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
Response to Preliminary Amendment
. Applicant’s preliminary amendment, filed on 11/17/2023, has been fully considered and entered. Claims 3, 7-9, 14, 15, 26 and 32 are amended, claims 2, 6, 10, 11, 13, 16-25, 27-30, 33 and 34 are canceled, claims 35-45 are new, and claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 12, 14, 15, 26, 31, 32 and 35-45 are currently pending.
Priority
This application is a National Stage of International Patent Application PCT/EP2022/063456, filed May 18, 2022, which claims priority to European Patent Application No. 21174666.4, filed May 19, 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) is submitted on 12/2/2024 and 2/19/2025 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. According, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 45 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 45 seems to be partially disclosed, e.g., the claim ended with a semicolon “;”. For examination purpose, Examiner will assume claim 45 recites similar features as 8. If the Applicant intends to recite different features from the assumption, please include a complete claim recitation in the response.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3-5, 7-9, 12, 14, 15, 26, 31, 32 and 35-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1, 31, 32 and 35 are directed to abstract idea such as an idea standing alone such as an instantiated concept, pan or scheme, as well as a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”, for example each cell in an environment comprises plurality of information, and determine whether a respective time-valid location-based information is valid within respective predetermined validity-time-interval. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps of the claimed invention can be done mentally and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such.
The method claim 1 recites limitations, “A computer-implemented method for providing time-valid location-based information, the method comprising: for an environment, defining a plurality of cells, each cell comprising: a respective location with a range based on a geographical extent of the respective cell within the environment; a respective predetermined validity-time-interval; respective semantic-location-data relevant to the respective location; respective executable code instructions configured to operate on the respective semantic-location-data to enable determination of respective time-valid location-based information upon execution of the respective code instructions by a first edge computing apparatus proximal to the respective location; wherein the respective time-valid location-based information is valid within the respective predetermined validity-time-interval”. Since the claim is directed to a method, which is one of the statutory categories of the invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The claim recites each cell comprises plurality of information, and determine whether a respective time-valid location-based information is valid within respective predetermined validity-time-interval. These limitations without showing steps or functions recited in the claim is no more than an abstract idea i.e., mental process of receiving, sending, receiving and generating, etc. (Step 2A: Prong One Abstract Idea = YES).
The claim is then analyzed if it requires an additional elements or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, reply on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception – i.e., limitation that are indicative of integration into a practical application; improving the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. In the current claims, there is no additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A: Prong Two Abstract Idea = YES).
Next the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine if there are additional limitation recited in the claim such that the claim amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. In the current scenario there are no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (Step 2B: NO). Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 31, 32 and 35 recite similar features as claim 1, therefore is analyzed in similar fashion as discussed above regarding claim 1. Further, dependent claims 3-5, 7-9, 12, 14, 15, 26 and 36-45 do not add any positive limitation or step that recite within the scope of the claim and does not carry patentable weight they are also rejected for the same reasons as independent claims.
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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 15, 26, 31, 32, 35 and 41-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foamspace Corp (“FOAM Technical Whitepaper Draft 0.4 Contents”, 4 May 2018, Pages 1-32, XP055862154 and D1 hereinafter), as cited by applicant, in view of Roth J, (“Flexible Positioning for Location-Based Services”, Internet Citation, 3 June 2003, XP002388044 and D2 hereinafter), as cited by applicant.
Regarding claim 1, D1 teaches a computer-implemented method for providing time-valid location-based information (Page 4; Proof of Location is a fraud proof authentication certificate that serves as a first class object on the blockchain and represents that an entity was at a certain space in time), the method comprising:
for an environment, defining a plurality of cells (Page 4; a Zone is a quorum that maintains clock sync for a given region), each cell comprising:
a respective location with a range based on a geographical extent of the respective cell within the environment (Page 17; for a given Zone the validator set is effectively the collection of Zone Authorities that share a “location horizon” – the maximum spherical range of the physical radio signal. Each Zone Authority has a location horizon, and the overlap in horizons constrains the possible validator set for a Zone);
a respective predetermined validity-time-interval (Page 3; Dynamic Proof of Location can provide consensus on whether an event or agent is verifiably at a certain point in time and space by producing a digital authentication certificate that is designed to be fraud proof, called a Presence Claim. Zone Anchor beacon running the FOAM protocol will need to provide accurate time synchronization for a set period of time. Page 4; Proof of Location is a fraud proof authentication certificate that serves as a first class object on the blockchain and represents that an entity was at a certain space in time. Examiner asserts that authentication certificate generally that the proof of location has validity time interval);
respective location-data relevant to the respective location (Page 5; localization refers to the problem of identifying a node’s spatial position within some defined coordinate system. In order to compute a given spatial position, geolocation systems integrate signal information from a set of spatially distributed sources, solving for either transmission distance or angular incidence parameters. Within Wireless Sensor Networks (WSN) the location of beacons, or nodes, in the network is very important for the monitoring and collection of data, as events logged by a sensor occur within a certain location bound. Figure 1 and Page 6; triangulation and positioning);
respective executable code instructions (Page 3; FOAM is designed to be a solution for blockchain based economies. Smart contracts that will execute autonomous code with geospatial data as an input will require secure location verification) configured to operate on the respective location-data to enable determination of respective time-valid location-based information (Page 4; a Service Level Agreement (SLA) is the form of staking smart contract Zone Anchors and Zone Authorities bond to in order to offer location verification services. Page 20; FOAM token incentivizes users to contribute computation and radio power towards secure location services in a way that aligns with financing alternative means of obtaining secure localization and location verification standards that are suitable for autonomous smart contracts. Page 24; A proof-of-location is the following data, contained in a smart contract: 1. A geohash with precision score from its validator(s); 2. A reference to the Zone Authority that issued the presence-claim; 3. A reference to a valid presence claim; 4. A computational proof of the correctness of the presence-claim) upon execution of the respective code instructions (Page 3; FOAM is designed to be a solution for blockchain based economies. Smart contracts that will execute autonomous code with geospatial data as an input will require secure location verification) by a first edge computing apparatus proximal to the respective location (Page 4; a Zone Anchor is a device with a radio transmitter, a local clock, and a public key);
wherein the respective time-valid location-based information is valid within the respective predetermined validity-time-interval (Page 3; Dynamic Proof of Location can provide consensus on whether an event or agent is verifiably at a certain point in time and space by producing a digital authentication certificate that is designed to be fraud proof, called a Presence Claim. Zone Anchor beacon running the FOAM protocol will need to provide accurate time synchronization for a set period of time. Page 4; Proof of Location is a fraud proof authentication certificate that serves as a first class object on the blockchain and represents that an entity was at a certain space in time. Page 24; A proof-of-location is the following data, contained in a smart contract: 1. A geohash with precision score from its validator(s); 2. A reference to the Zone Authority that issued the presence-claim; 3. A reference to a valid presence claim; 4. A computational proof of the correctness of the presence-claim).
D1 does not explicitly teach respective semantic-location-data relevant to the respective location. In an analogous art, D2 teaches respective semantic-location-data relevant to the respective location (Page 22; for each position, we want to provide a physical location as well as all semantic locations, which covers this position). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of D1 and D2 because the use of semantic location in blockchain technology can enhance the interoperability and traceability of data across different systems.
Regarding claim 31, claim 31 recites similar features as claim 1, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 1. Further, D1 teaches a system (Page 4; a Proof of Location system is needed as a crucial infrastructure) configured to provide time-valid location-based information for an environment (Page 4; Proof of Location is a fraud proof authentication certificate that serves as a first class object on the blockchain and represents that an entity was at a certain space in time); wherein the system comprises a first edge computing apparatus proximal to the respective location (Page 4; a Zone Anchor is a device with a radio transmitter, a local clock, and a public key).
Regarding claim 32, claim 32 recites similar features as claim 1, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 1. Further, D1 teaches a computer program product comprising a non-transitory memory device including one or more computer code instructions configured to perform functions (Page 3; FOAM is designed to be a solution for blockchain based economies. Smart contracts that will execute autonomous code with geospatial data as an input will require secure location verification. Page 20; FOAM token incentivizes users to contribute computation and radio power towards secure location services in a way that aligns with financing alternative means of obtaining secure localization and location verification standards that are suitable for autonomous smart contracts. Page 24; A proof-of-location is the following data, contained in a smart contract: 1. A geohash with precision score from its validator(s); 2. A reference to the Zone Authority that issued the presence-claim; 3. A reference to a valid presence claim; 4. A computational proof of the correctness of the presence-claim).
Regarding claim 35, claim 35 recites similar features as claim 1, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 1. Further D1 teaches an apparatus comprising a processor and a memory device including instructions, the memory device and the instructions configured to, with the processor, cause the apparatus to provide functions (Page 3; FOAM is designed to be a solution for blockchain based economies. Smart contracts that will execute autonomous code with geospatial data as an input will require secure location verification. Page 20; FOAM token incentivizes users to contribute computation and radio power towards secure location services in a way that aligns with financing alternative means of obtaining secure localization and location verification standards that are suitable for autonomous smart contracts. Page 24; A proof-of-location is the following data, contained in a smart contract: 1. A geohash with precision score from its validator(s); 2. A reference to the Zone Authority that issued the presence-claim; 3. A reference to a valid presence claim; 4. A computational proof of the correctness of the presence-claim).
Regarding claims 3 and 41, the combination of D1 and D2 teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 31, as described above. Further, D1 teaches wherein: the first edge computing apparatus is configured to execute the respective code instructions on the respective location-data (Page 4; a Service Level Agreement (SLA) is the form of staking smart contract Zone Anchors and Zone Authorities bond to in order to offer location verification services. Page 20; FOAM token incentivizes users to contribute computation and radio power towards secure location services in a way that aligns with financing alternative means of obtaining secure localization and location verification standards that are suitable for autonomous smart contracts. Page 24; A proof-of-location is the following data, contained in a smart contract: 1. A geohash with precision score from its validator(s); 2. A reference to the Zone Authority that issued the presence-claim; 3. A reference to a valid presence claim; 4. A computational proof of the correctness of the presence-claim) to generate a signed certificate comprising the respective time-valid location-based information for the cell (Page 3; Dynamic Proof of Location can provide consensus on whether an event or agent is verifiably at a certain point in time and space by producing a digital authentication certificate that is designed to be fraud proof, called a Presence Claim. Page 4; A Presence Claim (PC) is a set of counter-signed Requests with the same Nonce, which is intended to provide enough data to constitute an exact localization. The presence claim is subject to fraud proof computation before being authenticated as a proof); a second edge computing apparatus proximal to the respective location (Page 4; the Verifiers) is configured to: execute the respective code instructions on the respective location-data to generate validation information (Page 4; the Verifiers are computational engines that incentivized to check the time logs of Zones for fraud and finalize Proofs of Location); and when the signed certificate matches the validation information to within a predetermined threshold, validate the signed certificate to provide a validated signed certificate (Page 23; Verifiers in the FOAM Proof of Location protocol are any computational entity that is able to read the blockchain data produced by Zones and check Presence Claims for fraud proof. What a verifier is looking for is if the “SLA’s” of Zones are being fulfilled, further they are conducting fraud proofs to see if the data is accurate, if the clocks were in fact in sync and if their corresponding location claims can be proven from the published data).
In addition, D2 teaches one or more of: second-semantic-location-data relevant to the second cell; a second-device within the second cell; third-semantic-location-data relevant to the third cell; and a third-device within the third cell (Page 22; for each position, we want to provide a physical location as well as all semantic locations, which covers this position). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of D1 and D2 because the use of semantic location in blockchain technology can enhance the interoperability and traceability of data across different systems.
Regarding claims 4 and 42, the combination of D1 and D2 teaches all of the limitations of claims 3 and 41, as described above. Further, D1 teaches wherein, for a respective cell of the plurality of cells: the respective location-data comprises presence-data representative of a first-indication-of-presence of a client-device within the geographic extent of the respective cell (Page 5; localization refers to the problem of identifying a node’s spatial position within some defined coordinate system. In order to compute a given spatial position, geolocation systems integrate signal information from a set of spatially distributed sources, solving for either transmission distance or angular incidence parameters. Within Wireless Sensor Networks (WSN) the location of beacons, or nodes, in the network is very important for the monitoring and collection of data, as events logged by a sensor occur within a certain location bound. Figure 1 and Page 6; triangulation and positioning); the signed certificate is representative of the first-indication-of-presence of the client-device within the geographic extent of the respective cell (Page 3; Dynamic Proof of Location can provide consensus on whether an event or agent is verifiably at a certain point in time and space by producing a digital authentication certificate that is designed to be fraud proof, called a Presence Claim. Page 4; Proof of Location is a fraud proof authentication certificate that serves as a first class object on the blockchain and represents that an entity was at a certain space in time); the validation information is representative of a second-indication-of-presence of the client-device within the geographic extent of the respective cell (Page 23; Verifiers in the FOAM Proof of Location protocol are any computational entity that is able to read the blockchain data produced by Zones and check Presence Claims for fraud proof. What a verifier is looking for is if the “SLA’s” of Zones are being fulfilled, further they are conducting fraud proofs to see if the data is accurate, if the clocks were in fact in sync and if their corresponding location claims can be proven from the published data)); the signed certificate matches the validation information when an overlap between the first-indication-of-presence and the second-indication-of-presence satisfies an overlap criterion (Page 23; What a verifier is looking for is if the “SLA’s” of Zones are being fulfilled, further they are conducting fraud proofs to see if the data is accurate, if the clocks were in fact in sync and if their corresponding location claims can be proven from the published data). Page 24; a proof-of-location is the following data, contained in a smart contract: 3 a reference to a valid presence claim, and 4 a computational proof of the correctness of the presence-claim); and when the signed certificate matches the validation information, the validated signed certificate comprises location-data representative of the location of the client-device within the respective cell (Page 24; a proof-of-location is the following data, contained in a smart contract: 3 a reference to a valid presence claim, and 4 a computational proof of the correctness of the presence-claim).
In addition, D2 teaches respective semantic-location-data (Page 22; for each position, we want to provide a physical location as well as all semantic locations, which covers this position). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of D1 and D2 because the use of semantic location in blockchain technology can enhance the interoperability and traceability of data across different systems.
Regarding claims 5 and 43, the combination of D1 and D2 teaches all of the limitations of claims 4 and 42, as described above. Further, D1 teaches further comprising, when the validated signed certificate comprises location-data representative of the location of the client-device within the respective cell (Page 3; Dynamic Proof of Location can provide consensus on whether an event or agent is verifiably at a certain point in time and space by producing a digital authentication certificate that is designed to be fraud proof, called a Presence Claim. Page 24; a proof-of-location is the following data, contained in a smart contract: 3 a reference to a valid presence claim, and 4 a computational proof of the correctness of the presence-claim), providing the client-device with access to cell-information relevant to the respective cell (Page 4; A proof of Location system is needed as a crucial infrastructure in our decentralized future and it can open new marketplaces of privacy preserving location data. Use cases may arise supply chain’s, real time mapping for autonomous vehicles, Internet of Things data markets and location based consumer applications that integrates with blockchain required secure proof).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of D1 and D2 teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, D1 teaches wherein: defining a blockchain (Page 4; blockchain) operative on an edge computing network comprising the first edge computing apparatus (Page 4; a Zone Anchor is a device with a radio transmitter, a local clock, and a public key); defining a smart contract for a cell of the plurality of cells (Page 3; FOAM is designed to be a solution for blockchain based economies. Smart contracts that will execute autonomous code with geospatial data as an input will require secure location verification. Page 20; FOAM token incentivizes users to contribute computation and radio power towards secure location services in a way that aligns with financing alternative means of obtaining secure localization and location verification standards that are suitable for autonomous smart contracts), wherein the smart contract comprises (i) the respective executable code instructions for the cell (Page 3; FOAM is designed to be a solution for blockchain based economies. Smart contracts that will execute autonomous code with geospatial data as an input will require secure location verification), and (ii) a scope configured to define an executability condition for the respective executable code instructions (Pages 3-4; Proof of Location is intended to utilize token staking incentives to grow network coverage and utilize a verifier set for fraud proofs, and enforce protocol rules. Safety deposits allow for attributable byzantine behavior in the form of slashing conditions); executing, using the first edge computing apparatus, the smart contract on the respective semantic-location-data for the cell (Page 3; FOAM is designed to be a solution for blockchain based economies. Smart contracts that will execute autonomous code with geospatial data as an input will require secure location verification) to provide a signed certificate comprising the respective time-valid location-based information for the cell (Page 3; Dynamic Proof of Location can provide consensus on whether an event or agent is verifiably at a certain point in time and space by producing a digital authentication certificate that is designed to be fraud proof, called a Presence Claim. Page 4; A Presence Claim (PC) is a set of counter-signed Requests with the same Nonce, which is intended to provide enough data to constitute an exact localization. The presence claim is subject to fraud proof computation before being authenticated as a proof); and writing the signed certificate into the blockchain (Pages 4 and 24; Shared State Machine is maintained by the Zone Authorities in a Zone on the state of synchronicity. A consensus algorithm is used to vote on writing to the shared state machine).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of D1 and D2 teaches all of the limitations of claim 15, as described above. Further, D1 teaches wherein the edge computing network comprises the second edge computing apparatus (Page 4; the Verifiers), the method comprising: executing, using the second edge computing apparatus, the smart contract on the respective location-data to provide validation information (Page 3; FOAM is designed to be a solution for blockchain based economies. Smart contracts that will execute autonomous code with geospatial data as an input will require secure location verification); and when the validation information matches the signed certificate to within a predetermined threshold (Page 23; Verifiers in the FOAM Proof of Location protocol are any computational entity that is able to read the blockchain data produced by Zones and check Presence Claims for fraud proof. What a verifier is looking for is if the “SLA’s” of Zones are being fulfilled, further they are conducting fraud proofs to see if the data is accurate, if the clocks were in fact in sync and if their corresponding location claims can be proven from the published data), writing a validated signed certificate, comprising the respective time-valid location-based information, to the blockchain (Pages 4 and 24; Shared State Machine is maintained by the Zone Authorities in a Zone on the state of synchronicity. A consensus algorithm is used to vote on writing to the shared state machine).
In addition, D2 teaches respective semantic-location-data (Page 22; for each position, we want to provide a physical location as well as all semantic locations, which covers this position). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of D1 and D2 because the use of semantic location in blockchain technology can enhance the interoperability and traceability of data across different systems.
Claims 7-9, 12, 14, 36-40, 44 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in view of D2, as applied in the claims above, further in view of Brown et al. (US 20210281510 A1 and Brown hereinafter).
Regarding claims 7, 36 and 44, the combination of D1 and D2 teaches all of the limitations of claims 1, 35 and 31, as described above. Further, D1 teaches wherein the plurality of cells comprises: a first cell (Page 4; a Zone is a quorum that maintains clock sync for a given region); a second cell (Page 4; a Zone is a quorum that maintains clock sync for a given region); a third cell (Page 4; a Zone is a quorum that maintains clock sync for a given region).
The combination of D1 and D2 does not explicitly teach wherein: the first cell is related to the second cell by a first mapping; the second cell is related to the third cell by a second mapping; the first cell is related to the third cell by a third mapping comprising a product of the first mapping with the second mapping; and the third cell comprises a union of the first cell and the second cell. In an analogous art, Brown teaches wherein: the first cell is related to the second cell by a first mapping; the second cell is related to the third cell by a second mapping; the first cell is related to the third cell by a third mapping comprising a product of the first mapping with the second mapping (Paragraph 0118; In basic category theory, an algebra on the category, C, is any functor from C to the category of sets, Set. The utility of algebra is this: We can develop a purely abstract category that gives a complete characterization of the theory of groups, say. Any particular group will be given by a functor from the abstract category to Set. Such a functor is understood to give semantics to the theory that is the category. It turns out that, not only is Set a category, it also enjoys the structural properties required of an operad. By analogy, therefore, the operad functor, F: O.fwdarw.Set may be understood as an algebra on the operad O. There is another category of interest, Rel, whose morphisms—rather than being functions between sets—are relations between sets. Because of the usual relation between functions and relations, there is a faithful embedding of Set in Rel. As it happens, Rel also has the structure of an operand. A functor of the form G: O.fwdarw.Rel is a relational algebra on O. By mathematical basic category theory definition, morphism means first set [which is interpreted as cell in the claims] is related to second set by first relationship, second set is related to third set by second relationship, and first set is related to third set by a product of first and second relationship); and the third cell comprises a union of the first cell and the second cell (Paragraphs 0113 and 0118; disjoint union). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of D1, D2 and Brown because there is a need to build High-Resolution virtualization models that take into account use cases and to provide the basis of novel software-defined network infrastructure (Brown, Paragraph 0006).
Regarding claims 8, 37 and 45, the combination of D1 and D2 teaches all of the limitations of claims 1, 35 and 31, as described above. Further, D1 teaches wherein the plurality of cells comprises: a first cell (Page 4; a Zone is a quorum that maintains clock sync for a given region); a second cell (Page 4; a Zone is a quorum that maintains clock sync for a given region); a third cell (Page 4; a Zone is a quorum that maintains clock sync for a given region).
The combination of D1 and D2 does not explicitly teach wherein the third cell is formed from an operation on the first cell and the second cell. In an analogous art, Brown teaches wherein the third cell is formed from an operation on the first cell and the second cell (Paragraph 0118; In basic category theory, an algebra on the category, C, is any functor from C to the category of sets, Set. The utility of algebra is this: We can develop a purely abstract category that gives a complete characterization of the theory of groups, say. Any particular group will be given by a functor from the abstract category to Set. Such a functor is understood to give semantics to the theory that is the category. It turns out that, not only is Set a category, it also enjoys the structural properties required of an operad. By analogy, therefore, the operad functor, F: O.fwdarw.Set may be understood as an algebra on the operad O. There is another category of interest, Rel, whose morphisms—rather than being functions between sets—are relations between sets. Because of the usual relation between functions and relations, there is a faithful embedding of Set in Rel. As it happens, Rel also has the structure of an operand. A functor of the form G: O.fwdarw.Rel is a relational algebra on O. By mathematical basic category theory definition, morphism means first set [which is interpreted as cell in the claims] is related to second set by first relationship, second set is related to third set by second relationship, and first set is related to third set by a product of first and second relationship. Paragraphs 0113 and 0118; disjoint union). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of D1, D2 and Brown because there is a need to build High-Resolution virtualization models that take into account use cases and to provide the basis of novel software-defined network infrastructure (Brown, Paragraph 0006).
Regarding claims 9 and 38, the combination of D1 and D2 teaches all of the limitations of claims 8 and 37, as described above. Further, D1 teaches wherein the operation relates to: (i) the geographical extent; (ii) the predetermined validity-time-interval; or (iii) a combination of the geographical extent and the predetermined validity-time-interval, of the first cell and of the second cell (Page 17; for a given Zone the validator set is effectively the collection of Zone Authorities that share a “location horizon” – the maximum spherical range of the physical radio signal. Each Zone Authority has a location horizon, and the overlap in horizons constrains the possible validator set for a Zone. Page 3; Dynamic Proof of Location can provide consensus on whether an event or agent is verifiably at a certain point in time and space by producing a digital authentication certificate that is designed to be fraud proof, called a Presence Claim. Zone Anchor beacon running the FOAM protocol will need to provide accurate time synchronization for a set period of time. Page 4; Proof of Location is a fraud proof authentication certificate that serves as a first class object on the blockchain and represents that an entity was at a certain space in time. Examiner asserts that authentication certificate generally that the proof of location has validity time interval).
The combination of D1 and D2 does not explicitly teach wherein the operation comprises at least one of: a union of the first cell and the second cell; an intersection of the first cell and the second cell; a relative complement of the first cell in the second cell; a symmetric difference of the first cell and the second cell; a distance between the first cell and the second cell; and a selection of a pair of points from the first cell and the second cell respectively. In an analogous art, Brown teaches wherein the operation comprises at least one of: a union of the first cell and the second cell; an intersection of the first cell and the second cell; a relative complement of the first cell in the second cell; a symmetric difference of the first cell and the second cell; a distance between the first cell and the second cell; and a selection of a pair of points from the first cell and the second cell respectively (Paragraph 0118; In basic category theory, an algebra on the category, C, is any functor from C to the category of sets, Set. The utility of algebra is this: We can develop a purely abstract category that gives a complete characterization of the theory of groups, say. Any particular group will be given by a functor from the abstract category to Set. Such a functor is understood to give semantics to the theory that is the category. It turns out that, not only is Set a category, it also enjoys the structural properties required of an operad. By analogy, therefore, the operad functor, F: O.fwdarw.Set may be understood as an algebra on the operad O. There is another category of interest, Rel, whose morphisms—rather than being functions between sets—are relations between sets. Because of the usual relation between functions and relations, there is a faithful embedding of Set in Rel. As it happens, Rel also has the structure of an operand. A functor of the form G: O.fwdarw.Rel is a relational algebra on O. By mathematical basic category theory definition, morphism means first set [which is interpreted as cell in the claims] is related to second set by first relationship, second set is related to third set by second relationship, and first set is related to third set by a product of first and second relationship. Paragraphs 0113 and 0118; disjoint union). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of D1, D2 and Brown because there is a need to build High-Resolution virtualization models that take into account use cases and to provide the basis of novel software-defined network infrastructure (Brown, Paragraph 0006).
Regarding claims 12 and 39, the combination of D1/D2/Brown teaches all of the limitations of claims 7 and 37, as described above. Further, D1 teaches wherein, when a validated signed certificate comprises location-data representative of a presence of a first-client-device within the first cell (Page 3; Dynamic Proof of Location can provide consensus on whether an event or agent is verifiably at a certain point in time and space by producing a digital authentication certificate that is designed to be fraud proof, called a Presence Claim. Page 4; A Presence Claim (PC) is a set of counter-signed Requests with the same Nonce, which is intended to provide enough data to constitute an exact localization. The presence claim is subject to fraud proof computation before being authenticated as a proof), providing the first-client-device access (Page 4; A proof of Location system is needed as a crucial infrastructure in our decentralized future and it can open new marketplaces of privacy preserving location data. Use cases may arise supply chain’s, real time mapping for autonomous vehicles, Internet of Things data markets and location based consumer applications that integrates with blockchain required secure proof).
In addition, D2 teaches one or more of: second-semantic-location-data relevant to the second cell; a second-device within the second cell; third-semantic-location-data relevant to the third cell; and a third-device within the third cell (Page 22; for each position, we want to provide a physical location as well as all semantic locations, which covers this position). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of D1 and D2 because the use of semantic location in blockchain technology can enhance the interoperability and traceability of data across different systems.
Regarding claims 14 and 40, the combination of D1/D2/Brown teaches all of the limitations of claims 12 and 39, as described above. Further, D1 teaches wherein the third cell comprises an intermediate-cell, different than the first cell and the second cell, the method comprising: when the validated signed certificate comprises location-data representative of a presence of the first-client-device within the first cell (Page 3; Dynamic Proof of Location can provide consensus on whether an event or agent is verifiably at a certain point in time and space by producing a digital authentication certificate that is designed to be fraud proof, called a Presence Claim . Page 4; A Presence Claim (PC) is a set of counter-signed Requests with the same Nonce, which is intended to provide enough data to constitute an exact localization. The presence claim is subject to fraud proof computation before being authenticated as a proof), providing first-cell-functionality to the first-client-device (Page 4; A proof of Location system is needed as a crucial infrastructure in our decentralized future and it can open new marketplaces of privacy preserving location data. Use cases may arise supply chain’s, real time mapping for autonomous vehicles, Internet of Things data markets and location based consumer applications that integrates with blockchain required secure proof); and when the validated signed certificate comprises an intermediate signed certificate that comprises intermediate-location-data representative of a presence of the first-client-device within the intermediate cell (Page 3; Dynamic Proof of Location can provide consensus on whether an event or agent is verifiably at a certain point in time and space by producing a digital authentication certificate that is designed to be fraud proof, called a Presence Claim . Page 4; A Presence Claim (PC) is a set of counter-signed Requests with the same Nonce, which is intended to provide enough data to constitute an exact localization. The presence claim is subject to fraud proof computation before being authenticated as a proof), providing an intermediate-cell-functionality to the first-client-device (Page 4; A proof of Location system is needed as a crucial infrastructure in our decentralized future and it can open new marketplaces of privacy preserving location data. Use cases may arise supply chain’s, real time mapping for autonomous vehicles, Internet of Things data markets and location based consumer applications that integrates with blockchain required secure proof), wherein the intermediate-cell-functionality is different than the first-cell-functionality (Page 4; a computational proof of the correctness of the presence-claim. Page 4; Zone Anchor, Zone authority; Verifiers are computational engines that incentivized to check the time logs of Zones for fraud and finalize Proofs of Location. The verifiers need to have at least the same computational power as that of an Authority inside a zone. Because Verifiers compute locations from the time stamped data they can be said to be mining triangulations).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Winton et al. (WO 2021030877 A1) discloses a system for tokenization of geospatial area.
Nasrulin et al., “A Robust Spatio-Temporal Verification Protocol for Blockchain”, 20 October 2018, ICIAP: International Conference on Image Analysis and Processing, 17th International Conference, Naples, Italy, September 9-13, 2013. Proceedings; Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Pages 52-67, XP047491659, ISBN: 078-3-642-17318-9, discloses applications collect spatio-temporal data for providing location-based servicethat use Blockchain technology to enable trustless reliable decentralized applications
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jing Gao whose telephone number is (571)270-7226. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am - 6pm M-F.
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 Alison Slater can be reached on (571) 270-0375. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications 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 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Jing Gao/
Examiner
Art Unit 2647