DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-14 of the instant application are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of Destefanis et al, U.S. Patent 12,007, 984 (hereinafter Patent ‘984). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is technically disclosed in the patent since the patent and the instant application are claiming common and/or overlapping subject matter. Independent claim 1 of the instant application and independent claims 1, 14 and 15 of the Patent both recite, in part,
A computer-implemented method for a node of a blockchain network, said node having a plurality of interfaces connected to peer nodes, the method comprising:
analysing transactions received from a peer node;
determining, based on the transactions received from a peer node, that a peer node is a malicious node; and
upon determining that a peer node is a malicious node, removing connection to the peer node..
Claims 1-14 of the instant application, and independent claim 1 in particular, are drawn to the same invention and recite similar features / limitations as the independent claims of Patent ‘984, with the exception of the additional feature(s) or limitation(s) of “determining a minimum and maximum number of peer nodes connectable to the node and a ratio of averaged data to maximum data, where averaged data comprises an average of data over at least two time periods of a plurality of time periods, a time period adjusted by the node to a predetermined value temporarily to accommodate a temporary relay of data to all peer nodes…” – recited by Patent ‘984.
The claimed invention in the instant application implements the methodology described by the patent, but is lacking the above aforementioned additional claim features. Accordingly, Claims 1-14 of Patent ‘984 anticipates all of the limitations of the instant application.
Claims 15-19 of the instant application are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of Destefanis et al, U.S. Patent 11,609,902 (hereinafter Patent ‘902). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is technically disclosed in the patent since the patent and the instant application are claiming common and/or overlapping subject matter. Independent claim 15 and 16 of the instant application and independent claims 1, 14 and 15 of the Patent both recite, in part,
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed, cause a processor to:
determine a capacity of a node over a time period based at least on input data and output data passing through one or more interfaces of the node to and from peer nodes;
assign a profile of the node based at least on the input data and output data over a plurality of time periods; and
set a minimum number of peer nodes and a maximum number of peer nodes connectable to the node, based at least in part, on the profile
Claims 15-19 of the instant application, and independent claims 15 and 16 in particular, are drawn to the same invention and recite similar features / limitations as the independent claims of Patent ‘902, with the exception of the additional feature(s) or limitation(s) of “wherein the profile is assigned a value according to the function of the node, wherein the profile includes at least: a first value for nodes that route data, a second value for nodes that collect or aggregate data, and a third value for nodes that generate or provide data; and determining, by the node, a ratio based at least in part on the data transmitted, over at least one time period of the plurality of time periods, through the one or more interfaces and the maximum amount of data processable by the node…” – recited by Patent ‘902.
The claimed invention in the instant application implements the methodology described by the patent, but is lacking the above aforementioned additional claim features. Accordingly, Claims 1-18 of Patent ‘902 anticipates all of the limitations of the instant application.
In removing this/these limitation(s), the scope of the claim(s) is merely broadened by eliminating elements and their functions. It has been held that omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 365 (Bd. App. 1969) (omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art).
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 6-7, 9-10, 12-13, 18-19 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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 claim invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 14 is/are rejected under 3 5 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being disclosed by Daniel et al (hereinafter Daniel), US Patent Publication 20170034197 A1 (publication date February 2017).
As per claim{s} 1, Daniel discloses a computer-implemented method for a node of a blockchain network (Daniel: e.g., Node / Miner_204a, b…n ‘network nodes’ of Blockchain 206 / Network 200) [0003; Figs. 2 & 3], said node having a plurality of interfaces connected to peer nodes (Daniel: e.g., I/O Interface_106) [0022; Fig. 1], the method comprising:
analysing transactions received from a peer node; and determining, based on the transactions received from a peer node, that a peer node is a malicious node (Daniel: e.g., discloses as his invention a computer implemented method for ‘detecting malicious events’ occurring with respect to a blockchain data structure comprising: defining a ‘transaction creation profile’ according to which ‘transactions’ can be generated and submitted to the blockchain; submitting {by a peer Node / Miner of the blockchain / node network } a ‘transaction’ to the blockchain, the transaction causing the generation of a profiler data structure in the blockchain including executable code to generate ‘profile transactions’ to be submitted to the blockchain according to the transaction creation profile; monitoring the blockchain to identify profile transactions; and comparing identified ‘profile transactions’ with the transaction creation profile to detect a ‘deviation’ from the transaction creation profile, such ‘detection’ corresponding to a ‘malicious event’ occurring with respect to the blockchain {and associated with the ‘malicious’ or erroneously operating Node / Miner(s)_204 submitting or adding the ‘transaction’ to the blockchain}) [Abstract; 0002-0009; 0015; 0027] [0019-0021, Figs. 2-4]; and
upon determining that a peer node is a malicious node, removing connection to the peer node (Daniel: e.g., the security component 202 monitors the blockchain to ensure the generation of profile transactions complies with the transaction creation profile. Generation of profile transactions in compliance with the transaction generation profile indicates faithful validation and execution of the profiler by miners 204. However, where profile transactions do not appear in the blockchain 206 as expected then non-compliance is identified and a malicious event occurring in respect of the blockchain 206 is detected. Such an occurrence results from miners 204 not correctly validating and executing the profiler (and likely also other transactions and data structures) stored in the blockchain 206. Indeed an absence of one or very few expected profile transactions is enough to warrant alarm that a malicious event has occurred in respect of the blockchain 206. Accordingly, the presence of ‘malicious or erroneously operating Miners’_204 can be identified and ‘mitigating / remedial action’ can be taken. Such ‘action’ can include: generating an alert; communicating the non-compliance with the transaction creation profile to other entities operating with the blockchain 206, such as other computer systems relying on the blockchain 206; ‘terminating access’ to the blockchain 206; protection of assets recorded in and dependent on the blockchain 206; and inspection of transactions occurring in the blockchain for further anomalous, erroneous and/or malicious occurrences) [0027; Fig. 3],
As per claim{s} 2, Daniel discloses the computer-implemented method wherein the determination that a peer node is a malicious node is based on repeated transmission of a legitimate transaction action multiple times (Daniel: e.g., For example, blockchains are employed to provide certainty that a value of cryptocurrency is spent ‘only once’ and ‘double spending’ does not occur (that is spending the same cryptocurrency ‘twice’) {a repeat of a legitimate transaction} ) [0004] (e.g., expressly discloses in one aspect wherein an ‘attacker’ {peer / node} submits to the merchant/network a ‘transaction’ which pays the merchant, while ‘privately mining a blockchain fork’ in which a ‘double-spending’ transaction is included instead ) [0005].
As per claim{s} 3, Daniel discloses the computer-implemented method wherein the determination that a peer node is a malicious node is based on receiving invalid transactions from that node (Daniel: e.g., While the detailed operation of blockchains and the function of miners in the miner network is beyond the scope of this specification, the manner in which the blockchain and network of miners operate is intended to ensure that ‘only valid transactions’ are added within blocks to the blockchain in a manner that is persistent within the blockchain. ‘Transactions added erroneously or maliciously’ {invalid transactions} should not be verifiable by other miners in the network and should not persist in the blockchain) [0004].
As per claim{s} 14, Daniel discloses the computer-implemented method wherein a node of a blockchain network performs the method (.Daniel: e.g., Node / Miner_204a, b…n ‘network nodes’ of Blockchain 206 / Network 200) [0003; Figs. 2 & 3]., wherein the step of facilitating 7. connection comprises
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 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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being disclosed by Daniel in view of Sato et al (hereinafter Sato), Foreign Patent Publication JP 2018128723 A (filing date September 2019).
As per claim{s} 4, Daniel discloses substantial features of the invention above but does not expressly disclose the additional recited feature of the method wherein the determination that a peer node is a malicious node is based on receiving dummy transactions from that node.
However, in a related endeavor, Sato particularly discloses the additional recited feature of the method wherein the determination that a peer node is a malicious node is based on receiving dummy transactions from that node (Sato: e.g., expressly discloses in one aspect evaluation of execution transactions in smart contracts and/or monitoring for tampering of smart contracts in the blockchain [BC] [Wingdings font/0xE0]Therefore, as a result, it is possible to prevent ‘malicious alteration’ by the smart contract provider and to continuously maintain the reliability of the smart contract. Further, as in the past, when issuing a ‘dummy transaction’ on the BC base and monitoring the soundness of the service, the transaction is handled in the same manner as in the actual production, which may contaminate the production environment. However, in this embodiment, there is an effect that monitoring can be performed without contaminating the production environment by dividing the data area ) [pg. 18, par 5; Fig. 12].
It would thus be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify and/or combine Daniel’s invention with the above said additional feature, as expressly disclosed by Sato, for the motivation of providing a credit quality management system and method to confirm and evaluate the credibility and quality of the Smart Contract itself by one or more third parties other than the Smart contract provider and without management by a centralized agency [Sato: Abstract, pg. 2, par2; Fig. 1].
Claim(s) 5, 11, 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being disclosed by Daniel in view of Madisetti et al (hereinafter Madisetti), US Patent PUB 20190018888 A1 (US 62484555 provisional date April 2017).
As per claim{s} 5, Daniel discloses substantial features of the invention above, including the recited feature of the method further comprising ‘as a result of determining that the peer node is not a malicious node: assigning a profile of the node based at least on input data and output data over a plurality of time periods’ (Daniel: e.g., ‘profile transactions’) [Abstract; 0009-0014; 0025-0027] -- but does not expressly disclose the additional recited feature of the method further comprising setting a minimum number of peer nodes and a maximum number of peer nodes connectable to the node based, at least in part, on the profile.
However, in a related endeavor, Madisetti particularly discloses the additional recited feature(s) of the method further comprising setting a minimum number of peer nodes and a maximum number of peer nodes connectable to the node based, at least in part, on the profile (Madisetti: e.g., expressly discloses / illustrates in one aspect tunable decentralization, scalability & security parameters, such as the ‘Number of Peers Connected to Each Node [Np]”_258) [0116-0118; Fig. 4].
It would thus be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify and/or combine Daniel’s invention with the above said additional feature, as expressly disclosed by Madisetti, for the motivation of providing a system and method for tuning Blockchain scalability, decentralization and security for fast and low-cost payment and transactions processing [Madisetti: Abstract, 0002; Figs. 1-3].
As per claim{s} 11, Daniel in view of Madisetti, and Madisetti in particular, discloses the method wherein a time period is a flow control parameter, and the parameter is adjusted to modify traffic passing through the node (Madisetti: e.g., expressly discloses / illustrates in one aspect ‘tunable’ decentralization, scalability & security parameters {adjustable parameters}, such as the ‘Throughput Latency’ [Ptx]_272) [0128; Figs. 4 & 5].
The motivation or rationale for combining the prior art is similar to that given to that given to claim 5 above.
As per claim{s} 15, 16, Daniel in view of Madisetti discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (Daniel: e.g., Storage 104 {i.e., RAM}) [0022; Fig. 1] storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed, cause a processor (Daniel: e.g., CPU 102) [0022; Fig. 1] to:
determine a capacity of a node over a time period based at least on input data and output data passing through one or more interfaces of the node to and from peer nodes (Madisetti: e.g., expressly discloses / illustrates in one aspect ‘tunable’ decentralization, scalability & security parameters, such as the ‘Minimum Bandwidth {capacity} Required by a Node to Mine on the Network’ [Bp]_260) [0119; Fig. 4];
assign a profile of the node based at least on the input data and output data over a plurality of time periods (Daniel: e.g., ‘profile transactions’) [Abstract; 0009-0014; 0025-0027]; and
set a minimum number of peer nodes and a maximum number of peer nodes connectable to the node, based at least in part, on the profile (Madisetti: e.g., expressly discloses / illustrates in one aspect ‘tunable’ decentralization, scalability & security parameters, such as the ‘Number of Peers Connected to Each Node [Np]”_258) [0016-0018; Fig. 4].
The motivation or rationale for combining the prior art is similar to that given to that given to claim 5 above.
Claim(s) 16 recite(s) substantially the same limitations / features as claim 15, is/are distinguishable only by its/their statutory category (system), and accordingly rejected on the same basis.
As per claim{s} 17, Daniel in view of Madisetti, and Madisetti in particular, discloses the system wherein the instructions further cause the processor to determine a corresponding correlation for each of the one or more interfaces of the node based, at least in part, on input data and output data processed at the node (Madisetti: e.g., expressly discloses / illustrates in one aspect ‘tunable’ decentralization, scalability & security parameters {adjustable parameters}, such as the ‘Throughput Latency’ [Ptx]_272) [0128; Figs. 4 & 5] (e.g., expressly discloses / illustrates in one aspect ‘tunable’ decentralization, scalability & security parameters, such as the ‘Number of Peers Connected to Each Node [Np]”_258) [0016-0018; Fig. 4].
The motivation or rationale for combining the prior art is similar to that given to that given to claim 5 above.
d) Th
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being disclosed by Daniel in view of Christidis et al (hereinafter Christidis), US Patent PUB 20180101560 A1 (publication date October 2016).
As per claim{s} 8, Daniel discloses substantial features of the invention above but does not expressly disclose the additional recited feature of the method wherein the node is connected to peer nodes by a plurality of interfaces and a correlation matrix is determined from correlation coefficients representing the correlation between data processed at each interface of the node.
However, in a related endeavor, Christidis particularly discloses the additional recited feature(s) of the method wherein the node is connected to peer nodes by a plurality of interfaces (Christidis: e.g., With reference now to FIG. 2, in some aspects, blockchain 100 is stored in a decentralized manner on a plurality of nodes 200, e.g., computing devices located in one or more networks. Nodes 200 may each include a memory 202 that stores at least a portion of a ledger 204 of blockchain 100. … Nodes 200 may communicate with one another via communication pathways 206, e.g., wired or wireless connections, over the internet, etc. to transmit and receive data related to ledger 204. For example, as new data blocks 102 are added to ledger 204, nodes 200 may communicate or share the new data blocks 102 via communication pathways 206) [col 8, L65 – col 9, L7 & col 9, L15-28; Fig. 4] and a correlation matrix is determined from correlation coefficients representing the correlation between data processed at each interface of the node (Christidis: e.g., Record_304 / Registry Feedback_312, which records and tabulates / tallies validated transactions by nodes of the blockchain network) [0022; Fig. 3].
It would thus be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify and/or combine Daniel’s invention with the above said additional feature, as expressly disclosed by Christidis, for the motivation of establishing overlay trust consensus in a blockchain trust validation system, and which includes a built-in feedback mechanism for a blockchain to perform remedial / corrective action on nodes operating in an erroneous / malicious manner {i.e., ‘sanctioning’ validator nodes that consistently ‘vote’ in a manner that does not match the ultimate consensus [Christidis: Abstract, 0005-0006; Figs. 1-3].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GLENFORD J MADAMBA whose telephone number is (571)272-7989. The examiner can normally be reached on Mondays to Fridays, from 9am to 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher Parry, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-7989. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/GLENFORD J MADAMBA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451