DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 6 and 11 have been amended.
Claims 2 and 7 have been cancelled
Claims 1, 3-6 and 8-15 are pending.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/10/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Argument – The applicant argues, in regards to the 103 rejection of claims 1, 6 and 11, that the combination of Trim, Wei and Soundararajan does not disclose the amended limitations “storing a reputation value in each of the IoT devices” and “filtering remaining others of the IoT devices according to the reputation value stored in each of the others of the IoT devices falling short of a threshold reputation value” (see applicant’s remarks; pages 13 and 14).
Response to the argument - The examiner submits that the applicant’s arguments do not constitute a complete reply to the office action, and therefore do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111 (b) and (c) because they do not specifically point out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references and do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references. Further, the arguments do not show how the amendments avoid such references.
In particular, the applicant merely recites the amended limitations of the claims and then states that so much is lacking in the combination of Trim, Wei and Soundararajan as none of the references refer to storage of a reputation value within a corresponding IoT device that is subsequently used to filter IoT devices according to reputation value (see applicant’s remarks; page 14), without specifically pointing out the differences between the claim limitations and the references.
However, the examiner submits that Trim does in fact disclose the amended limitations “storing a reputation value in each of the IoT devices” and “filtering remaining others of the IoT devices according to the reputation value stored in each of the others of the IoT devices falling short of a threshold reputation value”, as shown in the rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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, 3-6 and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trim et al. (U.S. 2020/0302562 A1) in view of Wei et al. (U.S. 2025/0200172 A1), and further in view of Soundararajan et al. (U.S. 2021/0126796 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 6 and 11, Trim discloses a trust decisioning method amongst a collection of Internet of Things (IoT) devices in an IoT ecosystem (see Trim; paragraphs 0029, 0055 and 0071; Trim discloses a plurality of IoT devices in a IoT system using a blockchain ledger), the method comprising:
establishing a common distributed ledger for the collection of IoT devices in the IoT ecosystem (see Trim; paragraphs 0025, 0029 and 0055; Trim discloses a blockchain ledger can be a distributed ledger, i.e. “common distributed ledger”, that can be distributed among members of devices, such as, a plurality of IoT sensor devices, i.e. “collection of IoT devices in the IoT ecosystem”);
storing a reputation value in each of the IoT devices (see Trim; paragraphs 0025, 0052 and 0078; Trim discloses members of a blockchain, such as, member nodes defined by devices and an IoT system, i.e. “IoT devices”. Each member who is registered has a reputation rating that can be tracked over time and recorded in data repository, i.e. “storing a reputation value…”);
filtering remaining others of the IoT devices according to the reputation value stored in each of the others of the IoT devices falling short of a threshold reputation value (see Trim; paragraphs 0052, 0054, and 0078-0080; Trim discloses member nodes including devices in the IoT system, i.e. “IoT devices”, having reputation ratings exceeding a threshold and classification of the members as validators based on the reputation. Further, members may experience reduction in the reputation rating which can result in the member not being able to validate, e.g. not classified as a validator. In other words, the members that exceed the threshold for reputation ratings are classified as validators, while members that have a reduction in reputation ratings, therefore do not exceed the threshold, i.e. “falling short of a threshold reputation value”, are not classified as validators, i.e. “filtering remaining others of the IoT devices” );
selecting a voting set of the filtered remaining others of the IoT devices, the voting set mediating a selection of one of the IoT devices in the voting set of the remaining others of the IoT devices to specify a creation of a block in the common distributed ledger to which the security data is to be written by each one of the IoT devices in the collection, the mediation comprising, in each IoT device of the voting set (see Trim; paragraphs 0023, 0026, 0027, 0029, 0052-0056, 0075 and 0078; Trim discloses a distributed ledger can be distributed to be associated with each of a plurality of members, e.g. IoT enterprise members, of devices , i.e. “IoT devices”, in a blockchain network. An authority can mediate, i.e. “mediating a selection of… “, rights of different classifications of members with respect to the blockchain ledger, such as, granting transaction authoring. A consensus of members is used for voting in which certain members are permissioned as validators, i.e. “selecting a voting set of remaining others of the IoT devices”, based on a ratings decision process to validate a candidate block to be added by a authoring member, i.e. “one of the IoT devices…to specify a creation of a block…”, to the distributed ledger, i.e. “…in the common distributed ledger”, to store transaction data);
a winning one of the IoT devices of the lottery communicating to the remaining ones of the IoT devices in the collection a correspondingly proposed particular block in which to store the security data (see Trim; paragraphs 0025, 0052, 0053, 0055, 0079, 0122 and 0136; Trim discloses in the IoT sensor system, the member with the highest reputation, based on the accumulated rating process, i.e. “winning one of the IoT device of the lottery”, may author the candidate block by adding the candidate block, i.e. “proposed particular block”, to the blockchain ledger which is distributed to all members, i.e. “communicating to the remaining ones of the IoT devices in the collection a correspondingly proposed particular block”);
storing the security data by each the IoT devices in the collection in the corresponding local copy of the common distributed ledger in the particular block proposed by the winning one of the IoT device (see Trim; paragraphs 0024, 0025, 0079, 0094 and 0139; Trim discloses cryptographic transaction data, i.e. “security data”. The member with the highest reputation, i.e. “winning one of the IoT device”, authors the candidate block by sending the transaction data and the received transaction data is processed in the candidate block, i.e. “in the particular block proposed by the winning one of the IoT device”, of the distributed blockchain ledger by each member in the IoT system, i.e. “storing the security data by each the IoT devices…in the corresponding local copy of the common distributed ledger”).
While Trim discloses “conducting a lottery amongst the remaining others of the IoT devices of the voting set” (see Trim; paragraphs 0075, 0078, 0079 and 0122; Trim discloses from a pool of ratings, i.e. “conducting a lottery” by pooling the ratings together, determining which member, i.e. the “amongst the remaining others of the IoT devices”, has the highest reputation by accumulating the reputations, based on a rating process, i.e. “…devices of the voting set”), Trim does not explicitly disclose randomly generating a sortition lot and proposing a particular block to be added to the distributed ledger in which the security data is to be written; and conducting a lottery amongst the remaining others of the IoT devices of the voting set according to each randomly generated sortition lot.
In analogous art, Wei discloses randomly generating a sortition lot and proposing a particular block to be added to the distributed ledger in which the security data is to be written (see Wei; paragraphs 0031, 0032 and 0036; Wei discloses in a committee selection a cryptographic sortition scheme is used to randomly choose a subset of validators, i.e. “randomly generating a sortition lot”. And a validator proposes new blocks to be added to a blockchain of a distributed ledger to achieve security guarantees, i.e. “proposing a particular block to be added to the distributed ledger in which the security data is to be written”); and
conducting a lottery amongst the remaining others of the IoT devices of the voting set according to each randomly generated sortition lot (see Wei; paragraphs 0027, 0031, and 0037; Wei discloses a voting based mechanism among the random formation of committee members for IoT systems, i.e. “the remaining others of the IoT devices of the voting set”. The sortition scheme i.e. “randomly generated sortition lot”, to randomly choose, i.e. “conducting a lottery” a subset of validators from the committee members).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Trim and Wei because they both disclose features of blockchains being used by IoT devices, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated Wei’s feature a sortition scheme into the system of Trim in order to provide the benefit of improved verification by allowing the consensus vote for a candidate block (Trim; paragraph 0075) to be done from a randomly selected subset of validators using proof-of-credit voting for the consensus protocol (see Wei; paragraphs 0031 and 0037).
While Trim discloses “establishing a common distributed ledger for the collection of IoT devices in the IoT ecosystem”, as discussed above, the combination of Trim and Wei does not explicitly disclose invoking in only one of the IoT devices of the collection of IoT devices, a directive to write security data to a corresponding local copy of the common distributed ledger for all of the IoT devices of the collection.
In analogous art, Soundararajan discloses invoking in only one of the IoT devices of the collection of IoT devices, a directive to write security data to a corresponding local copy of the common distributed ledger for all of the IoT devices of the collection (see Soundararajan; paragraphs 0018, 0019, 0024, 0025, 0027 and 0029; Soundararajan discloses a blockchain system may include any number of blockchain IoT devices, i.e. “collection of IoT devices in an IoT system”, that are participating nodes in the system in which a blockchain IoT device, i.e. “only one of the IoT devices”, generates and sends event data in response to an event. The event data may be a transaction, i.e. “security data”, that the blockchain IoT device, e.g. participating node, writes on a distributed ledger and each participating node includes a copy of a distributed ledger, i.e. “write security data to a corresponding local copy of a common distributed ledger”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Trim, Wei and Soundararajan because they all disclose features of blockchains being used by IoT devices, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated Soundararajan’s feature of generating event data for copies of a distributed ledger into the combined system of Trim and Wei in order to provide the benefit of improved verification by allowing the consensus vote for a candidate block (Trim; paragraph 0075) to include a consent from a majority of participating nodes for approval (see Soundararajan; paragraphs 0041 and 0058).
Further, Trim discloses the additional limitations of claim 6, host computing platform comprising a computer with memory and one or processing units including one or more processing cores (see Trim; paragraph 0007; Trim discloses the system can include program instructions executable by the one or more processor via the memory to perform); network communications circuitry adapted to communicate data to and from the memory over a global data communications network (see Trim; paragraph 0007; Trim discloses the system can include program instructions executable by the one or more processor via the memory to perform); and a trust decisioning module comprising computer program instructions stored in the memory enabled while executing by at least one of the processing units of the host computing platform (see Trim; paragraph 0006; Trim discloses a computer readable storage medium readable by one or more processing circuit and storing instructions for execution by one or more processor for performing).
Further, Trim discloses the additional limitations of claim 11, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having program instructions stored therein, the instructions being executable by at least one processing core of a processing unit to cause the processing unit to perform (see Trim; paragraph 0006; Trim discloses a computer readable storage medium readable by one or more processing circuit and storing instructions for execution by one or more processor for performing).
Regarding claims 3, 8 and 13, Trim, Wei and Soundararajan disclose all the limitations of claims 1, 6 and 11, as discussed above, and further the combination of Trim, Wei and Soundararajan discloses wherein the distributed ledger is a blockchain (see Trim; paragraphs 0023 and 0025; Trim discloses the blockchain ledger can be a distributed ledger that can be distributed to each of a plurality of members of the blockchain network).
Regarding claims 4, 9 and 14, Trim, Wei and Soundararajan disclose all the limitations of claims 1, 6 and 11, as discussed above, and further the combination of Trim, Wei and Soundararajan clearly discloses wherein the randomly generated sortition lot is randomly generated utilizing a distributed verifiable randomization function (VRF) (see Wei; paragraph 0031; Wei discloses a Verifiable Random Function (VRF) based cryptographic sortition scheme, i.e. “randomly generated sortition lot”, to randomly choose a subset of validators).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivation as was applied in claims 1, 6 and 11.
Regarding claims 5, 10 and 15, Trim, Wei and Soundararajan disclose all the limitations of claims 1, 6 and 11, as discussed above, and further the combination of Trim, Wei and Soundararajan discloses wherein the winning IoT device has a randomly generated sortition lot with a highest value amongst other randomly generated sortition lots of the IoT devices of the voting set (see Trim; paragraphs 0075, 0078, 0079, 0122 and 0136; Trim discloses in a pool of ratings determining which member, i.e. “winning IoT device”, has the highest reputation, i.e. “a highest value”, by accumulating the reputations, based on the rating process among all the validator members, i.e. “amongst other IoT devices of the voting set”; Further, Wei discloses the use of “randomly generated sortition lots” by a sortition scheme randomly choosing a subset of validators for proposing a block to be added to the blockchain of the distributed ledger; see Wei; paragraphs 0031, 0032 and 0036).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivation as was applied in claims 1, 6 and 11.
Regarding claim 12, Trim, Wei and Soundararajan disclose all the limitations of claim 11, as discussed above, and further the combination of Trim, Wei and Soundararajan discloses wherein the IoT devices of the voting set are selected from amongst the IoT devices of the collection according to each of the selected ones of the IoT devices having a threshold reputation value (see Trim; paragraphs 0054, 0079 and 0080; Trim discloses reputation of a members exceeding a threshold and classification of the members as validators, i.e. “selected from amongst the IoT device”, based on the reputation, i.e. “according to each of the selected ones of the IoT devices having a threshold reputation value”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Manningham et al. (U.S. 2024/0143577 A1) discloses a distributed ledger may comprise a blockchain in which one or more transactions are recorded. The distributed ledger record may be stored based on a node validating the record and based on a reputation score of the node.
Wells et al. (U.S. 2020/0267151 A1) discloses associating reputation to device registration and a blockchain registry can be accessed in response to a request.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM A COONEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5:00pm (every other Fri off).
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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. 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.
/A.A.C/Examiner, Art Unit 2458 06/17/26
/UMAR CHEEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights