Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. No claims have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending in this office action. This action is responsive to Applicant’s application filed 09/12/2025.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments filed 09/12/2025 have been full considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that,
Applicant's claim 1 recites how a distributed network determines which specific node within a distributed network is selected to generate a new blockchain block (in Amendment page 3).
Applicant's claim 1 recites that a blockchain contains a ledger that specifies which individual nodes within a distributed network generate new individual blockchain blocks that are added to that blockchain. Applicant's recited ledger improves the operation of the distributed network in how it generates blockchain blocks by regulating it as specified within the ledger (in Amendment page 4).
In contrast to Applicant's claim 1 claiming the operation of a distributed network to generate blockchain blocks with nodes. Molinari's patent is focused on how to trade financial securities on a blockchain (in Amendment page 5).
Applicant's claim 1 recites "storing a ledger within a blockchain that identifies which node of a distributed network will generate a new blockchain block for appending to that blockchain BEFORE any new blockchain blocks are generated (in Amendment page 6).
Molinari's paragraph [0065] is wholly silent as to how nodes of a distributed network are selected for generating a blockchain block (in Amendment page 7).
Molinari's disclosure that one-way hashing algorithms are utilized for appending "one or more blocks to the blockchain ledger in paragraph [0010] discloses NOTHING about WHICH NODE OF A DISTRIBUTED NETWORK generates new blockchain blocks as recited in Applicant's claim. This disclosure from Molinari discloses NOTHING about WHICH NODE OF A DISTRIBUTED NETWORK generates new blockchain blocks as recited in Applicant's claim 1. Molinari in paragraph [0010] discloses that "The cryptographic wallet further includes a second set of protocols for transferring ownership of the securities to cryptographic wallets stored on other computing devices on the peer-to-peer communication network." discloses NOTHING about WHICH NODE OF A DISTRIBUTED NETWORK generates new blockchain blocks as recited in Applicant's claim 1 (in Amendment pages 2, 5, 7-10, 12-13).
Applicant's claims 1, 11, and 16 recites a specific technology for how a distributed network selects a specific node in the network for generating a new blockchain block for adding to the blockchain (Argument pages 2, 4-6, 10-14).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., wholly silent as to how nodes of a distributed network are selected for generating a blockchain block) are not recited in the rejected claim(s).
The Examiner has given the term/word “specifies, select, control, determine” its broadest reasonable interpretation. The Examiner has clearly shown in the preceding office action that Molinari discloses.
Amendment argued many times “how a distributed network determines which specific node..”, is not in the claim language and Instant Specification, may be trigger rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. There is no support in original Specification/Drawing/Claims.
Amendment argued “determines which specific node within a distributed network is selected to generate a new blockchain block”, how to select specific node within a distributed network? There is no any criteria or algorithm to support select a specific node. It is may be trigger rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement or rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Instant Specification disclosed “selection of the process ..” in publication paragraphs [0059], [0060] or figure 24, but no any criteria or algorithm support how to select specific node within a distributed network. There is no support in original Specification/Drawing/Claims.
The Examiner has given the phrase “how a distributed network determines which specific node (argued in Amendment)” and “determines which specific node within a distributed network is selected to generate a new blockchain block (argued in Amendment)” its broadest reasonable interpretation. Since it appears that each and every element of the Applicant's claimed invention are either disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record, the rejections given in the preceding office action are sustained.
For the above reason, examiner believed that rejection of the last office action was proper.
Terminal Disclaimer
4. The Terminal Disclaimer filed on 09/12/2025 has been reviewed and is approved.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. Claim(s) 1-5, 7-8, 11-12, and 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Molinari et al. (US Patent Publication 2017/0011460 A1, hereinafter Molinari).
As to Claim 1, Molinari teaches the claimed limitations:
“A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium containing instructions for creating new blockchain blocks within individual nodes of a distributed network according to a ledger, comprising:” as the storage medium may further store a cryptographic wallet that includes encryption protocols for securely storing a virtual portfolio of securities (paragraph 0010).
“storing a ledger within a blockchain that identifies which node of a distributed network will generate a new blockchain block for appending to that blockchain before any new blockchain blocks are generated” as upon approval of a request, the platform or system may create a new security product and assign it a unique product ID. The security product may be stored on the blockchain ledger. All or a portion of the activities may be performed as part of a smart contract and the blockchain ledger can be appended to reflect the initiation of the contract, performance of the contractual obligations and confirmation/denial of the contract (paragraph 0076).
“accessing the ledger to select which node of a distributed network is used to generate the new blockchain block and subsequently appending the new blockchain block to the blockchain” as the ownership portion of the data block identifies the owner of the security. The ownership portion may initially designate the issuer. Subsequent transactions which transfer ownership of the security may cause new data blocks to be appended to the blockchain ledger which identify the updated owner of the security and which link back to the most recent blocks on the ledger that are associated with the security instrument, thereby providing an audit trail back to the initial data block that was created for the security instrument (paragraph 0093).
Before a user is permitted to initiate a new security offering or new trade, the user may be required to utilize its cryptographic wallet to access the peer-to-peer network in which the distributed blockchain ledger is maintained by the computing nodes. In certain embodiments, the cryptographic wallet may utilize a multi-factor authentication access procedure to access the network and/or to append blocks to the blockchain ledger (paragraph 0094).
As to Claim 2, Molinari teaches the claimed limitations:
“wherein the ledger specifies a sequential order in which individual identified nodes of the distributed network generate new blockchain blocks to the blockchain before new blockchain blocks are generated” as (paragraphs 0093-0094).
As to Claim 3, Molinari teaches the claimed limitations:
“wherein the ledger specifies a type of data to be entered into each new blockchain block, wherein the type of data includes dates, times, financial values, approval or rejection information, product information, scientific information, medical information, or insurance information” as (paragraphs 0022, 0028, 0030, 0035, 0036, 0039, 0045, 0055).
As to Claim 4, Molinari teaches the claimed limitations:
“wherein verification logic determines whether each new blockchain block contains the type of data specified for the data entry within the ledger” as (paragraphs 0022, 0028, 0030, 0035, 0036, 0039, 0045, 0055, 0061-0063, 0070, 0075).
As to Claim 5, Molinari teaches the claimed limitations:
“wherein the ledger designates a single node of the distributed network to generate each new individual blockchain block” as (paragraphs 0021-0022, 0043-0044, 0064).
As to Claim 7, Molinari teaches the claimed limitations:
“wherein the blockchain includes a completion blockchain block appended to the blockchain when all data entries specified within the ledger have been added to the blockchain in the form of the new blockchain blocks, thereby completing the sequential order, wherein the completion blockchain block terminates the blockchain” as (paragraphs 0047, 0093-0094).
As to Claim 8, Molinari teaches the claimed limitations:
“monitoring execution of the sequential order to generate new blockchain blocks by the distributed network with a cloud-based application” as (paragraphs 0020, 0024, 0035).
As to Claim 11, Molinari teaches the claimed limitations:
“A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium containing instructions for creating new blockchain blocks with individual nodes of a distributed network according to a predetermined sequential order, comprising:” as (paragraph 0076).
“executing computer instructions to generate new blockchain blocks for addition to a blockchain according to a predetermined sequential order of individual nodes that specifies which individual node of a distributed network is used to generate a new individual blockchain block before the new individual blockchain block is generated” as (paragraphs 0023, 0025, 0027, 0032, 0056, 0093-0094)
As to Claim 12, Molinari teaches the claimed limitations:
“wherein the predetermined sequential order of individual nodes is stored within the blockchain to which the new blockchain blocks are appended” as (paragraph 0064, 0093).
As to Claim 15, Molinari teaches the claimed limitations:
“wherein each network node is associated with a different entity, wherein each entity may be a financial entity, a medical entity, a manufacturing entity, or an insurance entity” as (paragraphs 0038, 0045, 0080, 0087, 0115).
As to Claim 16, Molinari teaches the claimed limitations:
“A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium containing instructions for executing a project management process flow through a blockchain, comprising:” as (paragraph 0076).
“translating a project management process flow into a series of sequential steps” as (abstract, paragraphs 0008-0012, 0020, 0023-0025).
“creating a ledger stored on a distributed network that specifies a predetermined sequential order of individual nodes of a distributed network used for creating new blockchain blocks that corresponds to the series of sequential steps of the project management process flow” as (paragraphs 0023, 0025, 0027, 0032, 0056, 0093-0094
“accessing the ledger to select which node of a distributed network is used to generate new blockchain blocks according to the predetermined series of sequential steps stored in the ledger as the sequential steps of the project management process flow are executed” as (paragraphs 0008, 0011, 0020, 0024, 0026).
As to claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1), the limitations therein have substantially the same scope as claims 3+4. In addition, Molinari teaches the storage medium may further store a cryptographic wallet that includes encryption protocols for securely storing a virtual portfolio of securities (paragraph 0010). Therefore, this claim is rejected for at least the same reasons as claims 3+4.
As to claim 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1), the limitations therein have substantially the same scope as claims 15, 12, and 8. In addition, Molinari teaches the storage medium may further store a cryptographic wallet that includes encryption protocols for securely storing a virtual portfolio of securities (paragraph 0010). Therefore, this claim is rejected for at least the same reasons as claims 15, 12, and 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
6. Claims 6, 9, 10, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Molinari (US Patent Publication No. 2017/0011460 A1, hereinafter “Molinari”) in view of Roennow et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2019/0108364 A1, hereinafter “Roennow”).
As to Claim 6, Molinari does not explicitly teach the claimed limitation “wherein the blockchain is a finite blockchain with a limited number of blockchain blocks”.
Roennow teaches (abstract, paragraph 0041).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Molinari and Roennow before him/her, to modify Molinari blockchain is a finite blockchain with a limited number of blockchain blocks because that would provide an advantage in that less energy is spent than in a proof-of-work block chain, since the proof-of-work method may require a large input of numerical computer calculation resources, which consume energy as taught by Roennow (paragraph 0062).
As to Claim 9, Molinari does not explicitly teach the claimed limitation “generating a failure blockchain block when one of the separately identified nodes fails to generate a blockchain block identified in the ledger according to the sequential order”.
Roennow teaches (abstract, paragraphs 0053-0054).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Molinari and Roennow before him/her, to modify Molinari blockchain is a finite blockchain with a limited number of blockchain blocks because that would provide a verification acceptance message to merchant as a response to message. Message may be seen as a verification request of the transaction as taught by Roennow (paragraph 0052).
As to claims 10, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103(a), the limitations therein have substantially the same scope as claim 9. In addition, Molinari teaches the storage medium may further store a cryptographic wallet that includes encryption protocols for securely storing a virtual portfolio of securities (paragraph 0010). Therefore, these claims are rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 9.
7. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Molinari (US Patent Publication No. 2017/0011460 A1, hereinafter “Molinari”) in view of Tran et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2018/0117446 A1, hereinafter “Tran”).
Molinari does not explicitly teach the claimed limitation “wherein the predetermined sequential order of individual nodes is stored within a genesis blockchain block of the blockchain“.
Tran teaches (abstract, paragraphs 0010-0012, 0026, 0076. 0093, 0390).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Molinari and Tran before him/her, to modify Molinari stored within a genesis blockchain block of the blockchain because that would provide a flexible and stretchable electronic patch that monitors impact or other events whereby a flexible substrate is geometrically patterned to allow the substrate to undergo substantial stretching as taught by Tran (paragraph 0105).
Conclusion
6. 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.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraph and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as “Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced” may be deemed insufficient.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Hwa whose telephone number is 571-270-1285 or email address: james.hwa@uspto.gov.. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00 am – 5:30 pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tamara Kyle can be reached on 571-272-4241. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only, for more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the PAIR system contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
11/06/2025
/SHYUE JIUNN HWA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2156