DETAILED ACTION
1. This is a Final Office Action Correspondence in response to U.S. Application No. 18/472206 filed on March 20, 2025.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant
3. The Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner in hopes of reaching a resolution in light of compact prosecution.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The Information Disclosure Statement filed on March 25, 2025 was reviewed and accepted by the Examiner
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
On Pg. 9-10 of remarks in regards to 35 U.S.C. 101, relating to claim 1, Applicant argues the amended claims recite methods that are used by the “trusted distributed assertion ledger” and maintained by different ledger nodes.
Examiner replies the abstract idea is still maintained. The abstract idea is recited in the validating an assertion to be recorded. This can be a human viewing information and mentally deciding the information is correct and does not need to be changed, thus recording. Applicant can amend the claims to contain hardware components that would remove the abstract idea of validating.
On Pg. 12-14 of remarks in regards to 35 U.S.C. 103, relating to claim 1, Applicant argues that the “token” used by Maher is not associated with a “meshed entry”.
Examiner replies that Maher does teach this information. The tokens contain hashes. Par. 0078 Maher disclose the hashes contain assertions that are recorded by the trusted immutable distributed assertion ledger. Par. 0084 Maher discloses the derivatives maintains a table of hashes. Par. 0092-0093 Maher discloses the tidal derivative is used to associate copies of the TIDAL information with other TIDAL information which includes hash information. The tidal derivative contains the hashes, which contain tokens.
Claim Rejections - 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.
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a method performed by a system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one independent claim, 1, specifically claim 1 recites, “validating the at least one assertion for recordation in the first trusted distributed assertion ledger” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally viewing information and deciding the information is valid, “recording, based at least in part on the validation, the at least one assertion in the first trusted distributed assertion ledger, the first trusted distributed assertion ledger being maintained by a first ledger node” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally viewing information and using a pen and paper to write the validated information on the piece of paper,
“and recording the at least one assertion in a second trusted distributed ledger, the second trusted distributed assertion ledger being maintained by a second ledger node, wherein recording the at least one assertion in the second trusted distributed ledger comprises associating the at least one assertion with a first tag in the second trusted distributed assertion ledger, the first tag identifying the at least one assertion as a meshed entry”, in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally viewing information and using a pen and paper to write the validated information on the piece of paper. These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human viewing information mentally validate the information and write the validated information on a piece of paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The independent claim of 1 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example, “receiving at least one assertion for recordation in a first trusted distributed assertion ledger” do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are seen as data gathering that are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “receiving at least one assertion for recordation in a first trusted distributed assertion ledger”.
For example, “receiving at least one assertion for recordation in a first trusted distributed assertion ledger”, is seen as computer functions that are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality). MPEP 2106.05(d); 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a method performed by a system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 2, specifically claim 2 recites “wherein the first tag identifies the first trusted distributed assertion ledger” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally writing an identifier that describes the location of the public ledger.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 2 recites no new additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a method performed by a system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 3, specifically claim 3 recites “wherein the first tag identifies the first ledger node” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally writing an identifier that describes the location/address of the public ledger.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 3 recites no new additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a method performed by a system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 4, specifically claim 4 recites "wherein the first tag identifies an entry of the first trusted distributed assertion ledger where the at least one assertion is recorded” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally writing an identifier that describes the location of an entry in the public ledger.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 4 recites no new additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a method performed by a system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 5, specifically claim 5 recites "wherein recording the at least one assertion in the first trusted distributed assertion ledger comprises associating the at least one assertion with a second tag in the first trusted distributed assertion ledger, the second tag identifying the at least one assertion as a meshed entry” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally writing an identifier that describes the location of the content and the relevant sources of the data.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 5 recites no new additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a method performed by a system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 6, specifically claim 6 recites " wherein the second tag identifies the second trusted distributed assertion ledger” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally writing an identifier that describes the location of the content and the relevant sources of the data.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 6 recites no new additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a method performed by a system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 7, specifically claim 7 recites "wherein the second tag identifies the second ledger node” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally writing an identifier that describes the location of the content and the relevant sources of the data.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 7 recites no new additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a method performed by a system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 8, specifically claim 8 recites "wherein the second tag identifies an entry of the second trusted distribution assertion ledger where the at least one assertion is recorded” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally writing an identifier that describes the location of the content and the relevant sources of the data.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 8 recites no new additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a method performed by a system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 9, specifically claim 9 recites " wherein the first tag is indicated based on a semantic structure of an entry of the first trusted distributed assertion ledger where the at least one assertion is recorded” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally writing an identifier that describes the location of the content and the relevant sources of the data.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 9 recites no new additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a method performed by a system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 10, specifically claim 10 recites "wherein the first tag comprises a pattern of information included within the entry of the first trusted distributed assertion ledger where the at least one assertion is recorded” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally writing an identifier that describes the location of the content and the relevant sources of the data.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 10 recites no new additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a method performed by a system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 11, specifically claim 11 recites " wherein the pattern of information is located at a defined position within the entry of the first trusted distributed assertion ledger where the at least one assertion is recorded” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally writing an identifier that describes the location of the content and the relevant sources of the data.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 11 recites no new additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a method performed by a system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 12, specifically claim 12 recites "wherein the pattern of information is located at a beginning of the entry of the first trusted distributed assertion ledger where the at least one assertion is recorded” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally writing an identifier that describes the location of the content and the relevant sources of the data.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 12 recites no new additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a method performed by a system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 13, specifically claim 13 recites " wherein the pattern of information is located at an end of the entry of the first trusted distributed assertion ledger where the at least one assertion is recorded” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally writing an identifier that describes the location of the content and the relevant sources of the data.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 13 recites no new additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a method performed by a system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 14, specifically claim 14 recites " wherein the pattern of information is based on at least one requirement specified by a proof of work rule associated with the first trusted distributed assertion ledger” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally writing an identifier that describes the location of the content and the relevant sources of the data.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 14 recites no new additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a method performed by a system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 15, specifically claim 15 recites "wherein the first trusted distributed assertion ledger comprises cryptographically linked ledger entries” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally writing an identifier that describes the location of the content and the relevant sources of the data.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 15 recites no new additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a method performed by a system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 16, specifically claim 16 recites "wherein the first trusted distributed assertion ledger comprises a blockchain ledger” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally writing an identifier that describes the location of the content and the relevant sources of the data.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 16 recites no new additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a method performed by a system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 17, specifically claim 17 recites "wherein the second trusted distributed assertion ledger comprises cryptographically linked ledger entries” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally writing an identifier that describes the location of the content and the relevant sources of the data.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 17 recites no new additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a method performed by a system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 18, specifically claim 18 recites "wherein the second trusted distributed assertion ledger comprises a blockchain ledger” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally writing an identifier that describes the location of the content and the relevant sources of the data.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 18 recites no new additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a method performed by a system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 19, specifically claim 19 recites " wherein at least one of the first trusted distributed assertion ledger and the second trusted distributed assertion ledger comprise one or more entries derived from at least a subset of entries of one or more other trusted ledgers” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally writing an identifier that describes the location of the content and the relevant sources of the data.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 19 recites no new additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a method performed by a system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 20, specifically claim 20 recites "wherein at least one of the first trusted distributed assertion ledger and the second trusted distributed assertion ledger comprise one or more entries derived from hashing the at least a subset of entries of the one or more other assertion ledgers” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally writing an identifier that describes the location of the content and the relevant sources of the data.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 20 recites no new additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claim(s) 1-10 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nilsson et al. U.S. Patent No. 11,615,070 (herein as ‘Nilsson’) and further in view of Maher U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0273617 (herein as ‘Maher’).
As to claim 1 Nilsson teaches a method performed by a system comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the system to perform the method, (Col. 14 Lines 25-35 Nilsson discloses the computer);
the method comprising:
receiving at least one assertion for recordation in a first trusted distributed assertion ledger (Fig.1, Col. 5 lines 65-67 and Col. 6 Lines 1-5 Nilsson discloses receiving an assertion and recording the assertion in the ledger);
validating the at least one assertion for recordation in the first trusted distributed assertion ledger (Col. 6 Lines 65-67 and Col. 7 Lines 1-5 Nilsson discloses validating the content assertions and recording the contents);
recording, based at least in part on the validation, the at least one assertion in the first trusted distributed assertion ledger, the first trusted distributed assertion ledger being maintained by a first ledger node (Col. 6 Lines 56-63 Nilsson discloses the ledger nodes recording the verified content assertions);
Nilsson does not teach but Maher teaches and recording the at least one assertion in a second trusted distributed ledger, the second trusted distributed assertion ledger being maintained by a second ledger node, wherein recording the at least one assertion in the second trusted distributed ledger comprises associating the at least one assertion with a first tag in the second trusted distributed assertion ledger, the first tag identifying the at least one assertion as a meshed entry (Par. 0092-0093 Maher discloses the tidal derivative is used to associate copies of the TIDAL information with other TIDAL information which includes hash information. The tidal derivative contains the hashes, which contain tokens. Par. 0099-0101 Maher discloses storing assertions and using links containing associations to information associated with a token. The token contains information for identifying the assertions with an ID and group membership. The token is seen as the first tag. The use of a Tidal derivative is seen as meshed entry. The ID and group membership are stored in a different database. The hash is stored in TIDALs (Trusted Immutable Distributed Assertion Ledgers). Par. 0117 Maher discloses nodes provide information to be stored in Tidals. The different nodes are seen as the second ledger node. The different Tidals are seen as the second trusted distribution assertion ledger. The assertions being stored as a hash is seen as recording an assertion in the ledger).
Nilsson and Maher are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, public ledger processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the public ledger of Nilsson to include the identifier with token of Evans, to allow for security and validation when storing transaction (Par. 0003-0005 Maher).
As to claim 2 Nilsson in combination with Maher teaches each and every limitation of claim 1.
In addition Maher teaches wherein the first tag identifies the first trusted distributed assertion ledger (Par. 0100 Maher discloses the group membership is stored in a database that links the recorded assertions with the ID).
As to claim 3 Nilsson in combination with Maher teaches each and every limitation of claim 1.
In addition Maher teaches wherein the first tag identifies the first ledger node (Par. 0067 Maher discloses the tag identifies the ID of the node).
As to claim 4 Nilsson in combination with Maher teaches each and every limitation of claim 1.
In addition Maher teaches wherein the first tag identifies an entry of the first trusted distributed assertion ledger where the at least one assertion is recorded (Par. 0117 and 0151-0153 Maher discloses the identifiers/token are used to identify attributes that are recorded and stored in a Tidal (Trusted Immutable Distributed Assertion Ledgers).
As to claim 5 Nilsson in combination with Maher teaches each and every limitation of claim 1.
In addition Maher teaches wherein recording the at least one assertion in the first trusted distributed assertion ledger comprises associating the at least one assertion with a second tag in the first trusted distributed assertion ledger, the second tag identifying the at least one assertion as a meshed entry (Par. 0099-0101 Maher discloses storing assertions and using links containing associations to information associated with a token. The token contains information for identifying the assertions with an ID and group membership. The token is seen as the first tag. The ID and group membership are stored in a different database. The hash is stored in TIDALs (Trusted Immutable Distributed Assertion Ledgers). Par. 0117 Maher discloses nodes provide information to be stored in Tidals. The different nodes are seen as the second ledger node. The different Tidals are seen as the second trusted distribution assertion ledger. The assertions being stored as a hash is seen as recording an assertion in the ledger).
Nilsson and Maher are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, public ledger processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the public ledger of Nilsson to include the identifier with token of Maher, to allow for security and validation when storing transaction (Par. 0003-0005 Maher).
As to claim 6 Nilsson in combination with Maher teaches each and every limitation of claim 5.
In addition Maher teaches wherein the second tag identifies the second trusted distributed assertion ledger (Par. 0117 and 0151-0153 Maher discloses the identifiers/token are used to identify attributes that are recorded and stored in a Tidal (Trusted Immutable Distributed Assertion Ledgers).
As to claim 7 Nilsson in combination with Maher teaches each and every limitation of claim 5.
In addition Maher teaches wherein the second tag identifies the second ledger node (Par. 0117 and 0151-0153 Maher discloses the identifiers/token are used to identify attributes that are recorded and stored in a Tidal (Trusted Immutable Distributed Assertion Ledgers).
As to claim 8 Nilsson in combination with Maher teaches each and every limitation of claim 5.
In addition Maher teaches wherein the second tag identifies an entry of the second trusted distributed assertion ledger where the at least one assertion is recorded (Par. 0117 and 0151-0153 Maher discloses the identifiers/token are used to identify attributes that are recorded and stored in a Tidal (Trusted Immutable Distributed Assertion Ledgers).
As to claim 9 Nilsson in combination with Maher teaches each and every limitation of claim 1.
In addition Maher teaches wherein the first tag is indicated based on a semantic structure of an entry of the first trusted distributed assertion ledger where the at least one assertion is recorded (Par. 0285 Maher discloses the tag is part of specific protocol parameters that bind the user to the device, the token and the request type as a request is sent to a Tidal (Trusted Immutable Distributed Assertion Ledgers).
As to claim 10 Nilsson in combination with Maher teaches each and every limitation of claim 9.
In addition Maher teaches wherein the first tag comprises a pattern of information included within the entry of the first trusted distributed assertion ledger where the at least one assertion is recorded (Par. 0281 Maher discloses pattern information is associated with the specific protocol parameter. and 0285 Maher discloses the tag is part of specific protocol parameters that bind the user to the device, the token and the request type as a request is sent to a Tidal (Trusted Immutable Distributed Assertion Ledgers).
As to claim 15 Nilsson in combination with Maher teaches each and every limitation of claim 1.
In addition Nilsson teaches wherein the first trusted distributed assertion ledger comprises cryptographically linked ledger entries (Col. 7 Lines 1-5 Nilsson discloses the ledger nodes generating cryptographic links between the entries in the ledger).
As to claim 16 Nilsson in combination with Maher teaches each and every limitation of claim 15.
In addition Nilsson teaches wherein the first trusted distributed assertion ledger comprises a blockchain ledger (Col. 7 Lines 1-5 Nilsson discloses the ledger nodes generating cryptographic links between the entries in the ledger to be stored in a blockchain).
As to claim 17 Nilsson in combination with Maher teaches each and every limitation of claim 1.
In addition Nilsson teaches wherein the second trusted distributed assertion ledger comprises cryptographically linked ledger entries (Col. 7 Lines 1-5 Nilsson discloses the ledger nodes generating cryptographic links between the entries in the ledger to be stored in a blockchain).
As to claim 18 Nilsson in combination with Maher teaches each and every limitation of claim 17.
In addition Nilsson teaches wherein the second trusted distributed assertion ledger comprises a blockchain ledger (Col. 7 Lines 1-5 Nilsson discloses the ledger nodes generating cryptographic links between the entries in the ledger to be stored in a blockchain).
As to claim 19 Nilsson in combination with Maher teaches each and every limitation of claim 1.
In addition Nilsson teaches wherein at least one of the first trusted distributed assertion ledger and the second trusted distributed assertion ledger comprise one or more entries derived from at least a subset of entries of one or more other trusted ledgers (Col. 7 Lines 20-30 Nilsson discloses a ledger derivative that associates responses with entries in database, tables or other ledgers).
As to claim 20 Nilsson in combination with Maher teaches each and every limitation of claim 19.
In addition Nilsson teaches wherein at least one of the first trusted distributed assertion ledger and the second trusted distributed assertion ledger comprise one or more entries derived from hashing the at least a subset of entries of the one or more other assertion ledgers (Col. 7 Lines 20-30 Nilsson discloses a ledger derivative that associates responses with entries in database, tables or other ledgers).
10. Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nilsson et al. U.S. Patent No. 11,615,070 (herein as ‘Nilsson’) in combination with Maher U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0273617 (herein as ‘Maher’) and further in view of Ko U.S. Patent No. 10, 382, 205 (herein as ‘Ko’).
As to claim 11 Nilsson in combination with Maher teaches each and every limitation of claim 9.
Nilsson in combination with Maher does not teach but Ko teaches wherein the pattern of information is located at a defined position within the entry of the first trusted distributed assertion ledger where the at least one assertion is recorded (Col. 2 Lines 6-10 Ko discloses the four pieces of information that are stored within the block. Col. 10 Lines 55-60 Ko discloses storing the content within the last block of the public edger or blockchain. The four pieces of information are seen as the pattern of information).
Nilsson and Ko are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, public ledger processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the public ledger of Nilsson to include the storing requirements of Ko, to allow for secure data storage (Col. 2 Lines 13-27 Ko).
As to claim 12 Nilsson in combination with Maher teaches each and every limitation of claim 10.
Nilsson in combination with Maher does not teach but Ko teaches wherein the pattern of information is located at a beginning of the entry of the first trusted distributed assertion ledger where the at least one assertion is recorded (Col. 2 Lines 6-10 Ko discloses the four pieces of information that are stored within the block. Col. 12 Lines 22-29 Ko discloses storing the content within the first block of the public edger or blockchain. The four pieces of information are seen as the pattern of information).
Nilsson and Ko are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, public ledger processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the public ledger of Nilsson to include the storing requirements of Ko, to allow for secure data storage (Col. 2 Lines 13-27 Ko).
As to claim 13 Nilsson in combination with Maher teaches each and every limitation of claim 10.
Nilsson in combination with Maher does not teach but Ko teaches wherein the pattern of information is located at an end of the entry of the first trusted distributed assertion ledger where the at least one assertion is recorded (Col. 2 Lines 6-10 Ko discloses the four pieces of information that are stored within the block. Col. 10 Lines 55-60 Ko discloses storing the content within the last block of the public edger or blockchain. The four pieces of information are seen as the pattern of information).
Nilsson and Ko are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, public ledger processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the public ledger of Nilsson to include the storing requirements of Ko, to allow for secure data storage (Col. 2 Lines 13-27 Ko).
11. Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nilsson et al. U.S. Patent No. 11,615,070 (herein as ‘Nilsson’) in combination with Maher U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0273617 (herein as ‘Maher’) and further in view of Madhavan et al. U.S. Application Publication No. 2017/0293669 (herein as ‘Madhavan’).
As to claim 14 Nilsson in combination with Maher teaches each and every limitation of claim 10.
Nilsson in combination with Maher does not teach but Madhavan teaches wherein the pattern of information is based on at least one requirement specified by a proof of work rule associated with the first trusted distributed assertion ledger (Par. 0082-0084 Madhavan discloses using a proof of work requirements when storing data).
Nilsson and Ko are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, public ledger processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the public ledger of Nilsson to include the storing requirements of Ko, to remove any discrepancies with storing data within the blockchain ledger (Par. 0003-0005 Madhavan).
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sharma U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0312979 (herein as ‘Sharma’). Sharma teaches a toll-free tagging service is provided that includes a subscription-based service that is made available to responsible organizations, consumers and businesses. The toll-free tagging service may provide the ability to tag a toll-free number (or group of numbers), and once a number is tagged, to track updates to that number that may then be distributed to customers through emails/text messages or other means. Subscribers of the toll-free tagging service may also have the ability to create, view, update and delete tags through a web application, mobile application, or some other user interface.
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 JERMAINE A MINCEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5010. The examiner can normally be reached 8am EST until 5pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ann J Lo can be reached on (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.
/J.A.M/ April 2, 2025Examiner, Art Unit 2159
/ANN J LO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2159