DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to claims 1, 17, and 20, these claims recite at least one of a process, machine, manufacture, and composition of matter, thus falling within the defined statutory categories of invention (step 1 of the 101 analysis is YES). The claims describe a concept of identifying a network, determining appropriate protocol for communication with another network, and generating a link connecting two networks, as claimed. These operations are deemed to be mental processes, which, while being claimed as implemented by a generic “communication platform” in the form of computer instructions, do not require a special purpose computer to perform the claimed steps and are capable to be performed in the human mind including a perception (vision and hearing), evaluation, judgement, and opinion (step 2A prong one is YES).
In particular, step of identifying can be performed in the human mind by visually observing a presence of a computer or a network of computers in a room. Step of defining a protocol can be performed by the human mind by looking at a list of available protocols and determining that is capable of communicating with the identified network and another network, such as by determining that TCP/IP protocol is most appropriate. Step of generating a bridge can by performed by the human physically by connecting a computing device of an external network with a computing device of an internal network by an Ethernet cable.
There is nothing in the claim that would require a special computer processing to accomplish these tasks that would be unreasonable to perform in a human mind in a reasonable amount of time. Therefore, Examiner determined that each of the claimed steps can be reasonably handled by a human without undue effort. The claims do not recite additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (step 2A prong two is NO). In particular, the only additional element beyond the abstract idea is the generic recitation of a processor of the communication platform in claim 20. However, this element is described at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than using a generic computer to perform the abstract steps. The claim does not recite any specific, non-conventional arrangement of hardware, any particular algorithm or data structure for making the identification and generation of a bridge, nor any concrete improvement to the functioning of the communication platform or the network (for example, an improvement tied to particular operations). Linking two networks for communication using a network protocol has been notoriously old and well known as a tool in computer networking field. Because the claim merely instructs implementation of the abstract idea using conventional computer components, the additional recited element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and therefore does not confer patent eligibility.
The claims do not recite additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (step 2B is NO). Therefore, the claims are not eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. As discussed above, reciting a generic “processor of a platform”, an undefined “first layer 2 solution” and “second layer 2 solution” and performing routine steps of determining best protocol to choose based on parameters of two networks that one wants to connect/bridge, amounts to no more than applying the abstract idea on a generic computing device. Mere invocation of generic computer components to automate an abstract process cannot supply an inventive concept. Accordingly, claim 1, 17, and 20 are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Dependent claims 2-16 and 18-19 further define existing steps (via “wherein” clauses) and recite additional steps that can still be reasonably performed by the human mind without requiring a computer to perform the tasks. None of the dependent claims provide significantly more than the judicial exception and do not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the dependent claims are rejected for the same reasons. For example, in claim 19, destroying the bridge can be performed by the human by disconnecting the Ethernet cable in response to receiving an audible or visual alert.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
As to claim 1, use of the word “system” does not inherently mean that the claim is directed to a machine. Only if at least one of the clamed elements of the system is a physical part of a device can the system as claimed constitute part of a device or a combination of devices to be a machine within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 101.
In the instant case, the claimed system comprises a first layer 2 network and a second layer 2 network. The first layer 2 network is claimed to comprise a first layer 2 solution, a first bridge and a layer 2 communication platform. The second layer 2 network is claimed to comprise a second layer 2 solution and a second bridge. Neither the claim nor specification provide a specific definition either one or more of the “solution”, “bridge”, or “platform” as necessarily including hardware. In addition, a “bridge” can be a wireless channel over which data is exchanged and there is evidence that the functionality of the “platform” is implemented in the form of computer instructions. Therefore, the claimed elements are broad enough to be implemented completely in software and transitory medium, which renders claim 1 non-statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 2-16 fail to correct the deficiency of claim 1 and thus are rejected for analogous reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
As to claims 1, 17, and 20, it is unclear what is meant by “define[ing]” a protocol. In particular, it is unclear whether the claim calls for creating a new protocol or selecting one of the known protocols. If creating a new protocol, there is no algorithm to accomplish such definition. If selecting a known protocol, there is no list of protocols from which one can be selected, rendering the claim indefinite.
None of the dependent claims further define this essential step of the claimed invention that would provide some clarity and thus are rejected for the same reason.
As to claim 12, it is unclear how a “network” can synch with another “network” and what this synching encompasses.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 7-8, 10-11, 13, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ketharaju et al. (US Patent 12,483,557 B1).
As to claim 1, Ketharaju teaches a system for facilitating communication between layer 2 networks [it is noted that “layer 2” (and “layer 1”) is a mere name tag that does not provide any structural or functional meaning to the invention, thus, is deemed non-limiting] (Fig. 1B), the system comprising:
a first layer 2 network [private blockchain network 108] (Fig. 1A and 1B) comprising a first layer 2 solution [private sidechain 112], a first bridge coupling the first layer 2 solution with a layer 1 blockchain [private sidechain is liked with a private blockchain] (col. 13 lines 20-35), and a layer 2 communication platform [key exchange controller (KEC) 102 that can be an independent device or part of the private blockchain network] (col. 6 lines 1-27);
a second layer 2 network [public blockchain network 110] (Fig. 1A and 1B) comprising a second layer 2 solution [public sidechain 113] and a second bridge coupling the second layer 2 solution with the layer 1 blockchain [blockchain and sidechain are linked by a smart contract] (col. 5 lines 47-64);
wherein the layer 2 communication platform is configured to:
define a protocol for establishing communication between the first layer 2 network and the second layer 2 network [KEC generates smart contracts (SCs) including key exchange protocols (KEPs) that allow an entity associated with a public blockchain to access a private blockchain] (col. 1 lines 41-62); and
based at least in part on the protocol, generate a third bridge coupling the first layer 2 network and the second layer 2 network [linking private blockchain network 108 with public blockchain network 110] (col. 4 lines 5-10, col. 10 line 63 to col. 11 line 9).
As to claim 2, Ketharaju teaches that generating the third bridge coupling the first layer 2 network and the second layer 2 network comprises generating a smart contract configured to communicate with the first layer 2 solution and the second layer 2 solution (col. 11 lines 15-23 and col. 12 lines 26-41).
As to claim 7, Ketharaju teaches an authentication system configured to perform an authentication of a user prior to granting access to the first layer 2 network [including access credentials such that whoever receives the access key would have access to the private blockchain] (col. 11 lines 15-23).
As to claim 8, Ketharaju teaches that the layer 2 communication platform is configured to route a communication from the user from the first layer 2 network to the second layer 2 network [user interacting with the KEC 102 to perform various functions with the blockchains and sidechains] (col. 6 lines 20-27 and col. 7 lines 40-59).
As to claim 10, Ketharaju teaches a plurality of external layer 2 networks communicatively coupled with the first layer 2 network (Figs. 1A and 1B).
As to claim 11, Ketharaju teaches that the first layer 2 network and the second layer 2 network are hosted by different organizations [hosted by different nodes/servers. Non-functional descriptive material that is not accorded patentable weight] (col. 4 lines 30-52).
As to claim 13, Ketharaju teaches that the layer 1 blockchain is associated with Bitcoin or Ethereum transactions [it is noted that blockchain is not claimed to be part of the system and even if it was, associating the blockchain with Bitcoin or Ethereum transactions is a non-functional description material that is not accorded patentable weight].
As to claim 15, Ketharaju teaches that the first layer 2 solution is a first type of layer 2 solution [private type] and the second layer 2 solution is a second type of layer 2 solution [public type].
As to claim 17, Ketharaju teaches a method for enabling communication between layer 2 networks (col. 1 lines 40-62), the method comprising:
identifying an external layer 2 network [receiving instructions that includes a name and/or identifier of the public blockchain] (col. 10 line 63 to col. 11 line 9);
defining a protocol [KEC generates smart contracts (SCs) including key exchange protocols (KEPs) that allow an entity associated with a public blockchain to access a private blockchain] (col. 1 lines 41-62) for establishing communication between an internal layer 2 network [private blockchain network 108] and the external layer 2 network [public blockchain network 110] (Figs. 1A and 1B), wherein the internal layer 2 network includes a first layer 2 solution [private sidechain 112] communicatively coupled with a layer 1 blockchain [private blockchain 109], and wherein the external layer 2 network includes a second layer 2 solution [public sidechain 113] communicatively coupled with the layer 1 blockchain; and
based at least in part on the protocol, generating a bridge coupling the first layer 2 solution and the second layer 2 solution [contacting private sidechain from the public sidechain using the access key target] (col. 11 lines 41-54, col. 12 lines 26-46).
As to claim 18, Ketharaju teaches that the first layer 2 solution is a first sidechain [private sidechain 112]; and wherein the second layer 2 solution is a second sidechain [public sidechain 113] (Figs. 1A and 1B).
As to claim 19, Ketharaju teaches automatically destroying the bridge in response to receiving an alert associated with the external layer 2 network [terminating access key target once the SC is expired] (col. 11 lines 55-60).
As to claim 20, Ketharaju teaches a platform for enabling communication between layer 2 networks [Key Exchange Controller (KEC) 102] (Figs. 1A and 1B), the platform comprising: a processor; and memory; wherein the memory stores instructions (col. 6 lines 30-47) that, when executed by the processor, cause the platform to perform the method steps as discussed above with respect to claim 17 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ketharaju et al. in view of Halbfinger et al. (US 2023/0289724 A1).
As to claim 3, Ketharaju teaches all the elements except that the layer 2 communication platform comprises an artificial intelligence system.
Halbfinger is directed to a distributed ledger inventory management (abstract). In particular, Halbfinger teaches creating a smart contract using an artificial intelligence engine (par. [0085]-[0086], [0109], claim 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of Ketharaju by having the layer 2 communication platform to comprise an artificial intelligence system of Halbfinger in order to allow the KEC to generate one or more smart contracts using AI technology that would provide suggested parameters which would not otherwise be derivable from the user request or the data contained within the distributed ledger (par. [0085] in Halbfinger).
As to claim 4, Ketharaju in view of Halbfinger teaches that the artificial intelligence system is configured to monitor a security or privacy of the first layer 2 network (par. [0064], [0071] in Halbfinger) and to define the protocol based on a data structure associated with the second layer 2 network (par. [0085] in Halbfinger).
As to claim 5, Ketharaju in view of Halbfinger teaches that the first layer 2 solution is a sidechain, as discussed per claim 1; and wherein the artificial intelligence system is further configured to analyze transactions processed by the sidechain (par. [0032], [0048] in Halbfinger).
As to claim 6, Ketharaju in view of Halbfinger teaches that the artificial intelligence system is configured to generate the third bridge [generate smart contract, as discussed above]; and wherein the artificial intelligence system is configured to destroy the third bridge in response to an alert associated with the second layer 2 network (par. [0049], [0051] in Halbfinger).
As to claim 9, Ketharaju teaches all the elements except that the layer 2 communication platform is further configured to update the protocol in response to detecting a change of a data format associated with the second layer 2 network.
Halbfinger is directed to a distributed ledger inventory management (abstract). In particular, Halbfinger teaches updating the protocol in response to detecting a change of a data format associated with the second layer 2 network [updating the data associated with the smart contract] (par. [0029]-[0030] in Halbfinger).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of Ketharaju by having the layer 2 communication platform being further configured to update the protocol in response to detecting a change of a data format associated with the second layer 2 network in order to record usage of the one or more identified resources (par. [0005] in Halbfinger).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ketharaju et al. in view of Amin et al. (US 2021/0243011 A1).
As to claim 12, Ketharaju teaches all the elements except that the first layer 2 network is configured to synch with the second layer 2 network.
Amin is directed to a network platform for high volume transactions requiring verifiable transaction tracking (abstract). In particular, Amin teaches that the first layer 2 network is configured to synch with the second layer 2 network [synchronizing transactions between multiple private and public blockchains] (par. [0088]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of Ketharaju by having the first layer 2 network configured to synch with the second layer 2 network in order to support end clients (par. [0088] in Amin).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ketharaju et al. in view of Silva et al. (US 12,259,970 B1).
As to claim 14, Ketharaju teaches all the elements except that the first layer 2 network includes an internal oracle; and wherein layer 2 communication platform identifies the second layer 2 network by using the internal oracle.
Silva is directed to identifying security threats in smart contract-based services (abstract). In particular, Silva teaches that the first layer 2 network includes an internal oracle (Fig. 2); and wherein layer 2 communication platform identifies the second layer 2 network by using the internal oracle (col. 2 line 59 to col. 3 line 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of Ketharaju by having the first layer 2 network include an internal oracle; and wherein layer 2 communication platform identifies the second layer 2 network by using the internal oracle in order to locate the off-blockchain resources (col. 2 line 59 to col. 3 line 3 in Silva).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ketharaju et al. in view of Filter et al. (US 2023/0376949 A1)
As to claim 16, Ketharaju teaches that the first layer 2 solution is a sidechain, as discussed per claim 1 above. Ketharaju fails to teach that the second layer 2 solution is a rollup.
Filter teaches that the second layer 2 solution is a rollup (par. [0130]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of Ketharaju by having the second layer 2 solution being a rollup in order to apply the teachings of Ketharaju to rollup scaling solution in the same way as to sidechains where both solutions were well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Related Prior Art
Mayerchak et al. (US 2024/0202679 A1) is directed to bridging blockchains (abstract). In particular, Mayerchak teaching establishing blockchain bridges between blockchain networks (par. [0023]-[0029]) and is conceptually similar to the subject matter that the independent claims attempt to cover.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLEG SURVILLO whose telephone number is (571)272-9691. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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.
/OLEG SURVILLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457