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 .
Response to Remarks/Arguments
This Office Action is in response to the communications for the present US application number 18/599,291 last filed on December 16th, 2025.
Claims 1 and 7 were amended.
Claims 1-12 remain pending and have been examined, directed to COMPUTER-IMPLEMENTED METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR STORING VERIFIABLE DATA.
Upon further review of the latest claim amendments along with the applicant’s representative’s response, the examiner reviewed the applied reference again and respectfully disagrees.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection, using Ford, and using amended independent claim 1 for discussion purposes, the applicant’s representative primarily argued that Ford’s use of the term “blocks” does not refer to Merkle DAG structures and that claimed three distinct elements were not referenced or identified, despite citations for all the limitations preceding the limitation in question.
More specifically, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and remains unpersuaded because, first, the present application also mentions the overall goal with data integrity, authenticity, and verifiability with blockchain (¶ [0003]). Second, each of the objects (i.e., the metadata object, the claim object, and proof object) were interpreted and mapped in the preceding steps, all distinct and have their own labels/identifiers. Third, Ford’s cited section, such as ¶ [0082] or [0048] that the representative referenced and argued also was specific in describing how the data was preserved while moving into specifically a Merkle DAG structure. The Merkle DAG structure would capture and preserve all the intermediary steps which as it’s already been established, can have their own identifiers/labels/blocks/objects or any other synonym. The Merkle DAG is also a unique or specific type of DAG, but there is no issue, since Ford specifically discloses of moving and preserving data within a Merkle DAG structure. For at least these reasons, the Examiner again remains unpersuaded at this time.
The other independent claim 7 was similarly amended and argued following claim 1 and thus was similarly rejected under the same rationale.
The remaining dependent claims were not specifically argued at this time.
Applicant's arguments were considered but they were not found persuasive. See the following claim rejections for further clarifications with added emphasis on the points previously disclosed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2020/0387501 A1 to Ford, Daniel (referred to hereafter as “Ford”).
As to claim 1, Ford further discloses a computer-implemented method for storing verifiable data, the method comprising:
generating a metadata object (e.g., Ford: ¶¶ 47, 97, 100 and Fig. 6B);
generating at least one claim object (This could be referring to any “claim” that’s of interest/focus and/or application, which Ford’s system can accommodate for, along with proof of work blocks later on, e.g., Ford: ¶¶ 74, 81-82 and Figs. 4A-B and 5A);
generating a proof object (proof of work blocks, e.g., Ford: ¶¶ 34 and 76);
generating multiple identifiers, wherein each of the identifiers corresponds to the metadata object, the at least one claim object and the proof object, respectively (Every block would have its own corresponding label or identifier, including any of the “claim” blocks or proof of work blocks, within a Merkle DAG or as part of the blockchain, (e.g., Ford: ¶¶ 48-49, 62, 130 and Fig. 6B). To elaborate further, following what’s established above, there are already identifiers or labels to distinctly identify 1) a metadata object (¶¶ 97-100, the metadata block can be separated out into multiple blocks too), 2) claim object (already above as it can refer to any topic of interest ¶¶ 74, 81-82 and Figs. 4A-B and 5A) and 3) proof object (¶¶ 34 and 76)); and
generating a Merkle directed acyclic graph (Merkle DAG) based on the multiple identifiers, the metadata object, the at least one claim object, and the proof object, wherein the Merkle DAG is constructed by nodes which are created based on the multiple identifiers (Ford’s system can have data or partial orders be stored as blocks in a Merkle DAG structure. Put another way, each of these transactions or partial transactions, which are still identifiable given the identifiers are tracked, whether we refer to them as blocks or objects or by their identifiers, can be moved into Merkle DAG data structures, preserving all the of steps and partial steps and the proof of work, and all of the elements listed above, e.g., Ford: ¶¶ 48, 81-82 and Fig. 4A-B).
As to claim 2, Ford further discloses the computer-implemented method for storing verifiable data of claim 1, the method further comprises:
transmitting the metadata object, the at least one claim object and the proof object to a first storage system, and storing the metadata object, the at least one claim object and the proof object via the first storage system (the objects or blocks would be stored within the Merkle DAG structures and/or with smart contracts in the blockchain, e.g., Ford: ¶¶ 59).
As to claim 3, Ford further discloses the computer-implemented method for storing verifiable data of claim 2, wherein the first storage system is a storage system having authority control over the objects (the data objects stored with the smart contracts for example would have authorization requirements, Ford: ¶¶ 59 and 69-71).
As to claim 4, Ford further discloses the computer-implemented method for storing verifiable data of claim 1, the method further comprises:
transmitting the Merkle DAG to a second storage system, and storing the Merkle DAG via the second storage system (The data pertaining to the Merkle DAG would be saved to a storage database or a ledger, e.g., Ford: ¶¶ 34, 37, 39, and Fig. 6A and corresponding related sections).
As to claim 5, Ford further discloses the computer-implemented method for storing verifiable data of claim 4, wherein the second storage system is a Ledger database (e.g., Ford: ¶¶ 34, 37, 39, and Fig. 6A and corresponding related sections).
As to claim 6, Ford further discloses the computer-implemented method for storing verifiable data of claim 1, wherein each of the multiple identifiers has hash information, respectively (Every transaction record would have its corresponding hash, e.g., Ford: ¶¶ 38 and 75).
As to claims 7-12, see the similar corresponding rejections of claims 1-6.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Xiang Yu whose telephone number is (571)270-5695. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-3:00 (PST/PDT).
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 (571)272-3865. 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.
/X.Y./Examiner, Art Unit 2455
/DAVID R LAZARO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights