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 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.
This office action is in response to the communication filed on 3/30/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments on the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See the updated office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claims recite “a proof-of-contribution protocol that is separate from a consensus mechanism used to authorize storage of the input in the distributed ledger”. The specification has no disclosure of “consensus mechanism used to authorize storage of the input in the distributed ledger” or “a proof-of-contribution protocol that is separate from a consensus mechanism”. In fact, the Specification discloses the opposite in [0076] or [0136] that proof-of-contribution is a consensus mechanism.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims recite “a quantity of the input” which is indefinite. It is also indefinite how a voting power can be adjusted based on a quantity of input(s) alone without evaluating whether the input(s) are quality inputs (for example, a person who submits 5 bad inputs versus a user who submits 3 correct inputs).
The claims recite “a quality of the input” which is indefinite. The specification discloses high-quality contributions (or inputs) are “well-received policies, threat playbooks, intelligence, computing/storage power.” It is indefinite how one skilled in the art can determine whether a contribution/ input is “well-received” policies, threat playbooks, intelligence, computing/storage power or “not well-received” policies, threat playbooks, intelligence, computing/storage power.
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) 1-4, 9-12, 17-18 is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullins et al. (US 2023/0421578, “Mullins”) in view of Padmanabhan et al. (US 2019/0236598).
As to claim 1, Mullins discloses a system for leveraging proof-of-contribution on a distributed cyber threat intelligence platform, the system comprising:
one or more memories storing computer-executable instructions including a smart contracts engine (fig. 2A, 2B); and
one or more processors communicatively coupled with the one or more memories that are configured to execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the system to:
receive, from a node, an input associated with cyber threat intelligence ([0038], [0040], [0057], receiving, as a smart contract, a threat intelligence request (input) from a device/ user),
store, by a smart contract of the smart contracts engine, the input in a distributed ledger as part of a set of cyber threat intelligence content, the distributed ledger being accessible by one or more nodes ([0041], parsing the request or input to a smart contract in a blockchain network),
evaluate a proof-of-contribution protocol that is separate from a consensus mechanism used to authorize storage of the input in the distributed ledger (the proof-of-contribution as claimed is a reward mechanism of adjusting voting power of a node for input contribution. Mullins teaches a mechanism for adjusting a node’s voting power (based on tokens) based on an input submitted by the node in [0061] that is separate from a consensus for blockchain storage), wherein evaluating the proof-of-contribution protocol comprises:
determining that the input was received from the node, and determining a valuation of the input to the set of cyber threat intelligence content based on a quantity or a quality of the input as a contribution to the set of cyber threat intelligence content, and adjust a level of voting power allocated to the node for voting in matters associated with the distributed ledger, in accordance with the valuation ([0043]-[0045], using oracles and nodes of the blockchain network to validate/ invalidate the input or to determine whether the input is good or bad in terms of quality based on a consensus; [0033], [0061], receiving a vote from the user with stakes/tokens which are increased or decreased based on whether the input is validated or invalidated. A number of votes a user submits for each input is increased in relation with to the number of tokens that the user submits. Therefore, the number of tokens can be read as a voting power of the user).
Mullins does not disclose an AI engine and the step of evaluating, by a trained AI model of the AI engine by valuation of the input.
Padmanabhan discloses an AI engine and the step of evaluating, by a trained AI model of the AI engine by valuation of the input (fig. 16A-B, [0460], trained AI model for inputting from participating nodes and historical data and outputting trained responses, validation of inputs from nodes (node types) and fraud valuations).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Padmanabhan’s AI engines for evaluating inputs to Mullins’s teachings in order to utilize or select one of a number of consensus protocol types to use in committing the block or transaction therein to the blockchain based on the specified transaction type (Padmanabhan, [0126]).
As to claim 2, Mullins-Padmanabhan discloses the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the system to determine the valuation of the input by:
evaluating, by the trained AI model, one or more of: (i) a file size of the input, (ii) a recency of a cyber threat indicated by the input, (iii) a threat value associated with the cyber threat, (iv) a node voting value, (v) processing power value of the input, (vi) a storage value of the input, (vii) a smart contract contribution value, (viii) an AI model contribution value, or (ix) an input process value (Mullins, [0060], [0061], Padmanabhan, fig. 16A-B, [0460]).
As to claim 3, Mullins discloses the smart contracts engine comprises at least one of: (a) an asset control contract, (b) a content orchestration contract, (c) a compromise contract, (d) a contact and escalation contract, (e) a broadcast contract, (f) a clearance level contract, (g) a contribution and voting score assignment contract, (h) a contact maintenance contract, (i) an SIEM logging integration contract, (j) a network security and operational monitoring contract, or (k) an AI governance and enforcement contract ([0038], [0041]).
As to claim 4, Mullins-Padmanabhan discloses the trained AI model comprises a large language model (LLM) trained using a plurality of training node inputs and a plurality of training distributed ledger inputs to output training responses, node types, and threat evaluations (Padmanabhan, fig. 16A-B, [0460], trained AI model for inputting from participating nodes and historical data and outputting trained responses, validation of inputs from nodes (node types) and fraud valuations. LLC is an obvious implementation of machine learning and AI).
Claims 9-12 are rejected for the same rationale in claims 1-4.
Claims 17, 18 are rejected for the same rationale in claims 1, 2.
Claim(s) 5, 13, 19 is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullins-Padmanabhan in view of Jevans et al. (US 2019/0229892).
As to claims 5, 13, 19, Mullins-Padmanabhan does not disclose each node of the one or more nodes includes a clearance level value, and the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the system to: receive, at the smart contracts engine, an indication of a potentially compromised node of the one or more nodes;
transmit a polling prompt to each node of the one or more nodes without transmitting the polling prompt to the potentially compromised node; receive a poll response from each node; and responsive to receiving the poll response from each node, isolate the potentially compromised node from accessing the distributed ledger by adjusting the clearance level value of the potentially compromised node.
Jevans discloses each node of the one or more nodes includes a clearance level value ([0036], exclusion/inclusion of a node from future transactions and smart contracts), and the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the system to: receive, at the smart contracts engine, an indication of a potentially compromised node of the one or more nodes ([0045], [0051]-[0058], [0069], potential compromised nodes);
transmit a polling prompt to each node of the one or more nodes without transmitting the polling prompt to the potentially compromised node; receive a poll response from each node; and responsive to receiving the poll response from each node, isolate the potentially compromised node from accessing the distributed ledger by adjusting the clearance level value of the potentially compromised node ([0070], [0085], [0097], nodes arbitrating whether a node should be removed or clearance revoked).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Jevans’s cross-validation to Mullins-Padmanabhan’s teachings in order to provide external or mutual validation of blockchain participants to control rights, privileges and access of nodes (Jevans, abstract).
Claim(s) 6, 7, 14, 15 is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullins-Padmanabhan in view of Uchida (JP 2024-173096 A).
As to claims 6, 14, Mullins does not disclose the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the system to: determine, by a rewards engine, that a first node of the one or more nodes has satisfied a reward threshold; generate, by the rewards engine, a non-fungible token (NFT) based on the reward threshold; and mint, by the rewards engine, the NFT to the distributed ledger, wherein a portion of data associated with the reward threshold is linked to the NFT.
Uchida discloses instructions to determine, by a rewards engine, that a first node of the one or more nodes has satisfied a reward threshold; generate, by the rewards engine, a non-fungible token (NFT) based on the reward threshold; and mint, by the rewards engine, the NFT to the distributed ledger, wherein a portion of data associated with the reward threshold is linked to the NFT ([0065]-[0071], calculating a member contribution with a threshold and reward the member with a NFT tied to an amount).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Uchida’s reward system based on contribution threshold to Mullins-Padmanabhan’s teachings in order to provide an incentive for participants or nodes to participate in threat validation of Mullins.
As to claims 7, 15, Mullins-Padmanabhan-Uchida discloses the reward threshold corresponds to at least one of: (i) a contribution threshold, (ii) a bug discovery threshold, or (iii) a suggestion threshold, and the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the system to: evaluate, by the rewards engine, a contribution level of the first node to determine whether the first node has satisfied the contribution threshold; evaluate, by the rewards engine, a bug discovery value of the first node to determine whether the first node has satisfied the bug discovery threshold; or evaluate, by the rewards engine, one or more suggestions contributed by the first node to determine whether the first node has satisfied the suggestion threshold (Uchida, [0065]-[0071]).
Claim(s) 8, 16, 20 is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullins-Padmanabhan in view of Takada et al. (US 2020/0028688).
As to claims 8, 16, 20, Mullins-Padmanabhan does not disclose the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the system to: determine, by the smart contracts engine, a storage location for the input based on at least one of: (i) a file size of the input or (ii) an update frequency of the input; and responsive to determining that the file size of the input fails to satisfy a file size threshold or that the update frequency of the input fails to satisfy an update frequency threshold, determine, by the smart contracts engine, the storage location for at least a portion of the input to be a first storage location that is separate from the distributed ledger.
Takada discloses the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the system to: determine, by the smart contracts engine, a storage location for the input based on at least one of: (i) a file size of the input or (ii) an update frequency of the input; and responsive to determining that the file size of the input fails to satisfy a file size threshold or that the update frequency of the input fails to satisfy an update frequency threshold, determine, by the smart contracts engine, the storage location for at least a portion of the input to be a first storage location that is separate from the distributed ledger ([0042]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Takada’s off-chain storage to Mullins-Padmanabhan’s teachings in order to provide additional storage for large files/data.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is included in form PTO 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIEU T HOANG whose telephone number is (571) 270-1253. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9 AM -5 PM.
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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached on 571-272-7304. 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.
/HIEU T HOANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2449
Prosecution Insights