DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This is a first office action in response to the arguments/remarks filed on with an RCE on May 13, 2025.
Claims 1-2 and 11 have been amended.
Claims 1-16 are pending and have been examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. An applicant's submission filed on 05/13/2026 has been entered.
Responses to Arguments/Remarks
Claim Objections:
The amended claims 11 has overcome the claim objection, and the claim objection has been withdrawn. The amended claims cause more issues, and the applicant has been advised to refer to the claim objection section for details.
35 U.S.C. § 112:
The amended claims have overcome some of the 112 issues. The applicant has been advised to refer to the 112 rejection section for details. The amended claims cause more issues, and the applicant has been advised to refer to the 112 rejection section for details.
35 U.S.C. § 103:
He discloses breaking down an assembled block of transactions into segments based on the block’s Merkle tree (see pages 7-8). Motylinski discloses using a plurality of validators to perform transaction-level validation of the transaction in segments (see paragraphs [0011]-[0014] and paragraph [0086]).
The applicant’s amendments have overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection. However, there are new grounds of rejection necessitated by the applicant’s amendments as detailed in the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection section. Hence, the applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim rejection have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
at least one controller component in claim 1
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The specification discloses that a controller component is a controlling entity (see paragraph [0091] of the publication). The controller component may be distinct from the validators or may comprise or be comprised by one of validators (see paragraph [0134] of the specification). Additionally, the controller component comprises one or more interfaces, a segment identification unit, and a load balancing unit (see Fig. 7; Fig. 9; and paragraph [0141] of the publication). The system in Fig. 7 and/or in Fig. 9 shows that the system comprises a plurality of validating resources and a standalone controller. The amended claim 1 discloses that at least one controller component is a network device on a network. By the broadest reasonable interpretation, a network device could be hardware, firmware, or software. Additionally, the one or more interfaces, the segment identification unit, and the load balancing unit included in the controller component could be hardware, firmware, or software. Therefore, it is unclear whether the controller component is hardware, firmware, or software.
If the applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, the applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “at least one controller component that is a network device on a network wherein the at least one controller component is operative to: i) receive the blockchain block from a sending resource across an electronic channel or network; and ii) segment the blockchain block into a plurality of segments based on the Merkle tree for the blockchain block, each segment in the plurality of segments comprising a subset of the plurality of blockchain transactions that is represented by a segment hash that is an inner node of the Merkle tree for the blockchain block.” The specification does not provide an adequate structure to perform the claimed function listed above. The specification does not demonstrate that the applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described in sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor has possession of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “at least one controller component that is a network device on a network wherein the at least one controller component is operative to: i) receive the blockchain block from a sending resource across an electronic channel or network; and ii) segment the blockchain block into a plurality of segments based on the Merkle tree for the blockchain block, each segment in the plurality of segments comprising a subset of the plurality of blockchain transactions that is represented by a segment hash that is an inner node of the Merkle tree for the blockchain block.” The specification discloses that a controller component is a controlling entity (see paragraph [0091] of the publication). The controller component may be distinct from the validators or may comprise or be comprised by one of validators (see paragraph [0134] of the specification). Additionally, the controller component comprises one or more interfaces, a segment identification unit, and a load balancing unit (see Fig. 7; Fig. 9; and paragraph [0141] of the publication). The system in Fig. 7 and/or in Fig. 9 shows that the system comprises a plurality of validating resources and a standalone controller. The amended claim 1 discloses that at least one controller component is a network device on a network. By the broadest reasonable interpretation, a network device could be hardware, firmware, or software. Additionally, the one or more interfaces, the segment identification unit, and the load balancing unit included in the controller component could be hardware, firmware, or software. Therefore, it is unclear whether the controller component is hardware, firmware, or software. If the controller component is software, it is unclear how the included software/instructions are executed because the controller component does not comprise any processors to execute software/instructions.
The limitation, which recites at least one controller component in claim 1, invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structures perform the claimed functions. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If the applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, the applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Dependent claims 2-16 are rejected because they depend on the rejected independent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 35 U.S.C. 103 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 1-5, 7, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motylinski et al. (US 20200074424 A1) in view of He et al. (CN 111581214 A), and further in view of Dillenberger et al. (US 20170212781 A1).
Claim 1:
Motylinski discloses the following:
a system configured operative to validate blockchain transactions in at least a portion of a blockchain block that has been assembled and is to be written to a blockchain, the blockchain block comprises a plurality of blockchain transactions and a (header) […] for the blockchain block. (See paragraph [0005]; Figs. 2-3; paragraphs [0062]-[0064]; and paragraph [0068].)
the system comprising: a least one controller component that is a network device on a network wherein the at least one controller component is operative to: i) receive the blockchain block from a sending resource across an electronic channel or network; and ii)segment the blockchain block into a plurality of segments based on (a first-come first-serve algorithm) […] for the blockchain block, each segment in the plurality of segments comprising a subset of the plurality of blockchain transactions that is represented by a segment hash […]. (See paragraphs [0011]-[0014]; Figs. 2-3; paragraphs [0062]-[0064]; and paragraph [0068].)
a plurality of validating resources, each […] communication with the at least one controller component and configured to validate one or more blockchain transactions to validate that they conform to transaction-level criteria of a blockchain protocol and comprising: at least one processor associated with at least one portion of memory storing executable instructions that, as a result of execution by the at least one processor, causes or enables each respective validating resource. (See Fig. 2; paragraphs [0061]-[0065]; Fig. 4; and paragraphs [0089]-[0090].)
receive or download, from the at least one controller component via the (communication) […], a respective subset of the plurality of blockchain transactions. (See paragraphs [0011]-[0014]; Fig. 2; and paragraphs [0061]-[0065].)
perform pre-mining validation of validate the blockchain transactions in the respective subset of the plurality of blockchain transactions to assess whether they comply with the transaction-level criteria of the blockchain protocol. (See paragraphs [0011]-[0013] and paragraph [0065].)
if a non-compliant blockchain transaction is identified within the respective subset of the plurality of blockchain transactions, send an interrupt signal or other output to the at least one controller component or other validating resources in the plurality of validating resources to cease validation of their respective subsets of the plurality of blockchain transactions. (See paragraph [0065]. Examiner’s Note: The step of sending an interrupt signal or other output in the limitation happens only if non-compliant blockchain transaction is identified. This is a contingent limitation.)
Motylinski does not explicitly disclose the following:
the blockchain block comprising a root of a Merkle tree for the blockchain block;
segment the blockchain block into a plurality of segments based on the Merkle tree for the blockchain bock, each segment in the plurality of segments comprising a subset of the plurality of blockchain transactions that is represented by a segment hash that is an inner node of the Merkle tree for the blockchain block;
a plurality of validating resources, each in networked communication with the at least one controller component and receiving/downloading from the at least one processor via the network.
Motylinski discloses a blockchain block that comprises a block header. One of ordinary skill in the art knows that the block header comprises a Merkle tree. He, an analogous art of validating blockchain transactions parallelly, discloses the blockchain block comprising a root of a Merkle tree for the blockchain block. (See page 7, “after receiving the block sent by the master node, the slave node firstly acquires a merkle tree root, a sub-thread tree N and the like from a block head.”)
He further discloses segment the blockchain block into a plurality of segments based on the Merkle tree for the blockchain bock, each segment in the plurality of segments comprising a subset of the plurality of blockchain transactions that is represented by a segment hash that is an inner node of the Merkle tree for the blockchain block. (See pages 7-8; the figure below, which is Fig. 1 of reference He.)
Motylinski discloses breaking down the blockchain block into a plurality of segments using a first-come first-serve algorithm (see paragraph 0014]). Merkle tree is generated mainly based on the order of the transactions received by the blockchain. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of He in the Motylinski system. Moreover, in order to improve the efficiency of the block segmenting process in the Motylinski system, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to segment the blockchain block based on the Merkle tree of the blockchain bock, so that the transactions of the block can be effectively segmented based on the Merkle tree of the block.
PNG
media_image1.png
622
964
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The combination of Motylinski and He discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose a plurality of validating resources, each in networked communication with the at least one controller component and receiving/downloading from the at least one processor via the network.
Dillenberger, an analogous art of validating blockchain transactions parallelly, discloses a plurality of validating resources, each in networked communication with the at least one controller component and receiving/downloading from the at least one processor via the network. (See Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0033]-[0037], “[t]his parallelism can be accomplished as separate tasks, threads or using separate processors or processing cores or separate parallel computer systems.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Dillenberger in the Motylinski system as modified. Moreover, in order to improve the flexibility of the Motylinski system as modified, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize separate parallel computer systems to perform the parallel transaction verifications by transferring each of the segments from a controller to a respective computer system via a network, so that the flexibility of the validation process is improved through utilizing different types of resources to parallelly validate transactions.
Claim 2:
Motylinski in view of He and Dillenberger discloses the limitation shown above.
Motylinski further discloses wherein the system further configured to: facilitate balancing of a distribution of subsets of plurality blockchain transactions among the plurality of validating resource or ii) perform segment identification facilitate identification of the subsets of the plurality of blockchain transactions; or iii) implement an allocation unit; or iv) send or receive communications between the system and one or more data sources or destinations. (See paragraphs [0011]-[0014]; Fig. 2; and paragraphs [0061]-[0065].)
Claim 3:
Motylinski in view of He and Dillenberger discloses the limitation shown above.
Motylinski further discloses the system is configured to: control at least one validating resource in the plurality of validating resources; control at least one processor of the at least one validating resourcein the plurality of validating resources; perform load balancing; or facilitate identification of the respective subsets of the plurality of blockchain transactions. (See paragraphs [0011]-[0014]; Fig. 2; and paragraphs [0061]-[0065].)
Claim 4:
Motylinski in view of He and Dillenberger discloses the limitation shown above.
He further discloses wherein: i) at least two transactions in the respective subset of the blockchain transactions are siblings in the Merkle tree; or ii) the inner node is a parent or an ancestor of the respective subset of blockchain transactions. (See the figure below, which is Fig. 1 of reference He; page 7, “[t]he merkle tree structure related to the invention is shown in fig. 1, and has the following characteristics:1. each sub-tree in the kth layer is maintained by one thread for a non-complete binary tree, and all the threads are placed in a thread pool to be convenient for multiplexing; 2. all the merkle tree nodes under each subtree are stored in the segmented memory managed by the thread.”)
PNG
media_image2.png
700
1084
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of He in the Motylinski system. Moreover, in order to improve the efficiency of the block segmenting process in the Motylinski system, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to segment the blockchain block based on the Merkle tree of the blockchain bock, so that the transactions of the block can be effectively segmented based on the Merkle tree of the block.
Claim 5:
Motylinski in view of He and Dillenberger discloses the limitation shown above.
Motylinski discloses the system comprising a plurality of output repositories, each repository in the plurality of output repositories is associated with a respective validating resource in the plurality of validating resources and arranged to facilitate recording, searching or processing of a plurality of unspent transaction outputs; preferably wherein each of the plurality of unspent transaction outputs is associated with at least one transaction in the plurality of blockchain transaction. (See paragraphs [0011]-[0014]; paragraphs [0015]-[0016]; paragraph [0029]; paragraphs [0041]-[0060]; and paragraphs [0064]-[0065].)
Claim 7:
Motylinski in view of He and Dillenberger discloses the limitation shown above.
Motylinski discloses wherein at least one of the plurality of output repositories comprises at least one record associated with: i) an unspent transaction output; or ii) an identifier that is associated with a) an unspent transaction output or b) a transaction (Tx) in the plurality of blockchain transactions. (See paragraphs [0011]-[0014]; paragraphs [0015]-[0016]; paragraph [0029]; paragraphs [0041]-[0060]; and paragraphs [0064]-[0065].)
Claim 13:
Motylinski in view of He and Dillenberger discloses the limitation shown above.
Motylinski further discloses wherein the system is configured to: allocate respective subsets of the blockchain transactions to the plurality of validating resources. (See paragraphs [0011]-[0014]; Fig. 2; and paragraphs [0061]-[0065].)
Claim 14:
Motylinski in view of He and Dillenberger discloses the limitation shown above.
He further discloses wherein the system is configured to: use one, some or all of the validating resources to generate a respective candidate inner node of the Merkle tree based on the respective downloaded subset of blockchain transactions; and further configured to perform at least one of the following: verify that the respective candidate inner node matches the respective inner node of the Merkle tree; or; verify that the respective candidate inner node is a node of the Merkle tree by performing a Merkle proof based on the root of the Merkle tree; or send the respective candidate inner node of the Merkle tree to one or more other processing resources. (See page 7, “[f]urther, the method for concurrently verifying the slave nodes further comprises the following steps: (1) after receiving the block sent by the master node, the slave node firstly acquires a merkle tree root, a sub-thread tree N and the like from a block head; (2) obtaining the whole transaction merkle tree from the block body, creating sub-threads according to the number N of the sub-threads, numbering the sub-threads, and obtaining the merkle tree log2 the nodes of the merkle trees of the N layers are sequentially transmitted into the sub-threads; (3) the sub-thread obtains the transaction files with the thread numbers from the transaction directory in sequence through the thread numbers of the sub-thread; (4) the sub-threads concurrently pass through the merkle tree to verify all transactions; (5) if the verification is passed, the block is considered to be not tampered and can be recorded locally”; Section Example 2, page 8.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of He in the Motylinski system. Moreover, in order to improve the efficiency of the block segmenting process in the Motylinski system, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to segment the blockchain block based on the Merkle tree of the blockchain bock, so that the transactions of the block can be effectively segmented based on the Merkle tree of the block.
Claim 15:
Motylinski in view of He and Dillenberger discloses the limitation shown above.
Motylinski further discloses wherein the system is configured to: i) validate or verify at least one blockchain transaction; or ii) perform a Simplified Payment Verification process; or iii) confirm whether a given blockchain transaction is contained within the blockchain block; or iii) generate a hash of at least one of the blockchain transactions, using the hash to construct a Merkle path or checking whether the hash matches a transaction identifier in a header of the blockchain block. (See paragraphs [0011]-[0014]; Fig. 2; and paragraphs [0061]-[0065].)
Claim 16:
Motylinski in view of He and Dillenberger discloses the limitation shown above.
Motylinski further discloses wherein: at least one of the plurality of validating resources is, or comprises at least one of: a virtual machine, a server, a GPU-based computing resource, a thread, or a multiprocessor system. (See paragraphs [0011]-[0014]; Fig. 2; and paragraphs [0061]-[0065].)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motylinski et al. (US 20200074424 A1) in view of He et al. (CN 111581214 A), and further in view of Dillenberger et al. (US 20170212781 A1) and Haldenby et al. (US 20180276666 A1).
Claim 6:
Motylinski in view of He and Dillenberger discloses the limitation shown above.
None of Motylinski, He, and Dillenberger explicitly discloses creating and/or maintaining a database log that comprises a history of actions, changes and events relating to at least one of the plurality of UTXO repositories.
However, Haldenby, an analogous art of processing blockchain transactions, discloses creating and/or maintaining a database log that comprises a history of actions, changes and events relating to at least one of the plurality of output repositories. (See paragraph [0046], “[f]urther, and in certain aspects, client device 102 and/or POS terminal 122 may process SV block-chain ledger 113 to track and establish a current balance of the funds loaded onto client device 102 by the prior authorized SV load transaction, e.g., an SV unspent transaction output (UTXO), which is available to fund additional SV purchase transactions involving client device 102 during the current transaction cycle”; paragraph [0053]; and paragraph [0112], “a determination module 402 of POS terminal 122 may receive UTXO data 326, which includes the current value of the SV UTXO available to fund the initiated SV purchase transaction (e.g., the purchase of the $2.50 cup of coffee from merchant 121), may access data repository 128 and obtain initiated SV purchase transaction data 135 (e.g., as maintained within transaction log 134).”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Haldenby in the Motylinski system as modified. Moreover, in order to improve the transaction process in the Motylinski system as modified, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to create and/or maintain a transaction log for recording transaction history, so that the information associated with the transactions can be effectively tracked.
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motylinski et al. (US 20200074424 A1) in view of He et al. (CN 111581214 A), and further in view of Dillenberger et al. (US 20170212781 A1) and Antonopoulos (“Mastering Bitcoin,” December 2014).
Claim 8:
Motylinski in view of He and Dillenberger discloses the limitation shown above.
Motylinski discloses an output repository comprising at least one record associated with an unspent transaction output. (See paragraphs [0011]-[0014]; paragraphs [0015]-[0016]; paragraph [0029]; paragraphs [0041]-[0060]; and paragraphs [0064]-[0065].)
An unspent transaction output included in a transaction input is identified by a transaction identifier and an output index. Therefore, a transaction comprises at least one transaction identifier. The examiner introduces Antonopoulos to disclose that a transaction comprises at least one transaction identifier. (See paragraph 117, “[i]n simple terms, transaction inputs are pointers to UTXO. They point to a specific UTXO by reference to the transaction hash and sequence number where the UTXO is recorded in the blockchain”; Table 5-3, page119.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Antonopoulos in the Motylinski system as modified. Moreover, in order to improve the transaction process in the Motylinski system as modified, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize a transaction identifier to identify a UTXO, so that the double spending of a UTXO can be prevented by validating the UTXO based on the transaction identifier.
Claim 10:
Motylinski in view of He, Dillenberger, and Antonopoulos discloses the limitation shown above.
Antonopoulos further disclose using the record identifier to search for, identify, access or insert the at least one record in at least one output repository in the plurality of output repositories. (See paragraph 117, “[i]n simple terms, transaction inputs are pointers to UTXO. They point to a specific UTXO by reference to the transaction hash and sequence number where the UTXO is recorded in the blockchain”; pages 182-183, “[f]or each input, look in the main branch and the transaction pool to find the referenced output transaction…. For each input, the referenced output must exist and cannot already be spent.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Antonopoulos in the Motylinski system as modified. Moreover, in order to improve the transaction process in the Motylinski system as modified, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize a transaction identifier to identify a UTXO, so that the double spending of a UTXO can be prevented by validating the UTXO based on the transaction identifier.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motylinski et al. (US 20200074424 A1) in view of He et al. (CN 111581214 A), and further in view of Dillenberger et al. (US 20170212781 A1), Antonopoulos (“Mastering Bitcoin,” December 2014), and Saito (US 20210263908 A1).
Claim 9:
Motylinski in view of He, Dillenberger, and Antonopoulos discloses the limitation shown above.
None of Motylinski, He, Dillenberger, and Antonopoulos explicitly discloses wherein the record identifier comprises: i) a function of the block identifier (block ID) and the transaction identifier (TxID); or ii) a concatenation of the block identifier (block ID) and the transaction identifier (TxID).
However, Saito, an analogous art of processing blockchain transactions, discloses wherein the record identifier comprises: i) a function of the block identifier (block ID) and the transaction identifier (TxID); or ii) a concatenation of the block identifier (block ID) and the transaction identifier (TxID). (See paragraph [0072], “[e]ach UTXO may be identified by a memory address represented by a combination of block identifier (e.g., block number, etc.), transaction identifier (e.g., transaction number, etc.), transaction index, and the like. Using the combination of the block identifier, transaction identifier, and transaction index, the blockchain peer may read a UTXO from a memory address on the blockchain and add/insert it to a blockchain transaction structure.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Saito in the Motylinski system as modified. Moreover, in order to improve the transaction process in the Motylinski system as modified, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize the combination of the block identifier and the transaction identifier as a record identifier to locate a UTXO, so that the UTXO can be effectively checked and/or queried.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (CN 111581214 A) in view of Dillenberger et al. (US 20170212781 A1), and further in view of Motylinski et al. (US 20200074424 A1) and Xiao (US 20210209595 A1).
Claim 11:
Motylinski in view of He and Dillenberger discloses the limitation shown above.
None of Motylinski, He, and Dillenberger explicitly discloses wherein: at least one unspent transaction output in the plurality (UTXOs) is associated with a locking flag which: i) indicates whether the unspent transaction output is available or unavailable for spending; and/or ii) is configurable between a first state indicative that spending of the unspent transaction output is allowed and a second state indicative that spending of the unspent transaction output is prohibited.
However, Xiao, an analogous art of processing blockchain transactions, discloses at least one unspent transaction output in the plurality (UTXOs) is associated with a locking flag which: i) indicates whether the unspent transaction output is available or unavailable for spending; or ii) is configurable between a first state indicative that spending of the unspent transaction output is allowed and a second state indicative that spending of the unspent transaction output is prohibited. (See paragraph [0105], “blockchain node receives the transaction request and calls the interface function CreateCheck for processing, and specifically may lock an UTXO corresponding to a check (or lock a quota). The so-called ‘lock’ may be adding a flag bit in the UTXO to mark that the UTXO cannot perform a transfer”; paragraphs [0128]-[0129].)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Xiao in the Motylinski system as modified. Moreover, in order to improve the transaction process in the Motylinski system as modified, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a locking flag in the UTXO to lock or unlock the UTXO in the transaction, so that allowing or prohibiting the transferring/spending of a UTXO can be effectively controlled via the lock flag of the UTXO.
Claim 12:
Motylinski in view of He, Dillenberger, and Xiao discloses the limitation shown above.
Xiao further discloses wherein the system configured operative to: change a state of the locking flag from the first state to the second state, or the second state to the first state. (See paragraph [0105] and paragraphs [0128]-[0129].)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Xiao in the Motylinski system as modified. Moreover, in order to improve the transaction process in the Motylinski system as modified, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a locking flag in the UTXO to lock or unlock the UTXO in the transaction, so that allowing or prohibiting the transferring/spending of a UTXO can be effectively controlled via the lock flag of the UTXO.
Conclusion
The prior art, made of record and not relied upon, is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Wertheim et al. (US 20210273807 A1) discloses accelerating execution of transactions by dividing transactions into transaction segments.
Leshkowitz et al. (“Scalable Block Execution via Parallel Validation,” 2020) discloses a time-efficient block validation through splitting it into multiple disjoint tasks. A unique proof for the block partition is computed by a leader such that, when validated in part by the different committees, the unique proof ensures the correctness of the execution by the leader.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUNLING DING, whose telephone number is (571)270-3605. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 7:30 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, an 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, Neha Patel, can be reached at 571-270-1492. 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.
/CHUNLING DING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights