To send me yourt 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 .
In response to Applicant’s claims filed on April 12, 2024, claims 1-17 are now pending for examination in the application.
“The 112 rejection under 35 USC 112 set forth in the 07/29/2025 office action is hereby withdrawn.”
Response to Arguments
This office action is in response to amendment filed 07/29/2025. In this action claim(s) Claim(s) 1, 3, 10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hardin et al. (US Pub. No. 20210273812) in view of Vinayagamurthy et al. (US Pub. No. 20230022338). The Vinayagamurthy et al. reference has been added to address the amendment of wherein the index has the encrypted original data as a key and the block number and the transaction ID as values.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, on Claim Rejections - 35 USC 101 accordance with the "2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance" (published on 1/7/2019 in Fed, Register, Vol. 84, No. 4 at pgs. 50-57, hereinafter referred to as the "2019 PEG").
Step 1. in accordance with Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted the claim methods (claims 1-9) and device (claims 10-15) are directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter and therefore satisfies Step 1.
Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG, it is noted that the independent claims recite an abstract idea falling within the Mental Processes & Mathematical Concepts enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG. Examiner is of the position that independent claims 1, 7, and 10 are directed towards the Mathematical Concepts Grouping of Abstract Ideas.
Independent claim(s) 1 recites the following limitations directed towards a Mental Processes & Mathematical Concepts:
(c) encrypting, by the blockchain data search device, the original data and creating an index for the original data including the encrypted original data, the block number, and the transaction ID (The limitation recites a mathematical concept of encrypting data),
wherein the index has the encrypted original data as a key and the block number and the transaction ID as values,
wherein operation (b) comprises, when the original data is numeric data, applying, by the blockchain data search device, an order-preserving encryption (OPE) algorithm to encrypt the original data (The limitation recites a mathematical concept of encrypting data).
Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A, prong two of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because of the recitation in claim(s) 1:
(a) requesting, by the blockchain data search device, the blockchain network to store the original data (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to storing data) and
receiving a block number of a block in which the original data is stored and a transaction identifier (ID) from the blockchain network when storage of the original data is completed (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to receiving data).
Step 2B. Similar to the analysis under 2A Prong Two, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Because the additional elements of the independent claims amount to insignificant extra solution activity and/or mere instructions, the additional elements do not add significantly more to the judicial exception such that the independent claims as a whole would be patent eligible.
Independent claim(s) 7 recites the following limitations directed towards a Mental Processes & Mathematical Concepts:
(b) encrypting, by the blockchain data search device, search condition data included in the query (The limitation recites a mathematical concept of encrypting data) and searching for a pre-created index using the encrypted search condition data (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to search for an index)
to extract a block number of a block in which the original data is stored and a transaction identifier (ID) (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to extract data),
wherein the index has the encrypted original data as a key and the block number and the transaction ID as values,
wherein operation (b) comprises, when the original data is numeric data, applying, by the blockchain data search device, an order-preserving encryption (OPE) algorithm to encrypt the original data (The limitation recites a mathematical concept of encrypting data).
Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A, prong two of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because of the recitation in claim(s) 7:
(a) receiving, by a blockchain data search device, a query about original data stored in a blockchain network from a user application (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to receiving data).
Step 2B. Similar to the analysis under 2A Prong Two, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Because the additional elements of the independent claims amount to insignificant extra solution activity and/or mere instructions, the additional elements do not add significantly more to the judicial exception such that the independent claims as a whole would be patent eligible.
Independent claim(s) 10 recites the following limitations directed towards a Mental Processes & Mathematical Concepts:
create an index for the original data including the encrypted original data, the block number, and the transaction ID (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to create an index),
encrypt the original data (The limitation recites a mathematical concept of encrypting data)
wherein the index has the encrypted original data as a key and the block number and the transaction ID as values (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to create an index),
wherein operation (b) comprises, when the original data is numeric data, applying, by the blockchain data search device, an order-preserving encryption (OPE) algorithm to encrypt the original data (The limitation recites a mathematical concept of encrypting data).
Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A, prong two of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because of the recitation in claim(s) 10:
a memory configured to store computer-readable instructions (i.e., as a generic processor/component performing a generic computer function); and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions (i.e., as a generic processor/component performing a generic computer function),
wherein the at least one processor executes the instructions to (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to receiving data),
request the blockchain network to store the original data (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to storing data),
receive a block number of a block in which the original data is stored and a transaction identifier (ID) from the blockchain network when storage of the original data is completed (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to receiving data),
store the index in the memory (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to storing data).
Step 2B. Similar to the analysis under 2A Prong Two, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Because the additional elements of the independent claims amount to insignificant extra solution activity and/or mere instructions, the additional elements do not add significantly more to the judicial exception such that the independent claims as a whole would be patent eligible.
Therefore, independent claim(s) 1, 7, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
With respect to claim(s) 2:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
wherein operation (c) comprises applying, by the blockchain data search device, a different encryption method according to a type of original data to encrypt the original data (The limitation recites a mathematical concept of encrypting data).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no
additional elements to provide practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 3:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
wherein operation (c) comprises, when the original data is a string, applying, by the blockchain data search device, an encryption algorithm for matching the original data with the encrypted data on a one-to-one basis to encrypt the original data (The limitation recites a mathematical concept of encrypting data).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no
additional elements to provide practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 5:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
Examiner is of the position the dependent claim is directed toward additional elements.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
wherein operation (c) comprises, when an index stored in a memory exceeds a range specified by a division criterion, storing, by the blockchain data search device, index data corresponding to the range specified by the division criterion in a new file (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to storing data).
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 6:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
Examiner is of the position the dependent claim is directed toward additional elements.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
wherein the division criterion is set on the basis of any one or a combination of a time period, a block number, and a data size (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to storing data).
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 8:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
(d) combining, by the blockchain data search device, the received blockchain data to generate final blockchain data
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
(c) receiving, by the blockchain data search device, blockchain data from a plurality of nodes included in the blockchain network on the basis of the block number and the transaction ID (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to receiving data);
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 9:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
wherein operation (b) comprises searching for a plurality of pre-created partial indexes using the encrypted search condition data to extract the block number of the block in which the original data is stored and the transaction ID (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to extract data).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no
additional elements to provide practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 11:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
Examiner is of the position the dependent claim is directed toward additional elements.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
wherein the classification decision subjected to quality assurance is categorized as correct, becomes a part of future machine learning classification model training, and is incorporated into the corresponding training set (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to submit data).
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 10:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
wherein content delivered within non-textual information may be processed by the classification model (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to processing data).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no
additional elements to provide practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 11:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
wherein the at least one processor encrypts the original data by applying a different encryption method according to a type of original data (The limitation recites a mathematical concept of encrypting data).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no
additional elements to provide practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 12:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
wherein, when the original data is a string, the at least one processor applies an encryption algorithm for matching the original data with the encrypted data on a one-to-one basis (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to matching data)
to encrypt the original data (The limitation recites a mathematical concept of encrypting data).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no
additional elements to provide practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 14:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
Examiner is of the position the dependent claim is directed toward additional elements.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
wherein, when an index stored in the memory exceeds a range specified by a division criterion, the at least one processor stores index data corresponding to the range specified by the division criterion in a new file through the storage device (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to storing data).
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 15:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
wherein, when a query about the original data stored in the blockchain network is received from the user application, the at least one processor encrypts search condition data included in the query (The limitation recites a mathematical concept of encrypting data)
and searches for a pre-created index using the encrypted search condition data to extract the block number of the block in which the original data is stored and the transaction ID (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to extract data).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no
additional elements to provide practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 16:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
generates final blockchain data by combining the blockchain data (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to generate data).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
wherein the at least one processor receives blockchain data from a plurality of nodes included in the blockchain network on the basis of the block number and the transaction ID (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to receiving data), and
transmits the final blockchain data to the user application (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to transmitting data).
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 17:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
wherein the at least one processor creates a plurality of pre-created partial indexes including the encrypted search condition data, the block number, and the transaction ID (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to create an index1)
and extracts the block number of the block in which the original data is stored and the transaction ID by simultaneously searching for the plurality of partial indexes using the encrypted search condition data (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to extract data).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no
additional elements to provide practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hardin et al. (US Pub. No. 20210273812) in view of Vinayagamurthy et al. (US Pub. No. 20230022338).
With respect to claim 1, Hardin et al. teaches a method of creating an index for blockchain data, the method comprising operations of:
(a) receiving, by a blockchain data search device, original data to be stored in a blockchain network from a user application (Paragraph 18 discloses receive confidential data and information from a number of devices, such as smartphones and mobile health (mHealth) devices, then store and process that input and information using a blockchain and trusted execution environment (TEE) components);
(b) requesting, by the blockchain data search device, the blockchain network to store the original data and receiving a block number of a block in which the original data is stored and a transaction identifier (ID) from the blockchain network when storage of the original data is completed (Paragraph 18 discloses receive confidential data and information from a number of devices, such as smartphones and mobile health (mHealth) devices, then store and process that input and information using a blockchain and trusted execution environment (TEE) components and Paragraph 63 discloses asymmetric keys for identifying and authenticating data subjects and data sources, as well as symmetric keys for protecting the confidentiality of sensitive health data); and
(c) encrypting, by the blockchain data search device, the original data and creating an index for the original data including the encrypted original data, the block number, and the transaction ID (Paragraph 7 discloses encrypting the message with a data key unique to the device to form encrypted data and Paragraph 54 discloses off-chain data store 114 is any storage device that is capable of storing a data item and returning an ‘index’ that can later be used to retrieve that same item. It is an immutable data store, and needs no other database features (like indexing, searching, or manipulating data)).
Hardin et al. does not disclose wherein the index has the encrypted original data as a key and the block number and the transaction ID as values, wherein operation (b) comprises, when the original data is numeric data, applying, by the blockchain data search device, an order-preserving encryption (OPE) algorithm to encrypt the original data.
However, Vinayagamurthy et al. teaches wherein the index has the encrypted original data as a key and the block number and the transaction ID as values (Paragraph 19 discloses an index manager 114), wherein operation (b) comprises, when the original data is numeric data, applying, by the blockchain data search device, an order-preserving encryption (OPE) algorithm to encrypt the original data (Paragraph 20 discloses core database exposes an ordered key-value store with transactions, and the transactions are able to read or write multiple keys stored on any machine in the cluster while fully supporting ACID properties and Paragraph 19 discloses an order preserving encryption (OPE) manager).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing data of invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hardin et al. with Vinayagamurthy et al. This would have provided improved data security. See Vinayagamurthy et al. Paragraph 3-5.
The Hardin et al. reference as modified by Vinayagamurthy et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. With respect to claim 3, Hardin et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein operation (c) comprises, when the original data is a string, applying, by the blockchain data search device, an encryption algorithm for matching the original data with the encrypted data on a one-to-one basis to encrypt the original data (Paragraph 7 discloses a message comprising confidential data collected by a device and one or more signatures identifying the device and a data subject; encrypting the message with a data key unique to the device to form encrypted data).
With respect to claim 10, Hardin et al. teaches a device for searching for blockchain data, the device comprising:
a memory (Paragraph 7 discloses a memory) configured to store computer-readable instructions; and
at least one processor (Paragraph 97 discloses Data Processing Enclave) configured to execute the instructions,
wherein the at least one processor executes the instructions request the blockchain network to store the original data, receive a block number of a block in which the original data is stored and a transaction identifier (ID) from the blockchain network when storage of the original data is completed (Paragraph 18 discloses receive confidential data and information from a number of devices, such as smartphones and mobile health (mHealth) devices, then store and process that input and information using a blockchain and trusted execution environment (TEE) components and Paragraph 63 discloses asymmetric keys for identifying and authenticating data subjects and data sources, as well as symmetric keys for protecting the confidentiality of sensitive health data),
encrypt the original data, create an index for the original data including the encrypted original data, the block number, and the transaction ID, and store the index in the memory (Paragraph 7 discloses encrypting the message with a data key unique to the device to form encrypted data and Paragraph 54 discloses off-chain data store 114 is any storage device that is capable of storing a data item and returning an ‘index’ that can later be used to retrieve that same item. It is an immutable data store, and needs no other database features (like indexing, searching, or manipulating data)). Hardin et al. does not disclose wherein the index has the encrypted original data as a key and the block number and the transaction ID as values, wherein operation (b) comprises, when the original data is numeric data, applying, by the blockchain data search device, an order-preserving encryption (OPE) algorithm to encrypt the original data.
However, Vinayagamurthy et al. teaches wherein the index has the encrypted original data as a key and the block number and the transaction ID as values (Paragraph 19 discloses an index manager 114), and the at least one processor is configured to apply an order-preserving encryption (OPE) algorithm to encrypt the original data when the original data is numeric data (Paragraph 20 discloses core database exposes an ordered key-value store with transactions, and the transactions are able to read or write multiple keys stored on any machine in the cluster while fully supporting ACID properties and Paragraph 19 discloses an order preserving encryption (OPE) manager).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing data of invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hardin et al. with Vinayagamurthy et al. This would have provided improved data security. See Vinayagamurthy et al. Paragraph 3-5.
With respect to claim 12, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 3, because claim 12 is substantially equivalent to claim 3.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ocegueda et al. (US Pub. No. 202304215402) in view of Vinayagamurthy et al. (US Pub. No. 20230022338).
With respect to claim 7, Ocegueda et al. teaches a method of searching for blockchain data using an index, the method comprising operations of:
(a) receiving, by a blockchain data search device, a query about original data stored in a blockchain network from a user application (Paragraph 69 discloses querying a distributed ledger, generating additional blocks for a blockchain, transmitting communications-related nonfungible tokens, performing encryption/decryption, exchanging public/private keys); and
(b) encrypting, by the blockchain data search device, search condition data included in the query and searching for a pre-created index using the encrypted search condition data to extract a block number of a block in which the original data is stored and a transaction identifier (ID) (Paragraph 69 discloses querying a distributed ledger, generating additional blocks for a blockchain, transmitting communications-related nonfungible tokens, performing encryption/decryption, exchanging public/private keys and Paragraph 111 discloses Indexer 504 may likewise provide navigation and search features (e.g., support Boolean operations) for the indexed blockchain operations).
Ocegueda et al. does not disclose wherein the index has the encrypted original data as a key and the block number and the transaction ID as values, wherein operation (b) comprises, when the original data is numeric data, applying, by the blockchain data search device, an order-preserving encryption (OPE) algorithm to encrypt the original data.
However, Vinayagamurthy et al. teaches wherein the index has the encrypted original data as a key and the block number and the transaction ID for the block in which the original data is stored as values (Paragraph 19 discloses an index manager 114),
wherein the encrypted original data is encrypted by an order preserving encryption algorithm by the blockchain data search device, if the type of original data corresponding to the encrypted original data is numeric data (Paragraph 20 discloses core database exposes an ordered key-value store with transactions, and the transactions are able to read or write multiple keys stored on any machine in the cluster while fully supporting ACID properties and Paragraph 19 discloses an order preserving encryption (OPE) manager).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing data of invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Ocegueda et al. with Vinayagamurthy et al. This would have provided improved data security. See Vinayagamurthy et al. Paragraph 3-5.
The Ocegueda et al. reference as modified by Vinayagamurthy et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 7. With respect to claim 8, Ocegueda et al. teaches the method of claim 7, further comprising operations of:
(c) receiving, by the blockchain data search device, blockchain data from a plurality of nodes included in the blockchain network on the basis of the block number and the transaction ID (Paragraph 109 discloses Indexer service 500 may then process the data and store it in a database and/or data structure in an efficient way to provide quick access to the data); and
(d) combining, by the blockchain data search device, the received blockchain data to generate final blockchain data and transmitting the final blockchain data to the user application (Paragraph 109 discloses fetch raw data (e.g., data related to a current state and/or instance of blockchain 502) from a node of a blockchain network (e.g., as described above)).
The Ocegueda et al. reference as modified by Vinayagamurthy et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 7. With respect to claim 9, Ocegueda et al. teaches the method of claim 7, wherein operation (b) comprises searching for a plurality of pre-created partial indexes using the encrypted search condition data to extract the block number of the block in which the original data is stored and the transaction ID (Paragraph 69 discloses querying a distributed ledger, generating additional blocks for a blockchain, transmitting communications-related nonfungible tokens, performing encryption/decryption).
Claim(s) 2 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hardin et al. (US Pub. No. 20210273812) and Vinayagamurthy et al. (US Pub. No. 20230022338) in further view of Soon-Shiong et al. (US Pub. No. 20240086382).
The Hardin et al. reference as modified by Vinayagamurthy et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. With respect to claim 2, Hardin et al. as modified by Vinayagamurthy et al. does not disclose wherein operation (c) comprises applying, by the blockchain data search device, a different encryption method according to a type of original data to encrypt the original data.
However, Soon-Shiong et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein operation (c) comprises applying, by the blockchain data search device, a different encryption method according to a type of original data to encrypt the original data (Paragraph 107 discloses “Homomorphic encryption in a data processing network environment, system and methods,” the content of which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. Another example of ZKP procedures includes the use of elliptic curve cryptography (e.g., by the TMP and the requesting user device, etc.)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing data of invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hardin et al. and Vinayagamurthy et al. with Soon-Shiong et al. This would have provided improved data security. See Soon-Shiong et al. Paragraph 3-12.
With respect to claim 11, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 2, because claim 11 is substantially equivalent to claim 2.
Claim(s ) 5-6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hardin et al. (US Pub. No. 20210273812) and Vinayagamurthy et al. (US Pub. No. 20230022338) in view of Shadmon et al. (US Pub. No. 20240086382).
The Hardin et al. reference as modified by Vinayagamurthy et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. With respect to claim 5, Hardin et al. as modified by Vinayagamurthy et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. With respect to claim 5, Hardin et al. does not disclose the method of claim 1, wherein operation (c) comprises, when an index stored in a memory exceeds a range specified by a division criterion, storing, by the blockchain data search device, index data corresponding to the range specified by the division criterion in a new file.
However, Shadmon et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein operation (c) comprises, when an index stored in a memory exceeds a range specified by a division criterion, storing, by the blockchain data search device, index data corresponding to the range specified by the division criterion in a new file (Paragraph 49 discloses data is divided among a plurality of the distributed servers, and the method further includes assembling the requested data before sending it to the client).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing data of invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hardin et al. and Vinayagamurthy et al. with Shadmon et al. This would have provided improved data security. See Shadmon et al. Paragraph 3-7.
The Hardin et al. reference as modified by Vinayagamurthy et al. and Shadmon et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 5. With respect to claim 6, Shadmon et al. teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the division criterion is set on the basis of any one or a combination of a time period, a block number, and a data size (Paragraph 49 discloses data is divided among a plurality of the distributed servers, and the method further includes assembling the requested data before sending it to the client). The motivation to combine statement previously provided in the rejection of dependent claim 5 provided above, combining the Hardin et al. reference and the Shadmon et al. reference is applicable to dependent claim 6).
With respect to claim 14, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 5, because claim 14 is substantially equivalent to claim 5.
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hardin et al. (US Pub. No. 20210273812) and Vinayagamurthy et al. (US Pub. No. 20230022338) in further view of Ocegueda et al. (US Pub. No. 202304215402).
The Hardin et al reference as modified by Vinayagamurthy et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. With respect to claim 15, Hardin et al. as modified by Vinayagamurthy et al. does not disclose wherein, when a query about the original data stored in the blockchain network is received from the user application, the at least one processor encrypts search condition data included in the query and searches for a pre-created index using the encrypted search condition data to extract the block number of the block in which the original data is stored and the transaction ID.
However, Ocegueda et al. discloses the device of claim 10, wherein, when a query about the original data stored in the blockchain network is received from the user application, the at least one processor encrypts search condition data included in the query and searches for a pre-created index using the encrypted search condition data to extract the block number of the block in which the original data is stored and the transaction ID (Paragraph 129 discloses first query, receive, at the remote coordination server from the first user device of the plurality of user devices, a first intermediary communication, wherein the first intermediary communication is one of a first plurality of intermediary communications that comprise the digital signing ceremony, and wherein each of the first plurality of intermediary communications comprises end-to-end encryption to prevent the remote coordination server from accessing a respective message in each of the first plurality of intermediary communications).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing data of invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hardin et al. and Vinayagamurthy et al. with Ocegueda et al. This would have provided improved data security. See Ocegueda et al. Paragraph 4-19.
The Hardin et al. reference as modified by Vinayagamurthy et al. and Ocegueda et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 15. With respect to claim 16, Ocegueda et al. teaches the device of claim 15, wherein the at least one processor receives blockchain data from a plurality of nodes included in the blockchain network on the basis of the block number and the transaction ID, generates final blockchain data by combining the blockchain data, and transmits the final blockchain data to the user application (Paragraph 109 discloses fetch raw data (e.g., data related to a current state and/or instance of blockchain 502) from a node of a blockchain network (e.g., as described above)). The motivation to combine statement previously provided in the rejection of dependent claim 15 provided above, combining the Hardin et al. reference and the Ocegueda et al. reference is applicable to dependent claim 16).
The Hardin et al. reference as modified by Vinayagamurthy et al. and Ocegueda et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 15. With respect to claim 16, Hardin et al. teaches the device of claim 15, wherein the at least one processor creates a plurality of pre-created partial indexes including the encrypted search condition data, the block number, and the transaction ID and extracts the block number of the block in which the original data is stored and the transaction ID by simultaneously searching for the plurality of partial indexes using the encrypted search condition data (Paragraph 7 discloses encrypting the message with a data key unique to the device to form encrypted data and Paragraph 54 discloses off-chain data store 114 is any storage device that is capable of storing a data item and returning an ‘index’ that can later be used to retrieve that same item. It is an immutable data store, and needs no other database features (like indexing, searching, or manipulating data)).
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PG-Pub. No. 20220103367 is directed to Blockchain Index Tracking: [0005] A blockchain index system stores index values and the primary data used for generating the index value in blocks of a blockchain. The primary data is received from a set of data sources, each associated with one or more index components of the index. Based on the received primary data, the index value is generated. A cryptographic hash value is generated based on the received primary data, the generated index value, and a previous hash value corresponding to a previous time period. The generated index value, the received primary data, and the generated cryptographic hash value are stored in a new block of the blockchain. In some embodiments, a digital signature is also calculated for the new block and stored in the new block of the blockchain.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 NICHOLAS E ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3562. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 830-630.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at (571) 270-5626. 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.
/BORIS GORNEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2154
/N.E.A/Examiner, Art Unit 2154