DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 2107384.6, filed on 07/05/2021.
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to amendment filed on December 02, 2025. Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 10, 13, 17, 19, 21, 31 and 43 have been amended .Claims 3, 5, 7, 10, 12, 14, 18, 20, 23, 24, 28-30 and 32-42. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15-17, 19, 21, 22, 25-27, 31 and 43 presented for the examination and remain pending in the application.
The previous claims 1 and 43 objection has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s claims amendment.
The previous claims 6, 13, 17, 19, 21, 31 and 43 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s claims amendment.
Upon further consideration of the Applicant’s argument, the Examiner has withdrawn the previous rejection to claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15-17, 19, 21, 22, 25-27, 31 and 43 under 35 USC § 103. However, a new ground of rejection has been made in view of a new prior art of record and thus, the Applicant’s arguments are moot because the arguments do not apply to any combination of the references being used in the current rejection.
Examiner note
The Applicant recites the word “and/or” is recited in claims 4, 8, 9, 11, 13, 17, 19, 22, 25 and 31. The Examiner has chosen to use the conjugation word “or” throughout the examination in all claims.
The Examiner proposed amendment to advance the prosecution. See the attached interview summary herewith in the Office Action.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries 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, 4, 6-8, 15, 19, 31 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0084045 A1, (hereinafter Cohen) in view of Yang U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0302411 A1, (hereinafter Yang).
Regarding claim 1.
Cohen teaches a computer-implemented method of transmitting information from a first node of a blockchain to a second node of the blockchain (Cohen teaches in Fig. 1 and Para. [0018] element 120 blockchain system and 131 one or more nodes (i.e., note that here there are one or more nodes element 131 which are the claimed “a first and a second node”)), the method being carried out by the first node and comprising: receiving a transaction referencing an object and a containing set of the blockchain (note that here the term “object” has been interpreted in light of the specification Page. 2, lines 25-43 and Page. 3, lines 1-15 as one of: “a transaction identifier”, “coin”, “document” “good”, and/or “a person” and thus, Cohen teaches in Para. [0018] the blockchain system 120 may be a system that uses a ledger 131 to record transactions. The ledger 131 includes a plurality of blocks which are linked together and are secured using cryptographic functions and also teaches in Para. [0022] the blockchain system 120 may be an existing blockchain system. For example, the blockchain system may be the blockchain system that is associated with or is used to store and/or identify transactions for a cryptocurrency and further teaches in Para. [0060] in a blockchain system, a cryptocurrency and the asset verification is provided (i.e., transaction of cryptocurrency and digital assets are “an object”)… (i.e., note that here identifying the transaction for the cryptocurrency and the asset indicate the process of receiving a transaction of an object));
determining an existing instance of each of the object and the containing set of the blockchain (Cohen teaches in Para. [0029] the asset verification component 110 may receive a request to establish the provenance of a digital asset 141 (e.g., a document, an email, a form posting, a chat message, a social media post, etc.) (i.e., note that all the listed elements under digital asset 141 can be the claimed object)... The user may request that the asset verification component 110 establish the provenance of the digital asset 141…, and further Cohen teaches in Para. [0036] an entry in the ledger 131 may include various other information and/or data that may be used to help establish the provenance of a digital asset 141, the entry may include a resource identifier that identifies the digital asset 141 and/or indicates a location from which the digital asset 141 may be accessed… (i.e., note that here the asset or digital asset is accessed as they are exist as an object based on the entry information identified by the identifier and this indicates the determination of the existing instances of the object)).
Cohen does not explicitly teach incrementing the existing instance of each of the object and the containing set of the blockchain; and transmitting to the second node of the blockchain the incremented instance of each of the object and the containing set of the blockchain.
However, Yang teaches incrementing the existing instance of each of the object and the containing set of the blockchain (Yang teaches in Para. [0011] determining earning increments corresponding to the object node and the available resource quotas exchanged to the object node and the resource can be available based on a blockchain set exchange system. Also, See Para. [0009]-[0010], [0021], [0049]-[0050] and [0074]); and
transmitting to the second node of the blockchain the incremented instance of each of the object and the containing set of the blockchain (Yang teaches in Para. [0185] an available resource quota determining module 602, configured to determine, for each target object, available resource quotas exchanged (i.e., transmitted) to each object node in the target object (i.e., the second node) if the target object is a set of object nodes, for each object node in the target object, the available resource quotas exchanged to the object node being used for determining earning increments corresponding to the object node and further the quota exchange transaction to a blockchain. Also, see Para. [0140]-[0141], [0184] and [0193]-[0194]).
Therefore, Cohen and Yang are analogues arts and they are in the same field of endeavor as they both are directed to the blockchain technology to perform the process of making a transaction between nodes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to modify the teachings of using incrementing object in a blockchain and object nodes ([0011] and [0185]) as taught, by Yang into Cohen invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to the resource sent to the target node is determined. Available resource quota of the target node is exchanged used for determining gain increment corresponding to the target node. Judgment is made to check whether virtual resource decrement is confirmed corresponding to the target node. The quota exchange transaction is issued to a block chain in an efficient manner.
Regarding claim 4.
Cohen teaches wherein the transaction referencing the object comprises the transaction referencing an identifier of at least one of the object and/or a persistent identifier of the object (Cohen teaches in Para. [0022] In one embodiment, the blockchain system 120 may be an existing blockchain system. For example, the blockchain system may be the blockchain system that is associated with or is used to store and/or identify transactions for a cryptocurrency. [0060] an asset verification component (e.g., asset verification component 110 illustrated in FIG. 1) may perform one or more transactions using the cryptocurrency to access the ledger 131. For example, performing a transaction using the cryptocurrency (e.g., buying or selling the cryptocurrency) may allow the asset verification component to update the ledger 131 with a record of the transaction. Note that here, the claim lists features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. However, the prior art Cohen addressed both of the limitations above).
Regarding claim 6.
Cohen teaches wherein the containing set of the blockchain is a first containing set of the blockchain (Cohen teaches in Fig. 1 and Para. [0013] the blockchain system may include a ledger that is distributed across all of the nodes in the blockchain system (e.g., a distributed ledger)), comprising: transmitting to the second node of the blockchain the instance of each of the first containing set, the second containing set, and the object of the blockchain (Cohen teaches in Para. [0046] the blockchain system 120 when establishing and/or verifying the provenance of digital assets 141. For example, a user may not need to obtain a wallet to create, store, update, etc., a digital asset 141. Instead, the user may communicate with the asset verification component 110 (e.g., may send requests and/or messages to the asset verification component 110) and the asset verification component 110 may use a wallet (e.g., an account, profile, etc.) associated with the asset verification component 110 to access the blockchain system and further teaches in Para. [0035] that the asset verification component 110 may create an entry (or block) and may provide (i.e., transmitting) the entry to a node 130. The entry may include the hash of the digital asset 141 (i.e., each of the object)).
Cohen does not explicitly teach identifying a second containing set of the blockchain; and incrementing an existing instance of each of the first containing set, the second containing set, and the object of the blockchain.
However, Yang teaches identifying a second containing set of the blockchain (Yang teaches in Para.[0209] the blockchain-based set exchange system for available resource quotas includes a plurality of blockchain nodes (i.e., note that here a plurality of blockchain nodes includes the claimed “ a second containing set of blockchain”), and for each blockchain node, the blockchain node has the function of implementing the method in at least one of the second, third, fifth, and sixth aspects of Summary); and
incrementing an existing instance of each of the first containing set, the second containing set, and the object of the blockchain (Yang teaches in Para. [0017] selecting the set of object nodes as the target object according to the selection rule comprises selecting the set of object nodes as the target object according to the selection rule by invoking a smart contract stored on the blockchain; and the object nodes are configured to receive virtual resource increments through copyright use transactions. Also, see Para. [0009]-[0010], [0021], [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to modify the teachings of selecting the set of object nodes as the target object according to the selection rule in the blockchain ([0017]) as, taught by Yang into Cohen invention. One would have been motivated to do so for adding the quota exchange transaction to a blockchain on the blockchain network in an efficient manner. (Yang. [0019]).
Regarding claim 8.
Cohen teaches wherein the object and the containing set are each associated with a persistent identifier that is recorded on the blockchain, wherein the transaction referencing comprises the transaction referencing a persistent identifier of the object and/or a persistent identifier of the containing set (Cohen teaches in Para. [0030] the data storage system 140 may include one or more devices and/or persistent storage that are capable of storing data. A persistent storage may be a local storage unit or a remote storage unit and further Cohen teaches in Para. [0060] that the ledger 131 may be part of a blockchain system for a cryptocurrency, an asset verification component (e.g., asset verification component 110 illustrated in FIG. 1 which includes a ledger 131 in a blockchain system 120) may perform one or more transactions using the cryptocurrency to access the ledger 131. For example, performing a transaction using the cryptocurrency (e.g., buying or selling the cryptocurrency) may allow the asset verification component to update the ledger 131 with a record of the transaction. The asset information 311 (i.e., object) may be included in the record of the transaction. As discussed above, the asset verification component may have a profile, account, or wallet that may be used to access the blockchain system and the ledger 131).
Regarding claim 15.
Cohen does not explicitly teach identifying a further object, wherein the transaction is dependent on, and/or references, both the object and the further object.
However, Yang teaches identifying a further object, wherein the transaction is dependent on, and/or references, both the object and the further object (note that further object has been interpreted in light of the specification [On. Page. 3, line 12 which indicates that the “further object comprises document and/or good”] and thus, Yang teaches in Para. [0019]-[0020 a set of object nodes as a target object according to a selection rule; determining, at the management node for each object node in the target object, a resource quota and transaction to the blockchain).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of using different object nodes for transaction in the blockchain ([0019]-[0020]) as taught, by Yang into Cohen invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order for constructing, at the management node, a quota exchange transaction comprising the determined virtual resource decrements corresponding to the object node, and adding the quota exchange transaction to a blockchain on the blockchain network in an effective manner. (Yang. [0019]).
Regarding claim 19.
Cohen teaches determining provenance information associated with the transaction; and associating the provenance information with one or more of: the object, the first containing set, and/or a/the second containing set (Cohen teaches in Para. [0017]-[0018] a blockchain system 120, an asset verification component 110, a data storage system 140, a social media platform 160, and client devices 150. As discussed above, the asset verification component 110 may help to establish the provenance and/or integrity of digital assets 141 and/or other data (i.e., the digital asset are the claimed “object”)…, and the blockchain system 120 may be a system that uses a ledger 131 to record transactions and further Cohen teaches in Para. [0029] the asset verification component 110 may receive a request to establish the provenance of a digital asset 141 (e.g., a document, an email, a form posting, a chat message, a social media post, etc. (i.e., note that here all the listed elements under the digital asset are the claimed “object))...Note that here, the claim lists features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art and thus, the prior art Cohen addressed the first part of the limitations above which is related to the provenance information associated with the transaction).
Regarding claim 31.
Cohen teaches an apparatus arranged to store, access, view, and/or edit a blockchain (Cohen teaches in Para. [0013] the block chain system to store data related to the creation and/or modification of the digital assets…, the asset verification component to establish the provenance (e.g., integrity) of digital assets and/or other data which may be managed by the asset verification component. The digital assets may be referenced and/or accessed (e.g., viewed, consumed, used, played, etc.). Note that here, the claim lists features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art and thus, the prior art Cohen addressed all of the limitations except the term “edit”),comprising a transaction associated with an object and (Cohen teaches in Para. [0029] the asset verification component 110 may receive a request to establish the provenance of a digital asset 141 (e.g., a document, an email, a form posting, a chat message, a social media post, etc.) (i.e., note that all the listed elements under digital asset 141 are the claimed object)... The user may request that the asset verification component 110 establish the provenance of the digital asset 141…, and further Cohen teaches in Para. [0060] an asset verification component (e.g., asset verification component 110 illustrated in FIG. 1) may perform one or more transactions using the cryptocurrency to access the ledger 131. For example, performing a transaction using the cryptocurrency (e.g., buying or selling the cryptocurrency) may allow the asset verification component to update the ledger 131 with a record of the transaction), the transaction being associated with: an update in the instance of each of the object (Cohen teaches in Para. [0044] the asset verification component 110 may generate a hash of the other version of the digital asset 141 and may update the ledger 131 with the hash (of the other version of the digital asset 141) to establish the provenance of the other version of the digital asset 141. (i.e., note that here the version gets updated based on the requested and the received provenance of a digital asset), and also Cohen teaches in Para. [0029] the asset verification component 110 may receive a request to establish the provenance of a digital asset 141 (e.g., a document, an email, a form posting, a chat message, a social media post, etc.)...; and also Cohen teaches in Para. [0036] an entry in the ledger 131 may include various other information and/or data that may be used to help establish the provenance of a digital asset 141,…).
Cohen does not explicitly teach a transaction a transaction is associated with a first party; the transaction being associated with: a containing set associated with the first party; and wherein the transaction is associated with the containing set.
However, Fay teaches a transaction a transaction is associated with a first party (Fay teaches in Para. [0050] the exchange computer system 100 may also require a transaction fee. This fee may be generated as an additional blockchain transaction that is between trading party A or trading party B (i.e., note that here the trading transaction includes Party A and B and party B is the claimed “a first party”) and an account that represents exchange computer system 100 and further Fay teaches in Para. [0052] in FIG. 2C and in step 256, computing device A 120A generates a blockchain transaction using the previously received trade and/or wallet information (e.g., that includes information of trading party B's digital wallet) and transmits the generated blockchain transaction to blockchain computer system 214 at step 257. Similarly, computing device B 120B (the counter party (i.e., a first party)) generates a blockchain transaction at step 258 and transmits the transaction to blockchain computer system 214 at step 259. For example, a transaction message is generated that specifies the transfer of assets (e.g., 100 shares of AAPL) from one trading party (e.g., A) to the hashed wallet information that is associated with the counter party (e.g., B (i.e., here the transaction is performed between two parties and that include party B which is the claimed “a first party”))…);
the transaction being associated with: a containing set associated with the first party (Fay teaches in Para. [0052] similarly, computing device B 120B (the counter party (i.e., a first party)) generates a blockchain transaction at step 258 and transmits the transaction to blockchain computer system 214 at step 259. For example, a transaction message is generated that specifies the transfer of assets (e.g., 100 shares of AAPL) from one trading party (e.g., A) to the hashed wallet information (i.e., a containing set) that is associated with the counter party (e.g., B (i.e., note that here the wallet which is the containing set associated with party B which is the claimed “the first party”))…); and
wherein the transaction is associated with the containing set (note that the containing set includes wallet and good and thus, Fay teaches in Para. [0052] in FIG. 2C and in step 256, computing device A 120A generates a blockchain transaction using the previously received trade and/or wallet information (e.g., that includes information of trading party B's digital wallet) and transmits the generated blockchain transaction to blockchain computer system 214 at step 257. Similarly, computing device B 120B (the counter party) generates a blockchain transaction at step 258 and transmits the transaction to blockchain computer system 214 at step 259. For example, a transaction message is generated that specifies the transfer of assets (e.g., 100 shares of AAPL) from one trading party (e.g., A) to the hashed wallet information that is associated with the counter party (e.g., B (i.e., here the transaction is associated with the wallet which indicates the process of associating the transaction with containing set containing set)). Also, see Para. [0063]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to modify the teachings of using a computing device which generates a blockchain transaction by associating the wallet with the transaction ([0052]) as taught, by Fay into Cohen invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to the method ensures that the matching engine can identify a match between a data transaction request stored in an ordered list of data storage with another data transaction, and can monitor the blockchain to determine when both blockchain transactions have been incorporated/included into the blockchain in an effective manner.
Regarding claim 43.
Claim 43 incorporates substantively all the limitation of claim 1 in a computer device form and is rejected under the same rationale. Furthermore, regarding the claim limitation of a processor, the prior art of record Cohen teaches in Para. [0063] and [0083]-[0084].
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen in view of Yang further in view of Marsh U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0147983 A1, (hereinafter Marsh).
Regarding claim 2. Cohen in view of Yang teaches the method of claim 1.
Yang further teaches wherein the object and the containing set are each associated with a persistent identifier that is recorded on the blockchain (Yang teaches in Para. [0037] a transfer record is stored in the blockchain for publication. The copyright use event refers to all events involving the use of copyright works, for example, buying a novel, buying composed songs of creators, and downloading music. Also, see Para. [0044]-[0045]).
Cohen in view of Yang does not explicitly teach determining the existing instance comprises determining a most recent instance associated with the persistent identifier from a record stored on the blockchain.
However, Marsh teaches determining the existing instance comprises determining a most recent instance associated with the persistent identifier from a record stored on the blockchain (Marsh teaches in Para. [0106] the distributed ledger is a blockchain, the first computing device may identify block addresses (e.g., the hash values for the individual blocks of the blockchain) of blocks of the blockchain that store transaction data for the computing devices that maintain the blockchain…, in cases in which the total balances for the individual computing devices or accounts are stored in the individual blocks, the first computing device may identify the most recent blocks (e.g., most recently created blocks or blocks that include the most recent time stamp) of the blockchain that include identifiers…, and further Marsh teaches in Para. [0109] that the first computing device may identify the transactions the sub-custody account has performed within the time period from the distributed ledger (e.g., identify the records that have been added to the distributed ledger as a result of completion of the transactions within the specified time period) to determine if the transaction transferring the asset from the first account to the second account exceeds the transaction limit…).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to modify the teachings of the distributed ledger is a blockchain, the first computing device may identify block addresses (e.g., the hash values for the individual blocks of the blockchain) of blocks of the blockchain that store transaction data for the computing devices that maintain the blockchain and determining if the transaction transferring the asset from the first account to the second account exceeds the transaction limit ([0106] and [0109]) as taught, by Marsh into Cohen in view of Yang invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to the method enables maintaining a centralized distributed ledger that is accessible to multiple legal entities without requiring each legal entity to maintain its own distributed ledger. The method provides functionality that enables each legal entities to contribute to the distributed ledger while maintaining the privacy of any transactions to which it commits. The immutability of the data within the distributed ledgers enables operators to have peace of mind that the data in distributed ledger is accurate and will not be changed, while distributed ledger-based storage methods may require more computational resources than conventional methods e.g., a central database.
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen in view of Yang further in view of Palyutina et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0386832 A1, (hereinafter Palyutina).
Regarding claim 9. Cohen in view of Yang further teaches the method of claim 1.
Cohen in view of Yang does not explicitly teach wherein the object and the containing set are each associated with an ephemeral identifier that is recorded on the blockchain, preferably wherein the transaction referencing the object and/or the containing set comprises the transaction referencing an ephemeral identifier of the object and/or an ephemeral identifier of the containing set.
However, Palyutina teaches wherein the object and the containing set are each associated with an ephemeral identifier that is recorded on the blockchain, preferably wherein the transaction referencing the object and/or the containing set comprises the transaction referencing an ephemeral identifier of the object and/or an ephemeral identifier of the containing set (Palyutina teaches in Para.[0034] FIG. 4 illustrates a simplified example of a blockchain transaction record n 400 generated based on a set of bilateral transactions carried out 230, 320 between the first device 100 and the second device 110 upon the first wireless device providing the network access to the second device according to the set terms…, and further teaches in Para. [0035] the blockchain transaction record 400 may comprise an identifier of an ephemeral 2-of-2 multi-signature account between the first device and the second device… Note that the claim lists features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art and thus, the prior art of record Palyutina addressed “the ephemeral identifier”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to modify the teachings of a blockchain transaction record generated based on a set of bilateral transactions and using the blockchain transaction record 400 may comprise an identifier of an ephemeral ([0034]-[0035]) as taught, by Palyutina into the teachings of Cohen in view of Yang invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to small bilateral transactions may be exchanged between the first device and the second device and the transactions may be batched together into one transaction broadcast to the blockchain, enabling a light mechanism to directly compensate the second device for provided the network access and to reduce the amount of transactions and related processing required at the blockchain. The bilateral transactions can be exchanged outside the blockchain, thus such dedicated network is not required, but available local communications. It is not required to have specific authentication mechanism or third party for trust establishment and the devices may remain anonymous. The first device does not have to have access to network initially. Blockchain features may be utilized to create a smart contract between the wireless devices with distributed consensus, without requiring a third party to manage the protocol.
Regarding claim 11. Cohen in view of Yang further teaches the method of claim 1.
Cohen further teaches transmitting to the second node two or more of: a persistent identifier relating to the object and/or the containing set (Cohen teaches in Para. [0030] the data storage system 140 may include one or more devices and/or persistent storage that are capable of storing data. A persistent storage may be a local storage unit or a remote storage unit and further Cohen teaches in Para. [0060] that the ledger 131 may be part of a blockchain system for a cryptocurrency).
Cohen in view of Yang does not explicitly teach an ephemeral identifier relating to the object and/or the containing set; an ephemeral identifier relating to the object and/or the containing set before completion and/or recording of the transaction; and an ephemeral identifier relating to the object and/or the containing set completion and/or recording of the transaction.
However, Palyutina teaches an ephemeral identifier relating to the object and/or the containing set (Palyutina teaches in Para. [0035] the blockchain transaction record 400 may comprise an identifier of an ephemeral 2-of-2 multi-signature account between the first device and the second device. The identifier may be derived e.g. from the first device's public key, the second device's public key, and/or a timestamp using a hashing function);
an ephemeral identifier relating to the object and/or the containing set before completion and/or recording of the transaction (Palyutina teaches in Para. [0035] the blockchain transaction record 400 may comprise an identifier of an ephemeral 2-of-2 multi-signature account between the first device and the second device and further teaches in Para. [0036] the transaction record 400 may also include the signatures of both the first device 100 and the second device 110. The signatures may be for the ephemeral account's ID, showing that they both recognize it as the temporary holder (netting) of the microtransactions carried out in the protocol); and
an ephemeral identifier relating to the object and/or the containing set completion and/or recording of the transaction (Palyutina teaches in Para. [0035]-[0036] the blockchain transaction record 400 may comprise an identifier of an ephemeral 2-of-2 multi-signature account between the first device and the second device…, and the transaction record 400 may also include the signatures of both the first device 100 and the second device 110. The signatures may be for the ephemeral account's ID, showing that they both recognize it as the temporary holder. Note that the claim lists features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art and thus, the prior art of record Palyutina addressed only the first part of the limitations from each limitations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to modify the teachings of a blockchain transaction record generated based on a set of bilateral transactions and using the blockchain transaction record 400 may comprise an identifier of an ephemeral ([0034]-[0035]) as taught, by Palyutina into the teachings of Cohen in view of Yang invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to small bilateral transactions may be exchanged between the first device and the second device and the transactions may be batched together into one transaction broadcast to the blockchain, enabling a light mechanism to directly compensate the second device for provided the network access and to reduce the amount of transactions and related processing required at the blockchain. The bilateral transactions can be exchanged outside the blockchain, thus such dedicated network is not required, but available local communications. It is not required to have specific authentication mechanism or third party for trust establishment and the devices may remain anonymous. The first device does not have to have access to network initially. Blockchain features may be utilized to create a smart contract between the wireless devices with distributed consensus, without requiring a third party to manage the protocol.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen in view of Yang further in Mondal et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0213405 A1, (hereinafter Mondal) and further in view of Jakubicek et al. EP 4033428 A1, (hereinafter Jakubicek).
Regarding claim 13. Cohen in view of Yang teaches the method of claim 1.
Yang further teaches wherein: the object comprises a coin (Yang teaches in Para. [0102] the object node uses virtual resources from the management node that includes coin);
the containing set and/or a/the second containing set comprises a wallet (Yang teaches in Para. [0005] each blockchain node usually conducts a copyright use transaction by using a common currency in the market such as a digital currency (such as Bitcoin) or a legal currency (such as RMB) in an electronic form as a transaction medium); and/or, the method comprises: transferring the coin from a first wallet associated with a first party to a second wallet associated with a second party; or transferring the coin from the second wallet to the first wallet (Yang teaches in Para. [0006] a user node determines a payment amount, determines a currency of the payment amount as an expenditure corresponding to the user node, determines the currency of the payment amount as an income corresponding to a creator node, then constructs a copyright use transaction including the determined expenditure corresponding to the user node and the determined income corresponding to the creator node, and publishes the copyright use transaction to a blockchain. In this way, the creator can acquire earnings. Note that here, the claim lists features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art and thus, Yang addressed the second part of the limitation here).
Cohen in view of Yang does not explicitly teach the object comprises a document; the containing set and/or a/the second containing set comprises a document pool;
However, Mondal teaches the object comprises a document; the containing set and/or a/the second containing set comprises a document pool (Mondal teaches in Para. [0011] identifying one or more documents along with their availability in the document banking system which includes one or more documents in a document transfer queue (i.e., a document pool ));
and/or transferring the document from a first document pool associated with a first party to a second document pool associated with a second party; or transferring the document from the second document pool to the first document pool (note that here the first account holder is the claimed “a first party” and the second account holder is the claimed “a second party” and thus, Mondal teaches in Para. [0011] adding the one or more documents in a document transfer queue of the second account holder and/or transferring the at least one document in a document banking account (i.e., document pool) of a second account holder based on one or more rules. The first account holder (i.e., a first party) and the second account holder (i.e., a second party) are registered with the document banking system. Note that here, the claim lists features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art and thus, Mondal addressed both limitations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to modify the teachings of identifying one or more documents and adding and transferring from the first account holder to the second account holder ([0011]) as taught, by Mondal into the teachings of Cohen in view of Yang invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to the system ensures integrity and non-repudiation in sending or receiving of the documents across, between, or among concerned parties in an efficient manner. The account holder performs transactions related to the documents, thus increasing productivity and reducing hassles.
Cohen in view of Yang further in view of Mondal does not explicitly teach and/or the object comprises a good; the containing set and/or a/the second containing set comprises an inventory; and/or the method comprises transferring a good from a first inventory associated with a first party to a second inventory associated with a second party; or transferring the good from the second inventory to the first inventory; and/or the object comprises a person; the containing set and/or a/the second containing set comprises a team; and/or; the method comprises transferring a person from a first team associated with a first party to a second team associated with a second party; or transferring the person from the second team to the first team.
However, Jakubicek teaches and/or the object comprises a good; the containing set and/or a/the second containing set comprises an inventory; and/or the method comprises transferring a good from a first inventory associated with a first party to a second inventory associated with a second party; or transferring the good from the second inventory to the first inventory; and/or the object comprises a person; the containing set and/or a/the second containing set comprises a team; and/or; the method comprises transferring a person from a first team associated with a first party to a second team associated with a second party; or transferring the person from the second team to the first team (Jakubicek teaches [On. Page. 2, lines under the background art in the second paragraph, lines 1-12] maintaining a record of goods and tracking goods throughout and between businesses is currently done by using the inventory system as a model of the physical goods. This means that a record of ownership and the location of the goods and transfer of goods is recorded in a table or tables where the type of item (i.e., object) is listed and in a corresponding column, the quantity of that item is listed…When an item or group of items (i.e., objects) is transferred from one business to another business or person, then a record of the items transferred takes the form of a packing list or other similar form of documentation, typically containing an itemized list…Note that here, the claim lists features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art and thus, Jakubicek addressed the first part of the limitation which includes the transferring of good for inventory)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to modify the teachings of maintaining a record of goods and tracking goods throughout and between businesses is currently done by using the inventory system as a model of the physical goods. This means that a record of ownership and the location of the goods and transfer of goods is recorded in a table or tables where the type of item (i.e., object) is listed and in a corresponding column, the quantity of that item is listed ([On. Page. 2, lines under the background art in the second paragraph, lines 1-12]) as taught, by Jakubicek in the teachings of Cohen in view of Yang further in view of Mondal invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to the system manages inventory of goods which is based on managing information relating to each item separately, thus allowing keeping the record of history of each item and making it accessible to relevant users of the system, including the consumers. The system allows to transfer the information about the items together with the transfer of the items themselves, in a reliable way, while minimizing room for any errors.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen in view of Yang further in view of Tran et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0256070 A1, (hereinafter Tran).
Regarding claim 16. Cohen in view of Yang teaches the method of claim 15.
Cohen in view of Yang does not explicitly teach determining a further containing set associated with the further object and a first party, wherein the containing set and the further containing set are associated with the same blockchain address and/or cryptographic key.
However, Tran teaches determining a further containing set associated with the further object and a first party, wherein the containing set and the further containing set are associated with the same blockchain address and/or cryptographic key (Tran teaches in Para. [0123] private key represents a direct monetary value which can be traded in the blockchain system. In the case where the blockchain is, for example, Bitcoin or another blockchain system using a similar key and address scheme, the blockchain address (132) has a particular balance associated therewith, indicated, for example, as 3.5 BTC or 0.0001 BTC in the case of Bitcoin. Note that here, the claim lists features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art and thus, Tran addressed the first part of the limitation which includes using similar (i.e., the same) blockchain address).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to modify the teachings of using similar (i.e., the same) address of the blockchain ([0123]) as taught, by Tran into Cohen in view of Yang invention. One would have been motivated to do so the device allows a cloud consumer to unilaterally provision computing capabilities, such as server time and network storage, as needed automatically without requiring human interaction with a service provider. The device utilizes a cloud computing as a model of service delivery for enabling convenient, on-demand network access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources that can be rapidly provisioned and released with minimal management effort or interaction with the service provider, so that rapid elasticity capabilities are rapidly and elastically provisioned, in some cases automatically, to quickly scale out and quickly scale in. The cloud computing environment is allowed to offer infrastructure, platforms and/or software as services for which the cloud consumer does not need to maintain resources on a local computing device.
Regarding claim 17.
Yang further teaches identifying a plurality of objects associated with a/the transaction, the plurality of objects comprising at least two of the object types: a coin; a document; and a good; and/or identifying a plurality of containing sets associated with a/the transaction, the plurality of containing sets comprising at least two of the containing set types: a wallet; a document pool; and an inventory (Yang teaches in Para. [0005]-[0006] Note that here, the claim lists features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art and thus, Fay addressed the first part of the limitation which includes the object includes coin and goods and additionally addressed from the second part of the limitation the claimed wallet)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to modify the teachings of providing a color coin, a wallet and a trade goods in a blockchain transaction system ([0005]-[0006]) as taught, by Yang into the teachings of Tran by including Blockchain token ownership is immediately transferred to a new owner after authentication and verification, which are based on network ledgers within a peer-to-peer network, guaranteeing nearly instantaneous execution and settlement and further into the teachings of Cohen invention. One would have been motivated to do so for maintaining close proximity to the edge devices rather than sending all data to a distant centralized cloud, minimizes latency allowing for maximum performance, faster response times, and more effective maintenance and operational strategies. In addition to being highly secure, the system also significantly reduces overall bandwidth requirements and the cost of managing widely distributed networks. (Tran. [0075]).
Claims 21, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen in view of Yang further in view of Davis U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0034926 A1, (hereinafter Davis).
Regarding claim 21 Cohen in view of Yang teaches the method of claim 19.
Cohen in view of Yang does not explicitly teach wherein the provenance information comprises one or more of: a reason for the transaction; an assessment of a/the sender and/or a/the recipient, such as an indication of a trust level; and information added by a third party following the transaction.
However, Davis teaches wherein the provenance information comprises one or more of: a reason for the transaction; an assessment of a/the sender and/or a/the recipient, such as an indication of a trust level; and information added by a third party following the transaction (Davis teaches in Para. [0002] entities engage in transactions for a variety of reasons, such as the use and/or purchase of goods or services…, an entity will keep a record of their transactions, such as for accounting purposes, or for dispute settlement between themselves and another entity… Note that here, the claim lists features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art and thus, Davis addressed the first part of the limitation which includes reason for transaction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to modify the teachings of providing a reason for a transaction ([0002]) as taught, by Davis into the teachings of Cohen into Yang invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to the method enables realizing that immutability of the blockchain provides complete cryptographic auditability of transaction by involved entities, so that the entities engage in transactions for which cryptographic auditability is maintained, while expending less resources and achieving quick processing than available in existing systems.
Regarding claim 22. Cohen in view of Yang teaches the method of claim 19.
Cohen in view of Yang does not explicitly teach receiving a confirmation from a third party, the confirmation being associated with the provenance information, wherein the confirmation verifies and/or provides the provenance information, and validating and/or propagating a transaction in dependence on the confirmation.
However, Davis teaches receiving a confirmation from a third party, the confirmation being associated with the provenance information, wherein the confirmation verifies and/or provides the provenance information, and validating and/or propagating a transaction in dependence on the confirmation (Davis teaches in Para. [0009] a receiving device of the processing server configured to receive a confirmation associated with the primary account number (i.e., provenance information or source information) from the computing system,…, wherein the payment request includes at least a reference value associated with a payment transaction (i.e., the reference value associated with the transaction indicates the claimed “a transaction in dependence on the confirmation”), the receiving device of the processing server is further configured to receive an acceptance request from the computing system, wherein the acceptance request includes at least the reference value, an acceptance address, one or more fee values, and a first digital signature generated by a third party and further teaches in Para. [0005] a transaction is agreed upon by two entities as parties thereof, where a third party is used to moderate the transaction…The moderator may provide a third party acknowledgement of a transaction for further verification thereof and may, in exemplary embodiments, act as a third party facilitator of settlement between the transacting entities).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of receiving a confirmation associated with the primary account number and using a third party which is used to moderate the transaction ([0009] and [0005]) as taught, by Davis into the teachings of Cohen into Fay invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to the method for enabling transactions to be conducted more easily with less resources expended by the transacting entities (Davis. [0005]).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen in view of Yang further in view of Slusar U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0089710 A1, (hereinafter Slusar).
Regarding claim 25. Cohen in view of Yang teaches the method of claim l.
Cohen in view of Yang does not explicitly teach determining a score associated with the object and/or the containing set and providing an alert if the score is below a threshold score.
However, Slusar teaches determining a score associated with the object and/or the containing set and providing an alert if the score is below a threshold score (Slusar teaches in Claim 5, determine a risk score for at least one of the one or more risk objects; output a first alert if the risk score is above a predetermined threshold; and output a second alert if the risk score is below the predetermined threshold).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of determining a score for objects based on a threshold (Claim 5) as taught, by Slusar into the teachings of Cohen into Yang invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to the risk map generation system determines and avoid the maximum risk score not to exceed the threshold value and thus helps the system interruption in an efficient manner.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen in view of Yang further in view of Martino et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0050855 A1, (hereinafter Martino).
Regarding claim 26. Cohen in view of Yang teaches the method of claim l.
Cohen further teaches determining a plurality of instances of the object recorded on the blockchain (Cohen teaches in Para. [0060] the ledger 131 may be part of a blockchain system for a cryptocurrency, an asset verification component (e.g., asset verification component 110 illustrated in FIG. 1 which includes a ledger 131 in a blockchain system 120) may perform one or more transactions using the cryptocurrency to access the ledger 131. For example, performing a transaction using the cryptocurrency (e.g., buying or selling the cryptocurrency) may allow the asset verification component to update the ledger 131 with a record of the transaction. The asset information 311 (i.e., object) may be included in the record of the transaction).
Cohen in view of Yang does not explicitly teach determining an order of instances, wherein the order is dependent on the transactions in which the object has been referenced, the method further comprising: transmitting export data to a node of the blockchain, which export data relates to the object and comprises an indication of the earlier instance.
However, Martino teaches determining an order of instances, wherein the order is dependent on the transactions in which the object has been referenced (Martino teaches in Para. [0041] “Ledger” is used in this disclosure to refer to an ordered series of messages that each detail a specific, command, action, and/or transaction to take place and further teaches in Para. [0153] distributed ledger 402 comprises a plurality of transactions 403a-403c. As shown in the example of system 400, each transaction 403a-403c comprises a unique and ordered transaction identifier (e.g., “112,” “113,” and so on), a transaction description (e.g., “(transfer “A” “B” 1500.0)”) that describes a description (e.g., by referencing a specific module), the method further comprising: transmitting export data to a node of the blockchain, which export data relates to the object and comprises an indication of the earlier instance (Martino teaches in Para. [0129] the management device 106 may receive block chain data from one or more of the node devices 102a-n and/or the server device 110, may apply a hash algorithm to the received data, and may transmit the encrypted data to each of the node devices 102a-n and the server device 110 (e.g., for storage in local copies of a blockchain-based ledger) further teaches in Para. [0146] the first instance (i.e., earlier instance) of the chain code 242a may cause the information detailing the transaction (e.g., received via a first interface 220a) to be transmitted to the blockchain services device 206, e.g., via the first network 204a…(Note that here the first instance (i.e., the earlier instance) received to be transmitted to one of the nodes devices 102a-n which indicates the transmission of the data which indicates the earlier instance)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of providing an ordered series in a blockchain system and transmitting the first instances to the one or more of the node devices 102a-n, and ordered transaction identifier, a transaction description that describes a description (e.g., by referencing a specific module), ([0041], [0153] and [0129]) as taught, by Martino into the teachings of Cohen into Yang invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to the efficiency and reuse of code and contracts is improved by allowing the import of other on-chain contracts.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen in view of Yang further in view of Fan et al. CN 109063183 A, (hereinafter Fan).
Regarding claim 27. Cohen in view of Yang teaches the method of claim 1.
Cohen in view of Yang does not explicitly teach determining a version of an interpreter associated with the blockchain at the time of receipt of the transaction; and transmitting an indicator of the version to the second node.
However, Fan teaches determining a version of an interpreter associated with the blockchain at the time of receipt of the transaction (Fan teaches [On Page. 6, lines 1-2] step 203, using the first transaction receipt is handled using the first executable object. For example, determined by 101 use of node First executable object handles the first transaction receipt further [on Page. 6, lines 16-29] in one example, the first executable object includes scripted code (i.e., version) which is related to the conventional block chain, because the transaction receipt data and the judging condition for different transaction is uncertain, so it can block the chain node to distinguish hard code, different from the traditional block chain, executable objects can be flexibly designed to process the transaction return receipt without modifying the node code…, first transaction receipt is handled based on implementing result. In this step, it first can hold The input data of row object is the data of the first transaction receipt, can (for example, passing through the interpreter at node) execute first can Object is executed to export implementing result as output data,…Also, see [Page. 7, lines 1-10]); and
transmitting an indicator of the version to the second node. (note that here the script code is the claimed “version” and thus, Fan teaches [On. Page. 6, lines 16-23] the first executable object comprises a script code. For example, the executable object may include script code, script code using a scripting language to compile the code… and further Fan teaches [On. Page. 5, in the 4th paragraph, lines 1-7] receiving and executing the first transaction to generate a first transaction receipt, first transaction includes identification information, the identification information represents executable objects to be used for processing the first transaction receipt of corresponding mark. For example, in FIG. 1 of the block chain network 100 node 101 receives (i.e., note that here the node 101 is the claimed “the second node” receives the transmitted the script code (i.e., version)) and executes the first transaction and the first transaction receipt, the first transaction receipt stored locally).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of using the first transaction receipt is handled using the first executable object and the method of using the first executable object that is a script code to be transmitted to the node ([On Page. 6, lines 1-2], [on Page. 6, lines 16-29] and [On. Page. 5, in the 4th paragraph, lines 1-7]) as taught, by Fan into Cohen in view of Yang invention. Oe would have been motivated to do so in order to the method enables efficiently processing the transaction receipt in a block chain node by deploying the executable objects in the block chain node and flexibly designing the executable objects without modifying a node code.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sanghvi (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0057565 A1) which discloses in Para. [0008]-[0009] about a first and a second blockchains and an incremental block to the section in the target system, the section and the incremental block forming a second blockchain.
Vintila et al. (AU. 2020/204289 Al).
Fawzy et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0084015 A1).
Simons (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0352080 A1).
Also, see additionally, the prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERHANU SHITAYEWOLDETSADIK whose telephone number is (571)270-7142. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at 5712723865. 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.
/BERHANU SHITAYEWOLDETADIK/Examiner, Art Unit 2455