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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment, filed on 5/20/2026, has been entered and acknowledged by the Examiner. Claims 42-50 and 52-93 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 42-50 and 52-93 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 42-50 and 52-93 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhu (US Pub. 2020/0013027) in view of Varilly, and further in view of Yang (US Pub. 2021/0407001).
Regarding claim 42, Zhu discloses a computer-implemented method, performed by one or more nodes of a network, the method comprising: (a) identifying by analysing or querying a network node, an instance of optimizable proof of work problem deployed at the network node as part of a protocol requiring optimisable proof of work to be performed by running or executing an algorithm on the network node, or on another node in the network (¶ [0035], the miner nodes generate the new blocks as well as validate the transactions in the blocks. In present PoS systems, the validators are allowed… using the PoS and PoW [proof of work] validation mechanisms).
(b) executing the algorithm to generate a solution to the instance of the optimisable proof of work problem (¶ [0035], the validation step requires some form of consensus among the blockchain nodes, such as through proof of work (PoW) or proof of stake (PoS));
(c) providing an indication identifying the algorithm used to generate the solution (¶ [0075], using the random number and time-based puzzle solution of the PoW miners);
While Zhu discloses proof of work, but does not explicitly disclose optimizable proof of work; however, Varilly, in the same field of endeavor, discloses optimizable proof of work (p. 6, lines 20-25); (g) controlling, based on the verifying and the checking, one or more of: a reward, or an influence of a node on a consensus mechanism of the network (p. 6, lines 20-25); verifying the solution (p. 6, lines 20-25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Varilly’s disclosure into Zhu to find the solver who found best valid solution to the problem statement.
Yang further discloses (d) submitting or transmitting the solution and the indication of the algorithm to one or more nodes of the network (¶ [0025]);
(f) checking, by the one or more nodes, the indication to determine whether the indication identifies the algorithm used to generate the solution (¶ [0025], which hash algorithm is faster to solve the problem); It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Yang into Varilly and Zhu to find the fastest algorithm to execute the computing functions.
Regarding claim 43, Zhu in view of Varilly and Yang disclose the method of Claim 42 including the step of retrieving, at the one or more nodes, parameters necessary to generate the instance of the optimizable proof of work problem (V, p. 9, lines 3-9, set of decision problems for which the problem instances, where foe answer is "yes", have proofs verifiable in polynomial time).
Regarding claim 44, Zhu in view of Varilly and Yang disclose the method of Claim 43 in which the parameters include difficulty parameters (p. 7, lines 1-8; public input parameters).
Regarding claim 45, Zhu in view of Varilly and Yang disclose the method of Claim 43 in which the parameters include a timestamp (¶ [0029], at least a timestamp).
Regarding claim 46, Zhu in view of Varilly and Yang disclose the method of Claim 43 in which the parameters are used to derive a random seed (¶ [0070], the random selection of the validation committee is done using a seed produced by a PoW miner).
Regarding claim 47, Zhu in view of Varilly and Yang disclose the method of Claim 46 in which the random seed is substantially impossible to predict or replicate (¶ [0094], impossible to do by proposing a longer blockchain).
Regarding claim 48, Zhu in view of Varilly and Yang disclose the method of Claim 47 in which the random seed is derived from a timestamp (¶ [0070]).
Regarding claim 49, Zhu in view of Varilly and Yang disclose the method of Claim 48 in which the random seed is derived from the timestamp and unpredictable data (¶ [0041], nodes that have different consensus rules are actually using two different networks or currencies, and changing any of the rules requires hard fork).
Regarding claim 50, Zhu in view of Varilly and Yang disclose the method of Claim 42 in which the algorithm is executed on another node in the network, to solve an instance of the optimisable proof of work problem (Varilly, p. 6, lines 20-25).
Regarding claim 52, Zhu in view of Varilly and Yang disclose the method of Claim 42 in which the network node is a blockchain node (¶ [0035]).
Regarding claim 53, Zhu in view of Varilly and Yang disclose the method of Claim 42 in which the network node is a blockchain node and the analysis or querying of the network node is to determine block addition or reward (¶ [0047], a block reward).
Regarding claim 54, Zhu in view of Varilly and Yang disclose the method of Claim 42 in which the network node is a database node (¶ [0035]).
Regarding claim 55, Zhu in view of Varilly and Yang disclose the method of Claim 42 in which the algorithm outputs the solution to the optimizable proof of work problem (¶ [0035]).
Regarding claim 56, Zhu in view of Varilly and Yang disclose the method of Claim 42 in which there are multiple algorithms that each generate a solution to a different proof of work problem (¶ [0007]).
Regarding claim 57, Zhu in view of Varilly and Yang disclose the method of Claim 42 in which the algorithm generates a solution to an inverse problem (¶ [0056]).
Regarding claim 58, Zhu in view of Varilly and Yang disclose the method of Claim 42 in which the algorithm generates a solution to a NP problem (Varilly, p.3, lines 10-13).
Regarding claim 59, Zhu in view of Varilly and Yang disclose the method of Claim 42 in which the algorithm generates a solution to a NP-complete problem (Varilly, p.3, lines 10-13).
Regarding claim 60, Zhu in view of Varilly and Yang disclose the method of Claim 42 in which the algorithm generates a solution to a computational problem that is computationally demanding to solve but for which it is relatively efficient to verify the correctness of a solution (¶ [0041], ¶ [0061]).
Regarding claim 61, Zhu in view of Varilly and Yang disclose the method of Claim 42 in which the algorithm generates a solution to an NP-hard problem (Varilly, p.3, lines 10-13, NP related).
Regarding claim 62, Zhu in view of Varilly and Yang disclose the method of Claim 42 in which the algorithm generates a solution to an asymmetric problem (p. 3, lines 18-26).
Regarding claim 63, Zhu in view of Varilly and Yang disclose the method of Claim 42 in which the algorithm generates a solution to a quantum resistant problem (¶ [0033]).
Regarding claim 64, Zhu in view of Varilly and Yang disclose the method of Claim 42 in which the algorithm generates a solution to a problem dependent on human input (Varilly, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 65, Zhu in view of Varilly and Yang disclose the method of Claim 42 in which the algorithm generates a solution to a progress-free problem (¶ [0083]).
Regarding claim 66, Zhu in view of Varilly and Yang disclose the method of Claim 42 in which the algorithm generates a solution to a sequential problem (¶ [0033]).
Regarding claim 67, Zhu in view of Varilly and Yang disclose the method of Claim 42 in which the algorithm generates a solution to a verifiable delay function (VDF) (¶ [0052]).
Regarding claim 68, Zhu in view of Varilly and Yang disclose the method of Claim [[69]] 42 (suggest to make a correction) in which the algorithm generates a solution to an optimisable problem in hardware and/or software (¶ [0035]).
Regarding claim 69, Zhu in view of Varilly and Yang disclose the method of Claim 42 in which the step of analysing/querying the network node is performed to assess the performance of the algorithm (¶ [0004]).
Regarding claim 70, Zhu in view of Varilly and Yang disclose the method of Claim 42 in which the step of analysing/querying the network node is performed to assess performance of an implementation of the algorithm (¶ [0033]).
Regarding claim 71, Zhu in view of Varilly and Yang disclose the method of Claim 42 in which the step of analysing/querying the network node is performed to assess performance of computer hardware (¶ [0033]).
Regarding claim 72, Zhu in view of Varilly and Yang disclose the method of Claim 42 in which the step of analysing/querying the network node is performed to produce a proof of work (¶ [0035]).
Regarding claim 73, Zhu in view of Varilly and Yang disclose the method of Claim 42 in which the step of analysing/querying the network node is performed to earn a reward (¶ [0047], a block reward).
Regarding claim 74, Zhu in view of Varilly and Yang disclose the method of Claim 42 in which the step of analysing/querying the network node in which the instance of the optimizable proof of work problem has been deployed is performed in order to find a solution to a useful problem (¶ [0035]).
Regarding claim 75, Zhu in view of Varilly and Yang disclose the method of Claim 42 including the step of providing multiple optimisable proof of work problems to prevent centralisation of power or influence in the network (¶ [0031]).
Regarding claim 76, Zhu in view of Varilly and Yang disclose the method of Claim 42 including the step of providing multiple optimisable proof of work problems to prevent centralisation of power or influence in a blockchain consensus mechanism (¶ [0031]).
Regarding claim 77, Zhu in view of Varilly and Yang disclose the method of Claim 75in which there are multiple algorithms that each generate a solution to a different optimisable proof of work problem and the method provides that deploying a significant optimisation with respect to a single optimisable proof of work problem does not result in a significant advantage (Varilly, p. 9).
Regarding claim 78, Zhu in view of Varilly and Yang disclose the method of Claim 76 including the step of determining the influence of a node on a blockchain consensus mechanism based on an off-chain stake or balance of tokens recorded on-chain (¶¶ [0034]-[0035], block-chain tokens).
Regarding claim 79, Zhu in view of Varilly and Yang disclose the method of Claim 44 including the step of retrieving, at the node, parameters necessary to generate the instances of problems, in which the parameters include difficulty parameters and the method includes the further step of updating at least one of the difficulty parameters to control the computational cost of computing a solution to an instance of the optimisable proof of work problem (¶ [0097, updating the ledger).
Regarding claim 80, Zhu in view of Varilly and Yang disclose the method of Claim 42 including the step of updating at least one of the difficulty parameters in order to modify the probability of computing a solution to an instance of the optimisable proof of work problem (¶ [0097, updating the ledger).
Regarding claim 81, Zhu in view of Varilly and Yang disclose the method of Claim 42 including the step of controlling the distribution of block rewards to improve participation in a distributed blockchain consensus algorithm (¶ [0070], participating in block validation process).
Regarding claim 82, Zhu in view of Varilly and Yang disclose the method of claim 42, in which controlling a reward or an influence of a node on a consensus mechanism comprises: (i) determining a first factor relating to a computational power devoted by a further node to a first proof of work problem; and (ii) determining a second factor relating to a computational power devoted by the further node to a second proof of work problem (Varilly, Fig. 7a).
Regarding claim 83, Zhu in view of Varilly and Yang disclose the method of Claim 82, wherein the influence of and/or the reward for the further node is dependent on one or more of: i. the centre of the distribution of factors; ii. the spread of the distribution of factors; iii. a minimum factor; iv. an average of factors; v. a distribution of factors; vi. a variance of factors; and vii. a parity between factor values, preferably wherein there is a penalty for exceeding a threshold disparity (¶ [0037]).
Regarding claim 84, Zhu in view of Varilly and Yang disclose the method of Claim 82, wherein the influence of a further node is dependent on at least one non-proof-of-work sybil-defence factor and/or wherein determining the influence of the further node comprises determining that the further node is a proposer, validator, and/or signer of a record of the network (¶ [0006], validators).
Regarding claim 85, Zhu in view of Varilly and Yang disclose the method of Claim 82, wherein there is at least one further proof of work problem that comprises a progress-free and/or non-optimisable problem, preferably wherein the influence of the further node on the consensus mechanism is dependent on said proof of work problem (¶ [0033]; a consensus requirement).
Regarding claim 86, Zhu in view of Varilly and Yang disclose the method of Claim 82, wherein at least one of the proof of work problems comprises a non-progress-free and/or optimisable problem, and wherein the reward, but not the influence, of the further node on a consensus mechanism is dependent on said proof of work problem (¶ [0033]; a consensus requirement).
Regarding claim 87, Zhu in view of Varilly and Yang disclose the method of Claim 82 further comprising determining a threshold value relating to one or more of: i. a maximum permitted value of the first factor and/or the second factor of the further node; ii. a maximum permitted increase in the first factor and/or the second factor of the further node over a unit of time and/or over a number of records of the network; and iii. a maximum permitted disparity between the first factor and the second factor of the further node (¶ [0037]);
preferably, wherein the threshold value is dependent on one or more of: a. a hardcoded value; b. a popular vote by the nodes of the network; c. a computational cost associated with the first factor and/or the second factor; a transaction recorded on the network; and d. an external input, preferably a bid from an external party (¶ [0037]).
Regarding claim 88, Zhu in view of Varilly and Yang disclose the method of claim 87, wherein exceeding the threshold value is associated with a penalty, preferably wherein: the penalty relates to a redistribution of an amount of the first factor and/or the second factor of the further node among the other nodes of the network; and/or the penalty is dependent on one or more of: a magnitude of a disparity between the first factor and the second factor, more preferably wherein the penalty increases with the magnitude, yet more preferably wherein the penalty increases exponentially and/or in a stepped manner (¶ [0063]); a cost related to the further node altering the first factor and/or the second factor; and the factors of other nodes (¶ [0063]).
Regarding claim 89, Zhu in view of Varilly and Yang disclose the method of claim 42, in which the algorithm has been performance assessed when deployed as part of a process requiring optimisable proof of work to be performed (¶ [0035], the validation step requires some form of consensus among the blockchain nodes, such as through proof of work (PoW) or proof of stake (PoS) optimizable proof of work problem (p. 6, lines 20-25;).
Regarding claim 90, Zhu in view of Varilly and Yang disclose the computer-implemented method of Claim 81, in which the process includes generating an instance of an optimisable proof of work problem, comprising the step of analysing/querying a network node, such as a blockchain node or other database node, in which the instance of the optimizable proof of work problem has been deployed at the network node as part of a protocol requiring optimisable proof of work to be performed by an algorithm running or executing on the network node, or another node in the network (¶ [0035]).
Regarding claim 91, Zhu in view of Varilly and Yang disclose the method of Claim 89 in which the algorithm generates a solution to one or more of the following: i. a computational problem that is computationally demanding to solve but for which it is relatively efficient to verify the correctness of a solution, ii. an inverse problem, iii. a NP problem (Varilly, p.3, lines 10-13), iv. a NP-complete problem, v. an NP-hard problem, vi. an asymmetric problem, vii. a quantum resistant problem, viii. a problem dependent on human input, ix. a progress-free problem, x. a sequential problem, xi. a verifiable delay function (VDF), and xii. an optimisable problem in hardware and/or software.
Regarding claim 92, Zhu in view of Varilly and Yang disclose the method of claim 42, wherein the indication of the algorithm comprises evidence of the algorithm used to generate the solution, the evidence comprising one or more intermediate values or intermediate steps generated during execution of the algorithm (Yang, ¶ [0043]).
Regarding claim 93, Zhu in view of Varilly and Yang disclose the method of claim 82, wherein signatures of computational power comprises evidence that a user has devoted a certain amount of computing power to a network (¶ [0097]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 TUANKHANH D PHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3047. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri, 10:00am-18:00pm.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 or 571-272-1000.
/TUANKHANH D PHAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights