DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
The response filed 05/04/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-24 are pending.
Claims 8-12 and 20-24 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-7 and 13-19 have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Regarding applicant’s arguments on Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. §101, the arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea because claim 1 merely recites limitations that are based on or involve the mathematical concept of blockchain technology.”. Examiner notes, the argument is moot as mathematical concept is not one of the abstract group given by the examiner
It is the applicant’s position that “claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea, because a person is not a node and thus would not perform "sending, by the first node, the first message[.]"” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claim(s) recite(s) processing transaction request. Specifically, the claims recite “determining, by a first [node], a first message; and sending, by the first [node], the first message, wherein the first message comprises at least one of request information or information about a first transaction, the request information is useable to request to modify a second transaction, the first transaction is a modified second transaction, the second transaction is stored in a first [blockchain], the first [blockchain] comprises N blocks, an ith block in the first [blockchain] comprises a first field and a second field, the second field is useable to store a second preset value or a second hash value of a previous block having a block height that is the same as a block height of the ith block, and in response to i=1, the first field is useable to store a first preset value, or in response to i being greater than 1 and less than or equal to N, the first field is useable to store a first hash value of a previous block having a block height that is different from the block height of the ith block, wherein i is an integer ranging from 1 to N, the first hash value is obtained according to a first hash function, same output information is obtained according to the first hash function under a first condition based on different input information, the second hash value is a hash value obtained according to a second hash function, and same output information fails to be obtained according to the second hash function under the first condition based on different input information.”, which is “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “Mental processes” of grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106) because the claims involve a series of steps for processing transaction request. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as the use of node, blockchain, processor and memory merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The processor and memory are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing transaction request) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
As analyzed above, the claim is directed to determining and sending transaction message. A transaction is between parties. Accordingly, it is “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106). Additionally, “determining a first message” can be performed with “pen and paper” which is “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Applicant further argues that “ “the claimed blockchain editability method is integrated into a practical application.” because “the recited blockchain editability method is directed to patent-eligible subject matter at least because the blockchain editability method integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application by improving the field of blockchain and the processing thereof.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner submits editing blockchain is not in the claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.
Additionally, the applicant argues that “in light of Ex Parte David L. Newman, McRO, Enfish and DDR Holdings, claim 1 is directed to the recited improvements and not to the abstract idea.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As analyzed above, the claim applies additional elements such as blockchain node in performing determining and sending a transaction message. It does not purport to improve the functioning of a computer, nor does it affect improvement in other technology or technical field (i.e., blockchain).
The applicant also argues that the claim “addresses specific technical problems in blockchain technology where the editing of a blockchain has emerged.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner submits editing blockchain is not in the claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.
Regarding applicant’s arguments on Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. §102, the arguments have been fully considered. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
It is the applicant’s position that the cited prior art Lin fail to teach claim 1 limitation “sending, by the first node, the first message, wherein the first message comprises at least one of request information or information about a first transaction, the request information is useable to request to modify a second transaction, the first transaction is a modified second transaction, the second transaction is stored in a first blockchain, the first blockchain comprises N blocks, an ith block in the first blockchain comprises a first field and a second field, the second field is useable to store a second preset value or a second hash value of a previous block having a block height that is the same as a block height of the ith block, and in response to i=1, the first field is useable to store a first preset value, or in response to i being greater than 1 and less than or equal to N, the first field is useable to store a first hash value of a previous block having a block height that is different from the block height of the ith block, wherein i is an integer ranging from 1 to N, the first hash value is obtained according to a first hash function, same output information is obtained according to the first hash function under a first condition based on different input information, the second hash value is a hash value obtained according to a second hash function, and same output information fails to be obtained according to the second hash function under the first condition based on different input information.”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Lin ¶0006 discloses “a blockchain node Bi receives a block editing transaction, which is used to edit original block content m of a block Qi to target block content m', wherein a parent hash corresponding to the block Qi is recorded in a block header of a block Qi+1, the parent hash is generated through calculation by using original block content m, a public key H, and an original random number r, the public key H is generated through calculation by using node public keys h1 to hn respectively corresponding to blockchain nodes B1 to Bn, and i□ [1, n] and i is a positive integer;”. This teaches claim 1 limitation “sending, by the first node, the first message, wherein the first message comprises at least one of request information or information about a first transaction, the request information is useable to request to modify a second transaction, the first transaction is a modified second transaction, the second transaction is stored in a first blockchain, the first blockchain comprises N blocks, an ith block in the first blockchain comprises a first field and a second field, the second field is useable to store a second preset value or a second hash value of a previous block having a block height that is the same as a block height of the ith block, and in response to i=1, the first field is useable to store a first preset value, or in response to i being greater than 1 and less than or equal to N, the first field is useable to store a first hash value of a previous block having a block height that is different from the block height of the ith block,”
Lin ¶0021 discloses “The hash operation can be performed on any input content and a corresponding hash value can be output.” It teaches claim 1 limitation “wherein i is an integer ranging from 1 to N, the first hash value is obtained according to a first hash function,”
Lin ¶0033 discloses “In the related technologies, a commonly used hash algorithm f( ) has only one input. For example, if the hash value of block Qi is calculated, an input is the block content m of block Qi, i.e. the hash value is f(m). If block content m needs to be changed to block content m', it is necessary to just make a hash collision between m and m' to allow f(m)=f(m'), and such a probability is almost negligible. Therefore, the block content m actually cannot be modified as needed. However, in the technical solutions of the present specification, a used hash algorithm f( ) has two inputs. For example, if the hash value of block Qi is calculated, inputs are block content m and random number r of block Qi, i.e. the hash value is f(m, r). If block content m needs to be changed to block content m', calculated hash value f(m, r)=f(m', r') can be ensured only by identifying random number r' matching block content m'. Therefore, block content m can be modified to any block content m' as needed.” It teaches claim 1 limitation “same output information is obtained according to the first hash function under a first condition based on different input information, the second hash value is a hash value obtained according to a second hash function, and same output information fails to be obtained according to the second hash function under the first condition based on different input information.”
Therefore, Lin teaches the claim 1.
Claim 13 is rejected for the same reason.
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 1-7 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Analysis
In the instant case, claims 1-7 are directed to a method, claims 13-19 are directed to an apparatus. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claim(s) recite(s) processing transaction request. Specifically, the claims recite “determining, by a first [node], a first message; and sending, by the first [node], the first message, wherein the first message comprises at least one of request information or information about a first transaction, the request information is useable to request to modify a second transaction, the first transaction is a modified second transaction, the second transaction is stored in a first [blockchain], the first [blockchain] comprises N blocks, an ith block in the first [blockchain] comprises a first field and a second field, the second field is useable to store a second preset value or a second hash value of a previous block having a block height that is the same as a block height of the ith block, and in response to i=1, the first field is useable to store a first preset value, or in response to i being greater than 1 and less than or equal to N, the first field is useable to store a first hash value of a previous block having a block height that is different from the block height of the ith block, wherein i is an integer ranging from 1 to N, the first hash value is obtained according to a first hash function, same output information is obtained according to the first hash function under a first condition based on different input information, the second hash value is a hash value obtained according to a second hash function, and same output information fails to be obtained according to the second hash function under the first condition based on different input information.”, which is “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “Mental processes” of grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106) because the claims involve a series of steps for processing transaction request. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as the use of node, blockchain, processor and memory merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The processor and memory are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing transaction request) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using node, blockchain, processor and memory to process transaction request steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2 and 14 describe the first hash function. Dependent claims 3 and 15 describe the second message. Dependent claims 4 and 16 describe the first block. Dependent claims 5 and 17 describe the accumulator. Dependent claims 6 and 18 describe the transaction information and a witness. Dependent claims 7 and 19 describe the simplified witness. These claims further recite the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity and Mental processes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as the use of node, blockchain, processor and memory merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims simply recite the concept of processing transaction request. The claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field.
The use of a node, blockchain, processor and memory as tools to implement the abstract idea does not render the claim patent eligible because it does not provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by US Application Publication US20210314164A1 (“Lin et al.”).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Lin et al. discloses:
a processor and a memory, (Fig. 5)
determining, by a first node, a first message; and (¶0006)
sending, by the first node, the first message, wherein the first message comprises at least one of request information or information about a first transaction, the request information is useable to request to modify a second transaction, the first transaction is a modified second transaction, the second transaction is stored in a first blockchain, the first blockchain comprises N blocks, an ith block in the first blockchain comprises a first field and a second field, the second field is useable to store a second preset value or a second hash value of a previous block having a block height that is the same as a block height of the ith block, and in response to i=1, the first field is useable to store a first preset value, or in response to i being greater than 1 and less than or equal to N, the first field is useable to store a first hash value of a previous block having a block height that is different from the block height of the ith block, (Fig. 1; ¶0006 and ¶¶0019-20)
wherein i is an integer ranging from 1 to N, the first hash value is obtained according to a first hash function,(¶0021) same output information is obtained according to the first hash function under a first condition based on different input information, the second hash value is a hash value obtained according to a second hash function, and same output information fails to be obtained according to the second hash function under the first condition based on different input information. (¶0033)
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Lin et al. discloses all limitations as described above. Lin et al. further discloses:
wherein the first hash function is a chameleon hash function, and the second hash function is a non-chameleon hash function. (¶0045)
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Lin et al. discloses all limitations as described above. Lin et al. further discloses:
receiving, by the first node, at least one random number from at least one node, wherein one node of the at least one node corresponds to one random number of the at least one random number, and both the first node and the at least one node are in the first blockchain; (¶0029)
determining, by the first node, a first random number based on the at least one random number, wherein the first random number is useable to obtain a first hash value of a block storing the first transaction; and (¶0029)
sending, by the first node, a second message, wherein the second message comprises the first random number. (¶0029)
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Lin et al. discloses all limitations as described above. Lin et al. further discloses:
generating, by the first node, a first block based on the first random number, wherein the first block is useable to store the first transaction, the first block is a modified second block, the second block is useable to store the second transaction, a first hash value of the second block is the same as a first hash value of the first block, and the second message comprises information about the first block. (¶0029)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 and 17-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action and if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The reason for allowance will be furnished upon allowance of the application.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN111639935A (“Wei et al.”) discloses a blockchain ledger modification method. The method mainly includes: improving the chameleon hash algorithm, and the improved algorithm allows multiple nodes to jointly generate the chameleon hash public and private keys ;Using the improved chameleon hash algorithm to replace the original hash function of the blockchain, thus realizing transaction modification and verification without affecting the integrity verification of the forward and backward blocks of the corresponding high-level blockchain ledger. Removed functionality; improved usability and accountability of editable blockchain systems in some special cases. The modification scheme of the present invention has the advantages of better block compression rate, faster block modification speed and higher security, etc., and is compatible with most existing blockchain systems on the market.
CN112541195B (“Ding et al.”) discloses a method and device for constructing an editable blockchain, in which a public key of a blockchain regulator is generated according to a bilinear mapping, and transaction information is recorded in each generated block, and each block is arranged in a chain according to the generation time to form a chain editable blockchain. Since the block check field is added in the embodiment of the present invention relative to the existing chain blockchain structure, when a block needs to be re-edited, it is not necessary to re-edit all blockchains after the block, thereby reducing the amount of calculation, and the editable blockchain structure provided in the embodiment of the present invention mainly relies on the public key of the blockchain regulator, so there is no problem of secret key leakage, and security is improved. Since the embodiment of the present invention still adopts a general chain blockchain structure, the embodiment of the present invention provides a general editable blockchain structure, which can reduce the amount of calculation, improve security, and meet the editing requirements of multiple scenarios and multiple fine-grained levels
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YINGYING ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)272-5308. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00am - 5:00pm ET.
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, John W Hayes can be reached on 571-272-6708. 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.
/YINGYING ZHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights