserts the claims integrate the mental processes into a practical application "because it is directed to improving the operation of updating a blockchain network when a primary node of the blockchain network is faulty." Examiner disagrees and notes the claims do not even recite that a primary node of the blockchain is faulty. Applicant asserts “paragraph [0050] indicates the technical problem that ‘a considerable amount of time is consumed during the view change process’ because ‘the new primary peer must wait to receive 2f+1 view data messages before the new view message can be transmitted.’” Applicant further asserts “since the ‘plurality of signatures in the view change message’ provides proof from a majority of blockchain peers, the new primary peer may only need to wait for one view data message, instead of 2f+1 view data messages. As a result, the time for the in-flight blockchain process when view a change occurs is significantly reduced, and the efficiency of recovering from a faulty primary node in a blockchain network is significantly improved.” Examiner disagrees that the claims recite the improvement because, in addition to the claims not reciting a faulty primary peer which necessitates the improvement being necessary, the claims do not recite that the has of the block in the view change message is a proposed change to the blockchain (paragraph 0051) or that the next lead peer needs to match the checkpoint in the view data message to the in-flight change in the view change message so the next lead peer can pick up where the previous lead peer left off in implementing the change to the blockchain. It is in this process of transitioning from a faulty primary peer to the next lead peer where the improvement is realized, and these steps are not recited. Therefore the claims do not recite a practical application per MPEP 2106.04(d).
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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUCE M MOSER whose telephone number is (571)270-1718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571 270-5626. 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.
/BRUCE M MOSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154 2/15/26