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
1. This action is response to application filed on 11/24/2023. Claims 1-20 are pending.
2. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's amendments to the specification filed on 02/08/2024.
Allowable Subject Matter
3. Claims 1, 15 and 20 recite allowable subject matter. There are no prior arts of record, singly or in combination teaches the feature of claim(s) limitations in context of the claims as a whole. However, claims 1, 15 and 20 are not in allowance condition yet because of existing 112(f) issues in those claims.
4. The allowable subject matter in claims 1 and 15 is “a blockchain component configured to manage a private permissioned blockchain; an engagement component configured to engage a user with a network by way of the private permissioned blockchain, the network comprising a first node and a second node; and a communication component configured to enable a communication with the user and the first node by way of the private permissioned blockchain”. For claims 1 and 15, Valenzuela et al. (US 20230040377) teaches an autonomous distributed wise area network (AD-WAN) includes several nodes, where each node connects a local area network to an open wide area network, and provides tunnels over the open wide area network to other nodes in the AD-WAN so that computing resources behind each node can communicate as if they were located on a common intranet. Each node has a blockchain wallet and receives updates to a private permissioned blockchain ledger for that AD-WAN. The blockchain update that informs the affected nodes in the AD-WAN as to what changes are to be made. As a result, the blockchain provides both control plane and order management operation of the AD-WAN (abstract). But the Valenzuela does not teach a blockchain component configured to manage a private permissioned blockchain; an engagement component configured to engage a user with a network by way of the private permissioned blockchain, the network comprising a first node and a second node; and a communication component configured to enable a communication with the user and the first node by way of the private permissioned blockchain as claimed.
5. The allowable subject matter in claim 20 is “a blockchain component configured to manage a backbone-based private permissioned blockchain; an engagement component configured to engage a user with a backbone network by way of the backbone-based private permissioned blockchain, the backbone network comprising at least one node; and a communication component configured to enable communication with a user and the backbone network by way of the backbone-based private permissioned blockchain”. For claim 20, Valenzuela et al. (US 20230040377) teaches an autonomous distributed wise area network (AD-WAN) includes several nodes, where each node connects a local area network to an open wide area network, and provides tunnels over the open wide area network to other nodes in the AD-WAN so that computing resources behind each node can communicate as if they were located on a common intranet. Each node has a blockchain wallet and receives updates to a private permissioned blockchain ledger for that AD-WAN. The blockchain update that informs the affected nodes in the AD-WAN as to what changes are to be made. As a result, the blockchain provides both control plane and order management operation of the AD-WAN (abstract). But the Valenzuela does not teach a blockchain component configured to manage a backbone-based private permissioned blockchain; an engagement component configured to engage a user with a backbone network by way of the backbone-based private permissioned blockchain, the backbone network comprising at least one node; and a communication component configured to enable communication with a user and the backbone network by way of the backbone-based private permissioned blockchain as claimed.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
6. The claims 1-3, 5, 7, 13-16 and 20 in this application is given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
7. Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 13-16 and 20 use a Generic Placeholder (A Term That Is Simply A Substitute for "Means" in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f), claim 1 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
8. For claim 1, claim limitations “a blockchain component configured to manage a private permissioned blockchain” and “an engagement component configured to engage a user with a network by way of the private permissioned blockchain” have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because it uses a generic placeholder “a blockchain component” coupled with functional languages “configured to manage a private permissioned blockchain” and another placeholder “an engagement component” coupled with functional languages “configured to engage a user with a network by way of the private permissioned blockchain” without reciting sufficient structures to achieve the functions. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
9. For claim 2, claim limitations “an identification component configured to identify that the first node receives the communication; and a fulfillment component configured to cause the first node to control fulfillment of the call by way of a smart contract” have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because it uses a generic placeholder “an identification component” coupled with functional languages “configured to identify that the first node receives the communication” and another placeholder “a fulfillment component” coupled with functional languages “configured to cause the first node to control fulfillment of the call by way of a smart contract” without reciting sufficient structures to achieve the functions. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
10. For claim 3, claim limitations “an evaluation component configured to perform an evaluation of the first node and the second node with regard to chain length to produce an evaluation result; a determination component configured to determine a longer chained node among the first node and the second node through employment of the evaluation result; and a selection component configured to select the longer chain node for fulfillment of the call” have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because it uses a generic placeholder “an evaluation component” coupled with functional languages “configured to perform an evaluation of the first node and the second node with regard to chain length to produce an evaluation result” and another placeholder “a determination component” coupled with functional languages “configured to determine a longer chained node among the first node and the second node through employment of the evaluation result”, and another placeholder “a selection component” coupled with functional languages “configured to select the longer chain node for fulfillment of the call” without reciting sufficient structures to achieve the functions. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
11. For claim 5, claim limitations “an analysis component configured to perform an analysis on how successful the call is fulfilled to produce an analysis result; and a check component configured to determine if the call was fulfilled successfully enough to earn a reward based, at least in part, on the analysis result; and a reward component configured to award the reward when the call was fulfilled successfully enough” have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because it uses a generic placeholder “an analysis component” coupled with functional languages “configured to perform an analysis on how successful the call is fulfilled to produce an analysis result” and another placeholder “a check component” coupled with functional languages “configured to determine if the call was fulfilled successfully enough to earn a reward based, at least in part, on the analysis result”, and another placeholder “a reward component” coupled with functional languages “configured to award the reward when the call was fulfilled successfully enough” ” without reciting sufficient structures to achieve the functions. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
12. For claim 7, claim limitations “a call component configured to identify the communication; a bid component configured to receive a first bid for the call from the first node and a second bid for the call from the second node; an appraisal component configured to appraise the first bid and the second bid to produce an appraisal result; a trustworthiness component configured to determine a trustworthiness of the first node and a trustworthiness of the second node to produce a trustworthiness result; a decision component configured to make a decision to use the first bid over the second bid based, at least in part, on the appraisal result and the trustworthy result; and a control component configured to cause the first node to control fulfillment of the call by way of a smart contract in response to decision” have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because it uses a generic placeholder “a call component” coupled with functional languages “configured to identify the communication” and another placeholder “a bid component” coupled with functional languages “configured to receive a first bid for the call from the first node and a second bid for the call from the second node”, and another placeholder “an appraisal component” coupled with functional languages “configured to appraise the first bid and the second bid to produce an appraisal result”, and another placeholder “a trustworthiness component” coupled with functional languages “configured to determine a trustworthiness of the first node and a trustworthiness of the second node to produce a trustworthiness result”, and another placeholder “a decision component” coupled with functional languages “configured to make a decision to use the first bid over the second bid based, at least in part, on the appraisal result and the trustworthy result”, and another placeholder “a control component” coupled with functional languages “configured to cause the first node to control fulfillment of the call by way of a smart contract in response to decision” without reciting sufficient structures to achieve the functions. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
13. For claim 13, claim limitations “an identification component configured to identify the communication, the communication being a call; a bid component configured to receive a first bid for the call from the first node and a second bid for the call from the second node; an appraisal component configured to appraise the first bid and the second bid to produce an appraisal result; a decision component configured to make a decision to use the first bid over the second bid based, at least in part, on the appraisal result; and a fulfillment component configured to cause the first node to control fulfillment of the call by way of a smart contract in response to decision” have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because it uses a generic placeholder “an identification component” coupled with functional languages “configured to identify the communication, the communication being a call” and another placeholder “a bid component” coupled with functional languages “configured to receive a first bid for the call from the first node and a second bid for the call from the second node”, and another placeholder “an appraisal component” coupled with functional languages “configured to appraise the first bid and the second bid to produce an appraisal result”, and another placeholder “a decision component” coupled with functional languages “configured to make a decision to use the first bid over the second bid based, at least in part, on the appraisal result”, and another placeholder “a fulfillment component” coupled with functional languages “configured to cause the first node to control fulfillment of the call by way of a smart contract in response to decision” without reciting sufficient structures to achieve the functions. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
14. For claim 14, claim limitations “a trustworthiness component configured to determine a trustworthiness of the first node and a trustworthiness of the second node; a decision component configured to select the first node, for transfer of the communication, by virtue of the trustworthiness of the first node being higher than the trustworthiness of the second node” have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because it uses a generic placeholder “a trustworthiness component” coupled with functional languages “configured to determine a trustworthiness of the first node and a trustworthiness of the second node” and another placeholder “a decision component” coupled with functional languages “configured to select the first node, for transfer of the communication, by virtue of the trustworthiness of the first node being higher than the trustworthiness of the second node” without reciting sufficient structures to achieve the functions. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
15. For claim 15, claim limitations “a blockchain component configured to manage an access network private permissioned blockchain; an engagement component configured to engage a user with an access network by way of the access network private permissioned blockchain, the access network comprising at least one node” have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because it uses a generic placeholder “a blockchain component” coupled with functional languages “configured to manage an access network private permissioned blockchain” and another placeholder “an engagement component” coupled with functional languages “configured to engage a user with an access network by way of the access network private permissioned blockchain, the access network comprising at least one node” without reciting sufficient structures to achieve the functions. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
16. For claim 16, claim limitations “the blockchain component is configured to manage a backbone-based private permissioned blockchain, where the engagement component is configured to engage the user with a backbone network by way of the backbone-based private permissioned blockchain” have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because it uses a generic placeholder “the blockchain component” coupled with functional languages “configured to manage a backbone-based private permissioned blockchain” and another placeholder “the engagement component” coupled with functional languages “configured to engage the user with a backbone network by way of the backbone-based private permissioned blockchain” without reciting sufficient structures to achieve the functions. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
17. For claim 20, claim limitations “a blockchain component configured to manage a backbone-based private permissioned blockchain; an engagement component configured to engage a user with a backbone network by way of the backbone-based private permissioned blockchain” have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because it uses a generic placeholder “a blockchain component” coupled with functional languages “configured to manage a backbone-based private permissioned blockchain” and another placeholder “an engagement component” coupled with functional languages “configured to engage a user with a backbone network by way of the backbone-based private permissioned blockchain” without reciting sufficient structures to achieve the functions. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
18. The specification fails to provide structure for claimed components above as hardware components. Instead, the specification defines component could be software ([052]; [0172]). Therefore, the claims 1-3, 5, 7, 13-16 and 20 are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claims 4, 7, 8 are also rejected under rationales of claims 1, 3, 6. Claims 17-19 are also rejected under rationales of claim 15.
[052]"Component", as used herein, includes but is not limited to hardware, firmware, software stored on a computer-readable medium or in execution on a machine, and/or combinations of each to perform a function(s) or an action(s), and/or to cause a function or action from another component, method, and/or system. Component may include a software controlled microprocessor, a discrete component, an analog circuit, a digital circuit, a programmed logic device, a memory device containing instructions, and so on. Where multiple components are described, it may be possible to incorporate the multiple components into one physical component or conversely, where a single component is described, it may be possible to distribute that single component between multiple components.
[0172]…in one embodiment, at least one component disclosed herein, such as the communication component 1630, can be implemented, at least in part, by way of non-software, such as implemented as hardware by way of the system 2100.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Conclusions
19. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAN DAI T TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-7959. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 Am to 3:00 PM.
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, Follansbee John A can be reached on 571-272-3964. 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.
/LAN DAI T TRUONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444