DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
The amendment filed on 02/03/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-15, 18 and 20-22 are pending.
Claims 1-15, 18 and 20-22 have been examined.
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 .
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Claims 1-6, 8, 10-13, 15 and 20-21 are amended.
Claim 22 is newly added.
Regarding applicant’s arguments on Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. §101, the arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is applicant’s position that “claim 1 is directed, generally, to an improved computer system for
addressing or identifying particular processing or storage resources through the processing of
specific types of data recovered from a blockchain.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claim(s) recite(s) allocating transaction processing resource. Specifically, the claims 1 and 20-21 recite “designating an allocation identifier to a... or ...; and accessing a ... or ... to retrieve data including an unspent transaction output or a transaction (Tx) containing an unspent transaction output; determining, from the data, a portion of data derived from the ... or...; using the portion of data derived from the ... or the ... to: identify the ... or ...; and/or allocate information associated with a transaction output to the processing resource or storage resource; by matching the portion of data to the allocation identifier”, and the claim 15 recites “generating, storing and/or maintaining a first unspent transaction output resource for recording, searching and/or processing a plurality of unspent transaction outputs, each associated with a transaction (Tx) in a plurality of blockchain transactions (TXs) of a blockchain block; using a portion of data derived from a ... or a ... to identify the first unspent transaction output; and/or allocate information associated with a transaction output to the first unspent transaction output resource; by matching the portion of data to the allocation identifier; wherein data from which the portion of data is derived comprises an unspent transaction output or a transaction (Tx) containing an unspent transaction output.”, which is mental processes grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106) because the claims involve a series of steps for allocating transaction processing resource. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The applicant argues that “the present claims recite a specific technological improvement for using specific data components recovered from a blockchain to perform identification of a specific computing resource, such as a processing resource or a storage resource. The claims recite a practical application of the technology and are therefore of patentable subject matter.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as the use of blockchain, peer-to-peer network, processing resource, storage resource, computing equipment, processors, memories and storage media merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The processors and memories are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of allocating transaction processing resource) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Regarding applicant’s arguments on Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. §102, the arguments have been fully considered. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
It is applicant’s position that “there does not appear to be significant disclosure in the cited portions of Motylinski of identifying a storage/processing resource, or allocating data to such a resource, by designating an identifier to the resource and then matching a portion of data derived from the blockchain or a P2P network to that identifier.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Motylinski Fig. 2 illustrates that the processing resources (208) with identifier, Processor 1, Processor 2, .... Processor N, where the N is the identifier. The “TX allocation unit” 206 allocating UTXO data to processing resources 208. Motylinski ¶0075 discloses “to better balance the processing load among the available processors, in some implementations the node may take into account the complexity of the transaction and, in particular, the complexity of validating each transaction. One such measure of (or proxy for) processing load is the number of scripting operations involved in the transaction. That is, the time required to validate an individual transaction j may be considered to be proportional to the number cj of scripting operations involved. For instance, in case of P2PKH transactions, cj is the sum of the number of operations in the signature script (input) and the number of operations in the public key script (referenced output).” And ¶0079 further discloses “The scheduling scheme S distributes the list of transaction validations {cj}, 0≤j<n among the CPUs. This problem is known as job shop scheduling: n jobs {J1, J2, ... Jn} of varying processing times need to be scheduled on N machines with varying processing power...”. Therefore, Motylinski teaches claims 1, 15 and 20-21. See pages 7-8 of this OA for the detail.
Regarding applicant’s arguments on Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. §103, the arguments have been fully considered. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
It is the applicant’s position that claims 9-11 and 13 are allowable because “each depend on an allowable base claim” the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claims 9-11 and 13 depends from claim 1. As explained above, claim 1 is not in condition for allowance. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
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 1-15, 18 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Analysis
In the instant case, claims 1-15, 18 and 22 are directed to methods, claims 20-21 are directed to apparatus. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claim(s) recite(s) allocating transaction processing resource. Specifically, the claims 1 and 20-21 recite “designating an allocation identifier to a... or ...; and accessing a ... or ... to retrieve data including an unspent transaction output or a transaction (Tx) containing an unspent transaction output; determining, from the data, a portion of data derived from the ... or...; using the portion of data derived from the ... or the ... to: identify the ... or ...; and/or allocate information associated with a transaction output to the processing resource or storage resource; by matching the portion of data to the allocation identifier”, and the claim 15 recites “generating, storing and/or maintaining a first unspent transaction output resource for recording, searching and/or processing a plurality of unspent transaction outputs, each associated with a transaction (Tx) in a plurality of blockchain transactions (TXs) of a blockchain block; using a portion of data derived from a ... or a ... to identify the first unspent transaction output; and/or allocate information associated with a transaction output to the first unspent transaction output resource; by matching the portion of data to the allocation identifier; wherein data from which the portion of data is derived comprises an unspent transaction output or a transaction (Tx) containing an unspent transaction output.”, which is mental processes grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106) because the claims involve a series of steps for allocating transaction processing resource. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as the use of blockchain, peer-to-peer network, processing resource, storage resource, computing equipment, processors, memories and storage media merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The processors and memories are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of allocating transaction processing resource) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using blockchain, peer-to-peer network, processing resource, storage resource, computing equipment, processors, memories and storage media to allocate transaction information steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2 and 14 describe storing and processing unspent transaction. Dependent claims 3, 8-11 and 22 describe processing data. Dependent claims 4 and 7 describe UTXO data. Dependent claim 5 describes allocation of storage resource. Dependent claim 6 describes processing resource. Dependent claim 12 describes hash table. Dependent claim 13 describes record. Dependent claim 18 describes conducting transaction. These claims further recite the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as the use of blockchain, peer-to-peer network, processing resource, storage resource, computing equipment, processors, memories and storage media merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims simply recite the concept of allocating transaction processing resource. The claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field.
The use of blockchain, peer-to-peer network, processing resource, storage resource, computing equipment, processors, memories and storage media as tools to implement the abstract idea does not render the claim patent eligible because it does not provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea.
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)(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.
Claims 1-8, 12, 14-15, 18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by US Application Publication US20200074424A1 (“Motylinski et al.”).
Regarding claims 1 and 20-21, Motylinski et al. discloses:
memory comprising one or more memory units; and (Fig. 4)
processing apparatus comprising one or more processing units, wherein the memory stores code arranged to run on the processing apparatus, the code being configured so as when run on the processing apparatus, the processing apparatus performs a method of: (Fig. 4; ¶0022 and ¶¶0089-91)
designating an allocation identifier to a processing resource or storage resource; and (Fig. 2 item 208)
accessing a blockchain or peer-to-peer network to retrieve data including an unspent transaction output or a transaction (Tx) containing an unspent transaction output; (Fig. 3 step 302; ¶0011)
determining, from the data, a portion of data derived from the blockchain or the peer-to-peer network; (¶0011 and ¶0075)
using the portion of data derived from the blockchain or the peer-to-peer network to:
identify the processing resource or storage resource; and/or (¶0014 and ¶¶0075-79)
allocate information associated with a transaction output to the processing resource or storage resource; (¶0014 and ¶¶0075-79)
by matching the portion of data to the allocation identifier (¶0014 and ¶¶0075-79)
Regarding claim 15, Motylinski et al. discloses:
generating, storing and/or maintaining a first unspent transaction output resource for recording, searching and/or processing a plurality of unspent transaction outputs, each associated with a transaction (Tx) in a plurality of blockchain transactions (TXs) of a blockchain block; (Fig. 2; ¶0011 and ¶¶0041-57)
using a portion of data derived from a blockchain or a peer-to-peer network to:
identify the first unspent transaction output; and/or (¶0011 and ¶0014)
allocate information associated with a transaction output to the first unspent transaction output resource; (¶0011 and ¶0014)
by matching the portion of data to the allocation identifier; (¶0011 and ¶0014)
wherein said data from which the portion of data is derived comprises an unspent transaction output and/or a transaction (Tx) containing an unspent transaction output. (¶0011 and ¶0014)
Regarding claim 2, Motylinski et al. discloses all limitations as described above. Motylinski et al. further discloses:
storing the at least a portion of the unspent transaction output or the transaction (Tx) in the storage resource; and/or (Figs 2-3; ¶¶0041-57 and ¶0060)
processing at least a portion of the unspent transaction output or the transaction by the processing. (Figs 2-3; ¶¶0041-57 and ¶0060)
Regarding claim 3, Motylinski et al. discloses all limitations as described above. Motylinski et al. further discloses:
receiving at the processing resource or storage resource said data from which the portion of data is derived, and(Figs 2-3; ¶¶0041-57 and ¶0060)
parsing said data to determine whether to:
process said data and/or store information derived from said data, or (Figs 2-3; ¶¶0041-57 and ¶0060)
take no action. (Figs 2-3; ¶¶0041-57 and ¶0060)
Regarding claim 4, Motylinski et al. discloses all limitations as described above. Motylinski et al. further discloses:
preparing or transmitting a transaction having said unspent transaction output as an input; (Figs. 2-3) or
using a hash table to determine the storage resource in which at least a portion of the unspent transaction output or the transaction is stored. (¶0074)
Regarding claim 5, Motylinski et al. discloses all limitations as described above. Motylinski et al. further discloses:
identification of and/or allocation to the processing resource or storage resource is performed by an intermediary connected to a plurality of storage resource or processing resources; (¶0060) or
the method further comprises deriving the portion of data from the blockchain. (Figs 2-3)
Regarding claim 6, Motylinski et al. discloses all limitations as described above. Motylinski et al. further discloses:
wherein the processing resource is arranged to:
validates, at least in part, the unspent transaction output and/or a transaction (Tx) containing an unspent transaction output; and/or (Fig.2; ¶¶0063-65)
generating, storing and/or maintaining a record of validation data required to validate the unspent transaction output and/or a transaction (Tx) containing an unspent transaction output. (Fig. 2; ¶¶0062-65)
Regarding claim 7, Motylinski et al. discloses all limitations as described above. Motylinski et al. further discloses:
wherein the data includes at least one of:
an unspent transaction output identifier;
a hash of the unspent transaction output; (¶0071)
a transaction identification (TXID).
Regarding claim 8, Motylinski et al. discloses all limitations as described above. Motylinski et al. further discloses:
wherein the method further comprises processing the data to determine a key, wherein the key determines the allocated identifier of the processing resources or storage resource.(¶¶0080-82)
Regarding claim 12, Motylinski et al. discloses all limitations as described above. Motylinski et al. further discloses:
wherein a hash table determines the storage resource in which at least a portion of the unspent transaction output and/or the transaction (Tx) is stored. (¶0074)
Regarding claim 14, Motylinski et al. discloses all limitations as described above. Motylinski et al. further discloses:
for at least a portion of the transaction (Tx) and/or said unspent transaction output, at least one of:
validating and/or verifying said unspent transaction output; (Fig. 3 step 310; ¶¶0041-57 and ¶0086)
performing at least part of a Simplified Payment Verification (SPV) process for said unspent transaction output;
confirming whether a given blockchain transaction (Tx) is contained within a the blockchain block;
generating a hash of at least one of the blockchain transactions, using the hash to construct a Merkle path and/or checking whether the hash matches a transaction identifier (TxID) in a header of the blockchain block; and
determining a Merkle proof for said unspent transaction output.
Regarding claim 18, Motylinski et al. discloses all limitations as described above. Motylinski et al. further discloses:
preparing and/or transmitting a transaction (Tx) having said unspent transaction output as an input. (Figs.2-3; ¶¶0062-63 and ¶0067).
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.
Claims 9-11 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Application Publication US20200074424A1 (“Motylinski et al.”) in view of China Application Publication CN111581214A (“He et al.”).
Regarding claim 9, Motylinski et al. discloses all limitations as described above. Motylinski et al. does not explicitly discloses:
wherein the key is hashed to generate a resulting hash and the resulting hash determines the allocated resource.
However, He et al. discloses:
wherein the key is hashed to generate a resulting hash and the resulting hash determines the allocated resource. (abs; page 2 para 7 “(2) the main thread receives...”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify System and Methods for Parallel Verification of Blockchain Transaction of Motylinski et al. by including utilizing hashing to facilitate resource allocation for parallel processing in accordance with the teaching of He et al.. This modification improves the system performance for the combined system.
Regarding claim 10, Motylinski et al. in view of He et al. discloses all limitations as described above. He et al. further discloses:
wherein at least one of the data, the key, and the resulting hash comprises at least one of:
an alphanumeric number; and
a binary number,
and said alphanumeric or binary number is used to determine the allocated identifier for the processing resource or storage resource. (page 2 para 7 “(2) the main thread receives...”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify System and Methods for Parallel Verification of Blockchain Transaction of Motylinski et al. by including utilizing hashing to facilitate resource allocation for parallel processing in accordance with the teaching of He et al.. This modification improves the system performance for the combined system.
Regarding claim 11, Motylinski et al. in view of He et al. discloses all limitations as described above. He et al. further discloses:
wherein a portion of the alphanumeric or binary number is parsed to determine the allocation identifier for the storage resource or processing resource. (He, page 2 para 7 “(2) the main thread receives...”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify System and Methods for Parallel Verification of Blockchain Transaction of Motylinski et al. by including utilizing hashing to facilitate resource allocation for parallel processing in accordance with the teaching of He et al.. This modification improves the system performance for the combined system.
Regarding claim 22, Motylinski et al. discloses all limitations as described above. Motylinski et al. does not explicitly discloses:
wherein the key is hashed and the resulting hash determines the allocation identifier for the processing resource or storage resource.
However, He et al. discloses:
wherein the key is hashed and the resulting hash determines the allocation identifier for the processing resource or storage resource. (abs; page 2 para 7 “(2) the main thread receives...”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify System and Methods for Parallel Verification of Blockchain Transaction of Motylinski et al. by including utilizing hashing to facilitate resource allocation for parallel processing in accordance with the teaching of He et al.. This modification improves the system performance for the combined system.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Application Publication US20200074424A1 (“Motylinski et al.”) in view of “Mastering Bitcoin” (“Antono0poulos”).
Regarding claim 13, Motylinski et al. discloses all limitations as described above. Motylinski et al. does not explicitly discloses:
wherein the record comprises at least one of:
a Merkle Tree of a block in which said transaction (Tx) is recorded;
a Merkle root of the block in which said transaction (Tx) is recorded;
a Merkle path, which enables a the-determination of a the-value for the Merkle root for the block in which said transaction (Tx) is recorded, from a hash of said transaction (Tx);
a Merkle proof;
a block identifier (block_ID) associated with the block;
a transaction identifier (TxID) associated with a transaction (Tx) in a plurality of blockchain transactions within the block;
a function of the block identifier (block_ID) and the transaction identifier (TxID); and
a concatenation of the block identifier (block_ID) and the transaction identifier (TxID).
However, Antonopoulos discloses:
wherein the record comprises at least one of:
a Merkle Tree of a block in which said transaction (Tx) is recorded; (page 164 “Merkle Trees”)
a Merkle root of the block in which said transaction (Tx) is recorded; (Figure 7-2; page 164 “Merkle Trees”)
a Merkle path, which enables a the-determination of a the-value for the Merkle root for the block in which said transaction (Tx) is recorded, from a hash of said transaction (Tx); (pages 167-168 Figure 7-4 and 7-5)
a Merkle proof;
a block identifier (block_ID) associated with the block; (page 161)
a transaction identifier (TxID) associated with a transaction (Tx) in a plurality of blockchain transactions within the block;(page 39)
a function of the block identifier (block_ID) and the transaction identifier (TxID); and
a concatenation of the block identifier (block_ID) and the transaction identifier (TxID).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify System and Methods for Parallel Verification of Blockchain Transaction of Motylinski et al. by including Merkle Tree of a block where a transaction is recorded in accordance with the teaching of Antonopoulos. This modification allows the combined system to use Merkle tree to summarize all the transactions in a block. It provides a very efficient process to verify whether a transaction is included in a block (Antonopoulos page 164 3rd para under “Merkle Tree” section).
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20180158034A1 (“Hunt et al.”) discloses a method and system for optimizing performance and scalability of blockchain transactions. A blockchain may include various transactions which are identified and which require processing. The order of processing such transactions may be optimized by examining content of the transactions. One example method of operation may comprise one or more of receiving an ordered set of proposed transactions intended for inclusion in a blockchain block, creating a lattice structure containing the proposed transactions for the blockchain block, the lattice structure comprising a top and a bottom and a plurality of nodes representing the proposed transactions, determining an order of execution of the proposed transactions for the blockchain block via the lattice structure, and processing the proposed transactions in the lattice structure in parallel based on a configuration of the lattice structure.
US20170212781A1(“Dillenberger et al.”) discloses a system, method, and computer readable storage medium for accessing a data file shared by all computing nodes participating in a system based on a blockchain protocol. The data file includes transactions and blocks. The transactions are data to be stored in the blockchain and the blocks are records that confirm when and in what sequence certain transaction became journaled as part of the blockchain. A request is received to include a plurality of transactions each with additional data as a new block on the blockchain. Criteria that includes a settable period of time or a settable number of transactions received is used to determine how many transactions go into a new block. A directed acyclic graph (DAG) is accessed that is constructed based on inter-dependencies among the transactions. The transactions for the new block are divided into a set of two or more independent tasks that can be executed in parallel based on the DAG. The independent tasks that can be managed independently are executed..
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YINGYING ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)272-5308. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00am - 5:00pm ET.
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, John W Hayes can be reached on 571-272-6708. 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.
/YINGYING ZHOU/Examiner, Art Unit 3697
/JOHN W HAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights