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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on or reply to the remarks of 12/9/2024. The instant application has claims 1,33,89,123-129 and 133 pending. The system, method and medium for determining the reliability of the node on an blockchain. There a total of 20 claims.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 12/9/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that recites similar elements in both groups and therefore should be restricted. This is not found persuasive because the claimed subject matter has been determined to have distinct and independent status in the field, thus the claimed groups needs to be separated and distinguished from each other.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawing filed on 3/12/2024 has been accepted and in compliance of 37 CFR 1.83 & 37 CFR 1.84.
Specification
The disclosure filed on 3/12/2024 is accepted.
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1, 33,89,123-129 and 133 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3,7,11,13,15,18,21-22,31-32, 39,41,43-44 of US Patent App # 18/691151. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are an broader version of claims of ‘151 application, i.e. the instant claims are anticipated by ‘151 patent application claims.
US App # 18691146
US Patent App # 1869151
Comments
1. A computer-implemented method for processing a structured data unit related to a distributed ledger enabled system, the computer-implemented method being performed by at least one first computing node related to the distributed ledger enabled system, the computer- implemented method comprising: determining a reliability associated with at least one of the at least one first computing node, at least one given computing node and at least one second computing node; and providing at least one indication of at least one portion of the structured data unit to at least one subset of the at least one second computing node.
1. A computer-implemented method for processing a structured data unit related to a distributed ledger enabled system, the computer-implemented method being performed by at least one first computing node related to the distributed ledger enabled system, the computer- implemented method comprising: determining a reliability associated with at least one of the at least one first computing node, at least one given computing node and at least one second computing node; and providing at least one indication of at least one portion of the structured data unit to at least one subset of the at least one second computing node.
The patent (US 18691151) anticipates claims (1, 33,89,123-129 and 133 ) of instant application, because the patent application claims (1, 3,7,11,13,15,18,21-22,31-32, 39,41,43-44, genus) teaches all the elements/features of the examined claim (a-b, sub-genus, e.g. has less of the same limitations than the patent). Claims of instant application are effectively a subset of the claims in the patent applicaition. Thus, the entire scope of the patent reference claim falls within the scope of the examined claim. Therefore, a patent to the instant applicant would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the sub-genus should it issue after the genus (conflicting patent).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 126 is 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 mentions reliability metric but the details about how it is calculates is left out of the specifications. That is, the mathematical formula and details about the parameters used.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1,33,89,123-129 and 133 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Pub 2021/0075611 to Roongta in view of US Patent Pub 2019/0104102 to Khan.
Regarding claim 1, Roongta discloses A computer-implemented method for processing a structured data unit related to a distributed ledger enabled system, the computer-implemented method being performed by at least one first computing node related to the distributed ledger enabled system, the computer- implemented method comprising: determining a reliability associated with at least one of the at least one first computing node, at least one given computing node and at least one second computing node(Abstract & Fig. 5 item 510, the data blocks are determined to authentic therefore the node storing the blockchain is authentic & Par. 007-0010 ) .
But Roongta does not disclose providing at least one indication of at least one portion of the structured data unit to at least one subset of the at least one second computing node.
In the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, Khan discloses providing at least one indication of at least one portion of the structured data unit to at least one subset of the at least one second computing node(Fig. 4 & Fig. 10, the contract and the transaction are entered into blockchain and passed to multiple entities & Par. 0039-0041).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify Roongta invention to incorporate providing at least one indication of at least one portion of the structured data unit to at least one subset of the at least one second computing node for the advantage of providing an ledger that satisfies the smart contract conditions as taught in Khan see Par. 0043-0049.
Regarding claim 33. Roongta discloses A computer-implemented method for validating a structured data unit related to a distributed ledger enabled system, the computer-implemented method being performed by at least one first computing node related to the distributed ledger enabled system, the computer- implemented method comprising: determining a reliability associated with at least one of the at least one first computing node, at least one given computing node and at least one second computing node(Par. 006 & 0063& 0069-0070, data stored unaltered and authentic); obtaining at least one indication of at least one first transaction associated with the structured data unit(Par. 006 & 0063& 0069-0070, data stored unaltered and authentic); determining a similarity between at least one indication of at least one second transaction associated with the at least one first computing node and the at least one indication of the at least one first transaction(Par. 006 & 0063& 0069-0070, data stored unaltered and authentic); and providing at least one of at least one given indication of a first result of said determining of similarity and at least one portion of the structured data unit to at least one subset of the at least one second computing node(Par. 006 & 0063& 0069-0070, data stored unaltered and authentic).
Regarding claim 89. Roongta discloses A computer-implemented method for generating a transaction to be added to a distributed ledger enabled system's structured data unit, the computer-implemented method being performed by at least one first computing node, the computer-implemented method comprising: determining a reliability associated with at least one second computing node(Par. 0062-0064, transaction between parties is recorded); obtaining at least one indication of at least one trackable number from the at least one second computing node(Par. 0062-0064, transaction between parties is recorded).; associating the at least one indication of the at least one trackable number with the transaction; and providing at least one indication of the transaction to at least one third computing node(Par. 0062-0064, transaction between parties is recorded).
Regarding claim 123. Roongta discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising at least one of: redetermining the reliability whenever a predefined condition or event occurs during any sub-process of the method(Par. 0069 & 0072-0073, validation consensus); determining a validity associated with at least one portion of the structured data unit and, if either the validity or a uniqueness requirement is not satisfied, removing and/or additively updating any suspicious or malicious portion of the structured data unit(Par. 0069, validation consensus); obtaining or generating the structured data unit from at least one subset of the at least one first computing node, the at least one given computing node or the at least one second computing node(Par. 0069& 0072-0073, validation consensus); and finalizing or confirming the structured data unit related to the distributed-ledger-enabled system only after both reliability has been redetermined and uniqueness requirements are satisfied, including committing the structured data unit on-chain(Par. 0069& 0072-0073, validation consensus); wherein the structured data unit is at least one selected from the group consisting of a block, a portion of a block, a portion of at least one transaction associated with at least one of the at least one second computing node and at least one other computing node, or another distributed-ledger data structure(Par. 0069, validation consensus).
Regarding claim 124. Khan discloses The method of claim 1, wherein said processing includes associating at least one first indication of at least one obtained first trackable number with at least one second trackable number that indexes sub-portions of a transaction or comparison dataset with the structured data unit, wherein each trackable number is pseudo-random or random, is produced through a multi- node randomness protocol, and comprises a first pseudo-random portion and a second pseudo- random portion; wherein said providing comprises at least one of: combining at least one part of at least one cryptographic key with at least one portion of the structured data unit using at least one of: concatenation, numeric-reduction, hashing, exclusive-or (XOR) operations, compression or normalization (Par. 0097-0099, the changes are stored with protocol being followed & Fig. 4); storing or referencing the resulting cryptographic information on a remote or distributed medium; and repeating or undoing said combination if the structured data unit is found to be non-unique or if a node's reliability changes(Par. 0097-0099, the changes are stored with protocol being followed).
Regarding claim 125. Roongta discloses The method of claim 1, wherein said determining of reliability comprises obtaining at least one authorization associated with at least one of the at least one first computing node and the at least one given computing node, said authorization being determined according to at least one of: at least one condition, event, action, function, criterion, smart contract, system manager, server, computing node, parameter, processing device, rule, machine readable instruction and vote of at least one entity related to the distributed ledger enabled system(Par. 007-009, the blocks are added based on events and verified).
Regarding claim 126. Roongta discloses The method of claim 1, wherein determining the reliability comprises comparing at least one reliability metric value with at least one reliability metric value threshold, and wherein the at least one reliability metric value threshold comprises at least one first minimum reliability metric value threshold and at least one first maximum reliability metric value threshold(Par. 0062-0064, transaction between parties is recorded).
Regarding claim 127. Khan discloses The method of claim 1, wherein at least one of the at least one first computing node, the at least one given computing node and the at least one second computing node has capabilities comprising at least one of: delegating a storing of at least one portion of data related to at least one subset of computing nodes according to at least one condition or event related to the distributed ledger enabled system(Par. 0020-0032, the parties are added and transaction proceeds); storing at least one additional portion of delegated data related to at least one subset of computing nodes(Par. 0020-0032, the parties are added and transaction proceeds); altering at least one transaction threshold associated with at least one structured data unit related to the distributed ledger enabled system for at least one subset of computing nodes(Par. 0020-0032, the parties are added and transaction proceeds); and performing at least one task comprising at least one of monitoring, modifying, adding, terminating and determining a behavior associated with at least one machine readable instruction related to the distributed ledger enabled system(Par. 0020-0032, the parties are added and transaction proceeds).
Regarding claim 128. Roongta discloses The method of claim 33, further comprising at least one of: determining an explicit validity of each said indication prior to acceptance; cross-checking at least one third transaction from at least one third computing node for additional validation or conflict detection; for at least one of said validating and said providing, combining at least one part of at least one cryptographic key with at least one portion of the structured data unit or information involved in at least one interaction between at least one subset of said nodes; upon detecting inconsistent or duplicate data, removing or updating suspicious portions in response to at least one condition or event in the system; performing at least one blockchain-related action selected from the group consisting of: adding a signature, updating a signature, adding a co-signature, and updating a co-signature(Par. 0070-0073, the beneficiaries and signatures are added & Par. 0061-0062).
Regarding claim 129. Roongta discloses The method of claim 33, further comprising: providing at least one portion of at least one of the at least one given indication, the at least one indication of the at least one first transaction and the at least one indication of the at least one second transaction to at least one relevant subset of at least one given computing node(Par. 006 & 0063& 0069-0070, data stored unaltered and authentic); and obtaining at least one indication of a second result, the at least one indication of the second result being obtained by first determining a similarity between at least one of the at least one given indication, the at least one indication of the at least one first transaction, the at least one indication of the at least one second transaction and at least one indication of at least one third transaction associated with the at least one relevant subset (Par. 006 & 0063& 0069-0070, data stored unaltered and authentic)
Regarding claim 133. Roongta discloses The method of claim 89, further comprising at least one of: the trackable number being pseudo-random or random and produced through a multi-node randomness protocol(Par. 0064-0066, the validation requirements for assets); the obtaining further comprising determining that at least one subset of at least one computing node is at least one subset of at least one of the at least one first computing node, the at least one second computing node and at least one third computing node(Par. 0064-0066, the validation requirements for assets); verifying uniqueness of the trackable number and detecting whether a conflict arises if the same trackable number is claimed by two distinct transactions(Par. 0064-0066, the validation requirements for assets); and redetermining said reliability whenever a trackable number is invalidated or an event triggers a reassessment(Par. 0064-0066, the validation requirements for assets).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Venkat Perungavoor whose telephone number is (571)272-7213. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Rupal Dharia can be reached on 571-272-3880. 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.
/VENKAT PERUNGAVOOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492 Email: venkatanarayan.perungavoor@uspto.gov