Detailed Action
1. This office action is in response to communication filed June 3, 2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and claims 1, 12, and 16 are the independent claims.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/26/2024, 08/22/2025, 10/01/2025, and 01/20/2026 were filed before the mailing date of the Non-Final Rejection dated August 18, 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
4. Claims 1, 11, and 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 contains the current claimed language “generating a new block including one or more transactions that surpass the pre-selected complexity”, claim 11 contains the current claimed language “to generate a block including one or more transactions that surpass the preselected complexity”, and claim 16 contains the current claimed language “generating a block including one or more transactions that surpass the preselected complexity.” The claimed language is indefinite as the independent claims do not define/recite the detail of whether the new block including one or more transactions itself surpasses the pre-selected complexity or whether a block hash of the new block surpass the pre-selected complexity, as well as how the complexity can be quantified in order to determine the new block surpasses the pre-selected complexity.
Additionally, claims 2-10 are dependent on claim 1, claims 12-15 are dependent on claim 11, and claims 17-20 are dependent on claim 16. These claims do not fix the indefinite nature of the limitations in claims 1, 11, and 16, so these claims are additionally 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 relating to generating a new block including one or more transactions that surpass the preselected complexity 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.
5. Claim 4 is also 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 4 contains the current claimed language “wherein requesting the block hash comprises iteratively modifying a proof of work request threshold until the block hash has a complexity that surpasses the pre-selected complexity.” The claimed language is indefinite as claim 1 is indicating the requesting the block hash having a pre-selected complexity and the new block surpasses the pre-selected complexity but this claim indicates the initial/original block hash is modified in regards to a proof of work request threshold in order to surpass the pre-selected complexity.
6. Claim 7 is also 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 7 contains the current claimed language “… constructing a virtual machine translation …”, and the claimed language is indefinite as the claims do not define/recite the detail of what a virtual machine translation is. It is assumed based on the dependence of claim 7 to claim 1 that the Applicant meant “… constructing a virtual machine transaction …” and thus was examined as such, but a proper fix is required in a future Amendment.
7. Claims 8-10 are also 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. Claims 8-10 contains the current claimed language “generating a new block …”, and the claimed language is indefinite as the claims do not define/recite the detail of whether the new block is referring to an additional new block or referring to the new block that is in claim 1.
Double Patenting
8. Claims 1-20 of this application are patentably indistinct from claims 1-20 of Application No. 18/061,176. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/061,176 of which this application is from the same Applicant and Inventors. This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. For brevity, independent claim 1 is shown below as independent claims 11 and 16 recite system and non-transitory, computer-readable medium inventions having similar limitations to the computer-implemented method claim 1.
Current Application
18/715,898
(Claims Dated June 3, 2024)
Copending Application
18/061,176
(Claims Dated March 18, 2026)
A computer-implemented method, comprising:
A computer-implemented method, comprising:
requesting, with a client device, a block hash for a transaction, the block hash having a pre-selected complexity;
requesting, with a client device, a block hash from a recent block for a transaction, and a pre-selected complexity threshold, the pre-selected complexity threshold defined by computational power required to validate the transaction based on network load, wherein transactions with greater complexity relative to the pre-selected complexity threshold are prioritized for block inclusion;
constructing, via the client device, a virtual machine transaction comprising a public key and the block hash; and
constructing, via the client device, a virtual machine transaction comprising a public key, the block hash, and the proof of work request threshold;
generating a new block including one or more transactions that surpass the pre-selected complexity.
generating a new block including one or more validated virtual machine transactions each having block hashes that surpass the pre-selected complexity.
As previously mentioned, all independent claims (claims 1, 11, and 16) are provisionally rejected on the ground of statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over independent claims 1, 11, and 16 of copending Application No. 18/061,176 of which this application is from the same Applicant and Inventors. As previously mentioned, for brevity, the independent claim 1 rejection above is the same rejection for independent claims 11 and 16 as they recite system and non-transitory, computer-readable medium inventions having similar limitations to the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Additionally, all dependent claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20 seen in Application 18/715,898 also match their counterpart dependent claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20 in Application 18/715,898. For brevity, dependent claims 2-10 are shown below as dependent claims 12-14 and 17-20 recite system and non-transitory, computer-readable medium inventions having the same limitations to the computer-implemented method claims 2-5, but they are additionally the same as their counterpart dependent claims in the copending application 18/061,176.
Current Application
18/715,898
(Claims Dated June 3, 2024)
Copending Application
18/061,176
(Claims Dated March 18, 2026)
2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein requesting the block hash comprises selecting a node in a blockchain network to compute the block hash.
2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein requesting the block hash comprises selecting a node in a blockchain network to compute the block hash.
3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein requesting the block hash comprises sampling a pre-selected number of recent blocks to find the block hash for the transaction.
3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein requesting the block hash comprises sampling a pre-selected number of recent blocks to find the block hash for the transaction.
4. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein requesting the block hash comprises iteratively modifying a proof of work request threshold until the block hash has a complexity that surpasses the pre-selected complexity.
4. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein requesting the block hash comprises iteratively modifying the proof of work request threshold until the generated block hash has a complexity that meets or exceeds the pre-selected complexity threshold.
5. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein requesting the block hash comprises modifying a proof of work request threshold when the block hash has expired.
5. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein requesting the block hash comprises modifying the proof of work request threshold when the block hash has expired.
6. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein constructing a virtual machine transaction comprises storing the virtual machine transaction in a blockchain database.
6. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein constructing a virtual machine transaction comprises storing the virtual machine transaction and the key-value mapping in a blockchain database, the key-value mapping is used for retrieval of state data for subsequent transaction verification.
7. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein constructing a virtual machine translation comprises sorting a transaction list in a blockchain database by a degree of complexity of each virtual machine transaction.
7. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein constructing a virtual machine transaction comprises sorting a transaction list in a blockchain database by a degree of complexity of each virtual machine transaction.
8. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein generating a new block comprises increasing the pre-selected complexity when a block generation rate surpasses a target rate.
8. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein generating the new block further comprises increasing the pre-selected complexity when a block generation rate surpasses a target rate.
9. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein generating a new block comprises reducing the pre-selected complexity when a block generation rate is lower than a target rate.
9. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein generating the new block further comprises reducing the pre-selected complexity when a block generation rate is lower than a target rate.
10. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein generating a new block including one or more transactions comprises verifying that a sum of a difference between a complexity of the one or more transactions and the pre-selected complexity, surpasses the pre-selected complexity.
10. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein generating the new block further comprises verifying that a sum of a difference between a complexity of the one or more transactions and the pre-selected complexity surpasses the pre- selected complexity.
Thus, all dependent claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20 seen in Application 18/715,898 are provisionally rejected as seen above and based upon the same claims repeating in the application. As such, claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/061,176 of which this application is from the same Applicant and Inventors.
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.
9. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per independent claim 1, the claim recites “A computer-implemented method, comprising: requesting, with a client device, a block hash for a transaction, the block hash having a pre-selected complexity; constructing, via the client device, a virtual machine transaction comprising a public key and the block hash; and generating a new block including one or more transactions that surpass the pre-selected complexity.”
Under Prong I Step 2A, the limitation “constructing … a virtual machine transaction comprising a public key and the block hash” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. A person may determine a virtual machine transaction on a sheet of paper with pen or mentally by combining a public key and the block hash in an instruction. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under Prong I Step 2A, the limitation “generating a new block including one or more transactions that surpass the pre-selected complexity” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. A person may determine a transaction surpasses the pre-selected complexity on a sheet of paper with pen or mentally by ensuring the target rate for block generation is within a minimum and maximum time threshold such as mentioned in the application [0040] “In some embodiments, the target rate for block generation is one block created within one (1) and two (2) seconds”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular under Prong II step 2A, claim 1 recites the additional element “requesting, with a client device, a block hash for a transaction, the block hash having a pre-selected complexity.” The additional element “a client device” represents an example of a generic computing element that performs merely generic computer functions such as storing and executing instructions. The additional element “requesting … a block hash for a transaction, the block hash having a pre-selected complexity” represents the step of mere gathering data which the courts have recognized as insignificant extra-solution activity (2106.05(g)). These additional limitations amount to mere instructions to apply an exception of gathering data using generic computing elements that are known in the technology. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element “requesting … a block hash for a transaction, the block hash having a pre-selected complexity” represents the step of gathering data which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions (2106.05(d)) (buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, the additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply an exception of gathering data using generic computing elements that are known in the technology. This does not amount to significantly more as they are claimed in a merely generic manner, and is thus, not an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
As per claim 2, it incorporates the deficiencies of independent claim 1 upon which it depends, and further recites, “wherein requesting the block hash comprises selecting a node in a blockchain network to compute the block hash”, which conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, merely provides further clarification as to the requesting of the block hash requiring selecting an individual node within the blockchain network, which does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 2 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 3, it incorporates the deficiencies of independent claim 1 upon which it depends, and further recites, “wherein requesting the block hash comprises sampling a pre-selected number of recent blocks to find the block hash for the transaction”, which conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, merely provides further clarification as to the requesting of the block hash requiring sampling different recent blocks within the blockchain network, which does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 3 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 4, it incorporates the deficiencies of independent claim 1 upon which it depends, and further recites, “wherein requesting the block hash comprises iteratively modifying a proof of work request threshold until the block hash has a complexity that surpasses the pre-selected complexity”, which conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, merely provides further clarification as to the requesting of the block hash requiring surpassing a pre-selected complexity for the block hash to ensure complexity increases over time, which does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 4 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 5, it incorporates the deficiencies of independent claim 1 upon which it depends, and further recites, “wherein requesting the block hash comprises modifying a proof of work request threshold when the block hash has expired”, which conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, merely provides further clarification as to the requesting of the block hash requiring modifying the proof of work complexity when the block hash expired to ensure that the complexity is not overly complicated for the time limit of each block’s disbursement, which does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 5 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 6, it incorporates the deficiencies of independent claim 1 upon which it depends, and further recites, “wherein constructing a virtual machine transaction comprises storing the virtual machine transaction in a blockchain database”, which conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, merely provides further clarification as to the virtual machine transaction being stored in a blockchain database for future comparison, which does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 6 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 7, it incorporates the deficiencies of independent claim 1 upon which it depends, and further recites, “wherein constructing a virtual machine translation comprises sorting a transaction list in a blockchain database by a degree of complexity of each virtual machine transaction”, which conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, merely provides further clarification as to the virtual machine transaction’s construction requiring comparing the degree of complexity of prior virtual machine transactions, which does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 7 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 8, it incorporates the deficiencies of independent claim 1 upon which it depends, and further recites, “wherein generating a new block comprises increasing the pre-selected complexity when a block generation rate surpasses a target rate”, which conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, merely provides further clarification as to the generating a new block requiring a block generation rate hover around a target rate and handling cases when that is not the case, which does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 8 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 9, it incorporates the deficiencies of independent claim 1 upon which it depends, and further recites, “wherein generating a new block comprises reducing the pre-selected complexity when a block generation rate is lower than a target rate”, which conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, merely provides further clarification as to the generating a new block requiring a block generation rate hover around a target rate and handling cases when that is not the case, which does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 9 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 10, it incorporates the deficiencies of independent claim 1 upon which it depends, and further recites, “wherein generating a new block including one or more transactions comprises verifying that a sum of a difference between a complexity of the one or more transactions and the pre-selected complexity, surpasses the pre-selected complexity”, which conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, merely provides further clarification as to the generating a new block requiring a pre-selected complexity is met for a block containing a plurality of transactions with their own defined complexities, which does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 10 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the same claimed language as claims 1-5 above, respectively, other than being system claims rather than method claims. Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons as claims 1-5 above, respectively.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the same claimed language as claims 1-5 above, respectively, other than being non-transitory, computer readable medium claims rather than method claims. Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons as claims 1-5 above, respectively.
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.
10. Claims 1-3, 6, 11-13, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ajoy (U.S. Patent No. 10,958,418) in view of Ferrin (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0218879).
Regarding independent claim 1, Ajoy discloses:
A computer-implemented method, comprising:
requesting, with a client device, a block hash for a transaction … (Fig. 12 and Col. 11, Lines 61-67 “A blockchain is typically managed by multiple parties collectively adhering to a protocol for inter-node communication and validating new blocks. One party may use a transaction requesting device 1202 to initiate the transaction. Once recorded, the data in any given block cannot be altered retroactively without alteration of all subsequent blocks, which requires consensus among the operators.” and Col. 5, Lines 13-18 “The process for implementing a blockchain network with heterogeneous privacy 200 receives the plurality of public inputs from the public access controller and a block hash from the previous block and assembles the plurality of public inputs into a new block in the mainchain (block 206) after which the process is complete (done block 208).”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the one party may initiate the transaction and thus will receive the block hash from the previous block to be used to assemble a new block following the previous block.
constructing, via the client device, a virtual machine transaction comprising a public key and the block hash; and (Figs. 3-4 and Col. 7, Lines 52-67 “Additionally, the smart contract has access to a distributed database such as a name service unit 904, which includes human readable names of public key addresses. Now the blockchains may be used with a domain name or a human readable name as opposed to having to use a public key or string for every transaction or every application usage. The name service unit 904 may be a decentralized system on a blockchain that enables the use of a human readable name or a domain name for an application. In an example application of this disclosure, such as an insurance system, the process may be such that when a claim is submitted, the routing smart contract unit 916 routes the information to the fraud—prevention system 906. The fraud—prevention system 906 ensures that the submitted information is valid and accurate via the smart contract 912, and records the information in the ledger 910.” and Col. 5, Lines 13-18 “The process for implementing a blockchain network with heterogeneous privacy 200 receives the plurality of public inputs from the public access controller and a block hash from the previous block and assembles the plurality of public inputs into a new block in the mainchain (block 206) after which the process is complete (done block 208).” and Col. 6, Lines 16-19 “A virtual machine partition within a computing device, e.g., a computer, creates a partition on each device to run the mainchain or sidechain. This assists in maintaining the integrity of an application running on the device.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the transactions in Fig. 4 are recorded by the virtual machine resources in the computing devices that are comprised of a public key and block hash.
generating a new block including one or more transactions … (Col. 3, Lines 5-11 “On the mainchain, the system utilizes consensus logic, for example, proof-of-stake (PoS) to achieve consensus between nodes, validate transactions and create new blocks. The creator of the next block may be chosen in a deterministic (pseudo-random) way, and the chance that a user's account is chosen may depend on the account's stake.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the new block is created following consensus between nodes and transactions being validated.
Ajoy does not explicitly disclose:
… the block hash having a pre-selected complexity;
… one or more transactions that surpass the pre-selected complexity.
However, Ferrin discloses:
… the block hash having a pre-selected complexity; ([0004] “For the purpose of this invention a proof of work block chain is a data structure consisting of a series of “blocks” that are progressively derived from the previous block in the chain or a specific ‘genesis block.’ The process of mining is the discovery and assembly of these new blocks. First information from the peer-to-peer network a miner is connected to is retrieved and the preliminary data in the block is calculated. Next some other data fields are searched via a ‘brute force’ method to find a set of values that makes the block as a whole pass a fitness function. This fitness function is designed to keep the level of computational effort needed to discover an acceptable block high while the effort needed to verify the data values are acceptably mined low.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the fitness function ensures the effort to discover an acceptable block is acceptably high (pre-selected complexity).
… one or more transactions that surpass the pre-selected complexity. (Fig. 1, Steps 110-114 and [0064-0066] ““Hash Rare Enough?” Step 112 is where the hash calculated in Step 110 is compared to the bookkeeping rules stored in Step 106 and the fitness function is applied. If the hash of the block satisfies the fitness function then it goes on to “Broadcast Block” Step 114. If “Hash Rare Enough?” Step 112 determines that the hash is not rare enough, then the algorithm goes back to a previous step in the mining process depending upon the state of the block chain network. If a new valid block has been found and broadcast, then the algorithm goes back to “Find Previous Block” Step 102. If the bookkeeping device wants to include new payload then the algorithm goes back to “Calculate Payload” Step 104. If bookkeeping information has changed (for example the current system time has changed or the block difficulty has adjusted) then the algorithm goes back to “Update Bookkeeping” Step 106. Otherwise the algorithm goes back to “Update Nonce” Step 108. “Broadcast Block” Step 114 is the final step. The calculated block is added to the bookkeeping device's store of known blocks. The block is broadcast to the block chain network for other bookkeeping devices to add to their store of known blocks.) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the hash block is compared to the bookkeeping rules and fitness function to determine if it is rare/complex enough, and if so, is added as a known block to the device and block chain network.
Both Ajoy and Ferrin are in the same field of endeavor as they are both in the blockchain integrity art and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ajoy’s blockchain inclusions because Ferrin’s transactions are specified to have a complexity threshold to be set and continually passed so that there is an increasing work requirement to create new blocks.
Motivation would improve integrity of the blockchain based upon an ever increasing level of complexity to add transactions to the block and therein the blockchain.
Regarding claim 2, Ajoy discloses the computer implemented method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein requesting the block hash comprises selecting a node in a blockchain network to compute the block hash.
However, Ferrin discloses:
wherein requesting the block hash comprises selecting a node in a blockchain network to compute the block hash. ([0033] “The term “signing device” means a hashing device that also holds the private portion of a public/private key pair and uses that information to digitally sign the block. The block signing process sometimes uses other data including but not limited to the block itself and the corresponding public key. This device may or may not perform the measurements and calculations related to the fitness function, and it may return all signed blocks or it may only return selected blocks to the bookkeeping device.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the performing of the measurements and calculations related to the fitness function and return of all/selected signed blocks is the same as selecting a node and computing/returning the block hash.
Both Ajoy and Ferrin are in the same field of endeavor as they are both in the blockchain integrity art and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ajoy’s blockchain signing process because Ferrin’s block hash process includes selecting a block to run a fitness function on to ensure the pre-selected complexity is reached.
Motivation would improve integrity of the blockchain based upon an ever increasing level of complexity to ensure that the pre-selected complexity is greater than the complexity of a block in the blockchain so that an attack cannot intercept the blockchain and unwrite previous blocks.
Regarding claim 3, Ajoy discloses the computer implemented method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein requesting the block hash comprises sampling a pre-selected number of recent blocks to find the block hash for the transaction.
However, Ferrin discloses:
wherein requesting the block hash comprises sampling a pre-selected number of recent blocks to find the block hash for the transaction. (Fig. 1 and [0067] “After “Broadcast Block” Step 114 the process of mining a block is complete. Most bookkeeping devices would then return to “Find Previous Block” Step 102 and calculate a new block. However, that is not required.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the previous block is found and then a new block is calculated.
Both Ajoy and Ferrin are in the same field of endeavor as they are both in the blockchain integrity art and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ajoy’s blockchain signing process because Ferrin’s block hash process includes finding a previous block and calculating a new block based upon the previous block’s hash.
Motivation would improve integrity of the blockchain based upon an ever increasing level of complexity to ensure that the pre-selected complexity is greater than the complexity of a block in the blockchain so that an attack cannot intercept the blockchain and unwrite previous blocks.
Regarding claim 6, Ajoy discloses the computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein constructing a virtual machine transaction comprises storing the virtual machine transaction in a blockchain database. (Fig. 12-13 and Col. 12, Lines 20-31 “FIG. 13 illustrates an exemplary blockchain formation 1300. The mainchain 1304 (M blocks) comprises the longest series of blocks from the start block 1302 (S block) to the current block. Orphan blocks 1306 (O blocks) exist outside of the main chain. Blocks hold batches of valid transactions that are hashed and encoded, for example into a Merkle tree. Each block includes the cryptographic hash of the prior block in the blockchain formation 1300, linking the two. The linked blocks form a chain. This iterative process confirms the integrity of the previous block, all the way back to the original start block 1302.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the blockchain formation 1300 holds blocks that hold batches of valid transactions.
Regarding independent claim 11, Ajoy discloses:
A system, comprising:
a memory storing multiple instructions; and
one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to cause the system to perform a process, comprising:
to request, with a client device, a block hash for a transaction … ; (Fig. 12 and Col. 11, Lines 61-67 “A blockchain is typically managed by multiple parties collectively adhering to a protocol for inter-node communication and validating new blocks. One party may use a transaction requesting device 1202 to initiate the transaction. Once recorded, the data in any given block cannot be altered retroactively without alteration of all subsequent blocks, which requires consensus among the operators.” and Col. 5, Lines 13-18 “The process for implementing a blockchain network with heterogeneous privacy 200 receives the plurality of public inputs from the public access controller and a block hash from the previous block and assembles the plurality of public inputs into a new block in the mainchain (block 206) after which the process is complete (done block 208).”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the one party may initiate the transaction and thus will receive the block hash from the previous block to be used to assemble a new block following the previous block.
to construct, via the client device, a virtual machine transaction comprising a public key and the block hash; (Figs. 3-4 and Col. 7, Lines 52-67 “Additionally, the smart contract has access to a distributed database such as a name service unit 904, which includes human readable names of public key addresses. Now the blockchains may be used with a domain name or a human readable name as opposed to having to use a public key or string for every transaction or every application usage. The name service unit 904 may be a decentralized system on a blockchain that enables the use of a human readable name or a domain name for an application. In an example application of this disclosure, such as an insurance system, the process may be such that when a claim is submitted, the routing smart contract unit 916 routes the information to the fraud—prevention system 906. The fraud—prevention system 906 ensures that the submitted information is valid and accurate via the smart contract 912, and records the information in the ledger 910.” and Col. 5, Lines 13-18 “The process for implementing a blockchain network with heterogeneous privacy 200 receives the plurality of public inputs from the public access controller and a block hash from the previous block and assembles the plurality of public inputs into a new block in the mainchain (block 206) after which the process is complete (done block 208).” and Col. 6, Lines 16-19 “A virtual machine partition within a computing device, e.g., a computer, creates a partition on each device to run the mainchain or sidechain. This assists in maintaining the integrity of an application running on the device.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the transactions in Fig. 4 are recorded by the virtual machine resources in the computing devices that are comprised of a public key and block hash.
to generate a block including one or more transactions … ; and (Col. 3, Lines 5-11 “On the mainchain, the system utilizes consensus logic, for example, proof-of-stake (PoS) to achieve consensus between nodes, validate transactions and create new blocks. The creator of the next block may be chosen in a deterministic (pseudo-random) way, and the chance that a user's account is chosen may depend on the account's stake.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the new block is created following consensus between nodes and transactions being validated.
to serially process state transitions in valid blocks. (Fig. 13 and Col. 12, Lines 25-31 “Blocks hold batches of valid transactions that are hashed and encoded, for example into a Merkle tree. Each block includes the cryptographic hash of the prior block in the blockchain formation 1300, linking the two. The linked blocks form a chain. This iterative process confirms the integrity of the previous block, all the way back to the original start block 1302.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the Merkle tree shows the linked blocks form a chain of serially processed blocks.
Ajoy does not explicitly disclose:
… the block hash having a pre-selected complexity;
… one or more transactions that surpass the pre-selected complexity;
However, Ferrin discloses:
… the block hash having a pre-selected complexity; ([0004] “For the purpose of this invention a proof of work block chain is a data structure consisting of a series of “blocks” that are progressively derived from the previous block in the chain or a specific ‘genesis block.’ The process of mining is the discovery and assembly of these new blocks. First information from the peer-to-peer network a miner is connected to is retrieved and the preliminary data in the block is calculated. Next some other data fields are searched via a ‘brute force’ method to find a set of values that makes the block as a whole pass a fitness function. This fitness function is designed to keep the level of computational effort needed to discover an acceptable block high while the effort needed to verify the data values are acceptably mined low.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the fitness function ensures the effort to discover an acceptable block is acceptably high (pre-selected complexity).
… one or more transactions that surpass the pre-selected complexity; (Fig. 1, Steps 110-114 and [0064-0066] ““Hash Rare Enough?” Step 112 is where the hash calculated in Step 110 is compared to the bookkeeping rules stored in Step 106 and the fitness function is applied. If the hash of the block satisfies the fitness function then it goes on to “Broadcast Block” Step 114. If “Hash Rare Enough?” Step 112 determines that the hash is not rare enough, then the algorithm goes back to a previous step in the mining process depending upon the state of the block chain network. If a new valid block has been found and broadcast, then the algorithm goes back to “Find Previous Block” Step 102. If the bookkeeping device wants to include new payload then the algorithm goes back to “Calculate Payload” Step 104. If bookkeeping information has changed (for example the current system time has changed or the block difficulty has adjusted) then the algorithm goes back to “Update Bookkeeping” Step 106. Otherwise the algorithm goes back to “Update Nonce” Step 108. “Broadcast Block” Step 114 is the final step. The calculated block is added to the bookkeeping device's store of known blocks. The block is broadcast to the block chain network for other bookkeeping devices to add to their store of known blocks.) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the hash block is compared to the bookkeeping rules and fitness function to determine if it is rare/complex enough, and if so, is added as a known block to the device and block chain network.
Both Ajoy and Ferrin are in the same field of endeavor as they are both in the blockchain integrity art and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ajoy’s blockchain inclusions because Ferrin’s transactions are specified to have a complexity threshold to be set and continually passed so that there is an increasing work requirement to create new blocks.
Motivation would improve integrity of the blockchain based upon an ever increasing level of complexity to add transactions to the block and therein the blockchain.
Regarding claims 12-13, they are system claims having the same limitations as cited in the computer implemented method claims 2-3, respectively. Thus, claims 12-13 are also rejected under the same rationale as addressed in the rejections of claims 2-3 above, respectively.
Regarding claims 16-18, they are non-transitory computer readable medium claims having the same limitations as cited in the computer implemented method claims 1-3, respectively. Thus, claims 16-18 are also rejected under the same rationale as addressed in the rejection of claims 1-3 above, respectively.
11. Claims 4, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ajoy (U.S. Patent No. 10,958,418) in view of Ferrin (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0218879) further in view of Bres (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0273616).
Regarding claim 4, Ajoy discloses the computer implemented method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein requesting the block hash comprises iteratively modifying a proof of work request threshold until the block hash has a complexity that surpasses the pre-selected complexity.
However, Bres discloses:
wherein requesting the block hash comprises iteratively modifying a proof of work request threshold until the block hash has a complexity that surpasses the pre-selected complexity. ([0036] “For example, as shown in FIG. 5, the proof of work value 510 can be a value that when hashed with the contents of the data structure 500 produces a hash value that has the required number of zeros 520. The required number of zeros can be 0, 1, 2, 3, 4. The higher the number of zeros required, the higher the computation needed to find the proof of work value 510.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the proof of work value 510 can be iteratively modified by increasing the required number of zeros (for example, increasing from 0 to 1 required zeros, testing the complexity and finding it does not surpass the pre-selected complexity, then increasing from 1 to 2 required zeros and repeating the process until the pre-selected complexity is reached) which increases the complexity and computation needed to find the proof of work value 510.
Both Ajoy and Bres are in the same field of endeavor as they are both in the blockchain generation art and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ajoy’s blockchain signing process because Bres’s proof of work value can be modified with increasing numbers of zeroes to require a more computationally powerful proof of work hashing.
Motivation would improve integrity of the blockchain based upon an ever increasing level of complexity to ensure that the pre-selected complexity is greater than the complexity of a block in the blockchain so that an attack cannot intercept the blockchain and unwrite previous blocks.
Regarding claim 14, it is a system claim having the same limitations as cited in the computer implemented method of claim 4. Thus, claim 14 is also rejected under the same rationale as addressed in the rejection of claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 19, it is a non-transitory computer readable medium claim having the same limitations as cited in the computer implemented method of claim 4. Thus, claim 19 is also rejected under the same rationale as addressed in the rejection of claim 4 above.
12. Claims 5, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ajoy (U.S. Patent No. 10,958,418) in view of Ferrin (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0218879) further in view of Ahlback et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0076576) – hereinafter “Ahlback”.
Regarding claim 5, Ajoy discloses the computer implemented method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein requesting the block hash comprises modifying a proof of work request threshold when the block hash has expired.
However, Ahlback discloses:
wherein requesting the block hash comprises modifying a proof of work request threshold when the block hash has expired. ([0037] “Generally in the different types of blockchain discussed in the background section, blocks 110 are appended to the blockchain indefinitely in a sequential manner. Currently, there is no option available for deleting the blocks 110 in which the transactions have expired, elapsed or become invalid. Therefore, the amount of data stored in a blockchain increases linearly with time as old transaction data can never be removed from the blockchain.” and [0043] “The method in FIG. 3 comprises the steps of creating a reincarnation block 210 whenever a predefined condition is satisfied and appending it to the blockchain, step 310. The method further comprises determining whether the genesis expiry time 201 has elapsed based on an expiry period, step 320. If the genesis expiry time 201 has elapsed then the method comprises identifying a first reincarnation block 210, wherein the first reincarnation block 210 is occurring first in sequence after the genesis block 200 in the blockchain, step 330. If the first reincarnation block 210 is identified then the method comprises deleting all the blocks 110 preceding the first reincarnation block 210 including the genesis block 200 in the block chain 340. The method may further comprise the step of identifying the first reincarnation block 210 as the genesis block 200 of the blockchain when all the blocks 110 preceding the first reincarnation block 210 including the genesis block 200 have been deleted 351. In FIG. 3, this step is shown in dashed lines so as to indicate that this step is optional.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the predefined condition such as transaction/block hash expiration leads to the changing of the genesis block 200. The changing of the genesis block to the first reincarnation block 210 changes the leading block and thus the proof of work threshold is different since there is a different genesis block.
Both Ajoy and Ahlback are in the same field of endeavor as they are both in the blockchain integrity art and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ajoy’s block hashing process because Ahlback’s block hash process includes creating new genesis blocks if the timer for creation of a new block has expired so that the pre-selected complexity can be lowered without causing the complexity to lead to potential overwriting of previous blocks by attackers.
Motivation would improve integrity of the blockchain based upon an ever increasing level of complexity to ensure that the pre-selected complexity is greater than the complexity of a block in the blockchain so that an attack cannot intercept the blockchain and unwrite previous blocks.
Regarding claim 15, it is a system claim having the same limitations as cited in the computer implemented method of claim 5. Thus, claim 15 is also rejected under the same rationale as addressed in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 20, it is a non-transitory computer readable medium claim having the same limitations as cited in the computer implemented method of claim 5. Thus, claim 20 is also rejected under the same rationale as addressed in the rejection of claim 5 above.
13. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ajoy (U.S. Patent No. 10,958,418) in view of Ferrin (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0218879) further in view of Deshpande et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0378069) – hereinafter “Deshpande”.
Regarding claim 7, Ajoy discloses the computer implemented method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein constructing a virtual machine translation comprises sorting a transaction list in a blockchain database by a degree of complexity of each virtual machine transaction.
However, Deshpande discloses:
wherein constructing a virtual machine translation comprises sorting a transaction list in a blockchain database by a degree of complexity of each virtual machine transaction. ([0047] “The processing platform used by the miner service to create blocks 420 may sort the transactions multiple times according to heuristics applied to the transactions for optimization determination prior to block creation. The transactions may be forwarded 414 and sorted by nonce 416, and a simulation 418 may be used to determine the entities associated with the transactions, the size of the transactions, the results linked to the transactions for performing the mining effort, etc. The cost per unit size of the transactions may be determined to identify the time and processing requirements, CPU, memory, storage, etc., required to mine the transactions 422. The heuristics selected by the miner may be applied to finalize the sorted order of transactions 424 and to collect the optimal order 426 for block creation based on the selected transactions which will be used to include in next made block(s) 428. The blocks are then forwarded 432 to the blockchain 430 for committance.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the transactions are sorted by nonce which is a degree of complexity and are forwarded to a blockchain.
Both Ajoy and Deshpande are in the same field of endeavor as they are both in the blockchain creation art and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ajoy’s blockchain creation process because Deshpande’s block creation is based upon ensuring the future blocks have a greater complexity by sorting block creation based upon an optimal order of complexity then forwarding the blocks to the blockchain.
Motivation would improve integrity of the blockchain based upon an ever increasing level of complexity to ensure that the pre-selected complexity is greater than the complexity of a block in the blockchain so that an attack cannot intercept the blockchain and unwrite previous blocks.
14. Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ajoy (U.S. Patent No. 10,958,418) in view of Ferrin (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0218879) further in view of Chan (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0097911).
Regarding claim 8, Ajoy discloses the computer implemented method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein generating a new block comprises increasing the pre-selected complexity when a block generation rate surpasses a target rate.
However, Chan discloses:
wherein generating a new block comprises increasing the pre-selected complexity when a block generation rate surpasses a target rate. ([0025] “A valid proof-of-work if found by hashing the candidate block header 104 (in combination with other data, as discussed below) until the result is less than another value, called the target value. The target value is automatically adjusted by the blockchain protocol so that, on average, it takes the blockchain network ten minutes to find a valid proof-of-work.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the target value is automatically adjusted so that, on average it takes the blockchain network ten minutes to find a valid proof-of-work for a new block, so if the target rate is surpassed, the target value can be lowered to make it more difficult to find a result less than the target value.
Both Ajoy and Chan are in the same field of endeavor as they are both in the blockchain hashing art and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ajoy’s blockchain hashing process because Chan’s block hash process includes adjusting a target value attached to a proof-of-work based upon the average time for the new block’s proof-of-work hovering around 10 minutes.
Motivation would improve integrity of the blockchain based upon an ever increasing level of complexity to ensure that the pre-selected complexity is greater than the complexity of a block in the blockchain, but within reason such that new blocks are continuously added, in this case, every 10 minutes.
Regarding claim 9, Ajoy discloses the computer implemented method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein generating a new block comprises reducing the pre-selected complexity when a block generation rate is lower than a target rate.
However, Chan discloses:
wherein generating a new block comprises reducing the pre-selected complexity when a block generation rate is lower than a target rate. ([0025] “A valid proof-of-work if found by hashing the candidate block header 104 (in combination with other data, as discussed below) until the result is less than another value, called the target value. The target value is automatically adjusted by the blockchain protocol so that, on average, it takes the blockchain network ten minutes to find a valid proof-of-work.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the target value is automatically adjusted so that, on average it takes the blockchain network ten minutes to find a valid proof-of-work for a new block, so if the target rate is not being reached, the target value can be increased to make it less difficult to find a result less than the target value.
Both Ajoy and Chan are in the same field of endeavor as they are both in the blockchain hashing art and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ajoy’s blockchain hashing process because Chan’s block hash process includes adjusting a target value attached to a proof-of-work based upon the average time for the new block’s proof-of-work hovering around 10 minutes.
Motivation would improve integrity of the blockchain based upon an ever increasing level of complexity to ensure that the pre-selected complexity is greater than the complexity of a block in the blockchain, but within reason such that new blocks are continuously added, in this case, every 10 minutes.
15. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ajoy (U.S. Patent No. 10,958,418) in view of Ferrin (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0218879) further in view of Agrawal et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0164153) – hereinafter “Agrawal”.
Regarding claim 10, Ajoy discloses the computer implemented method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein generating a new block including one or more transactions comprises verifying that a sum of a difference between a complexity of the one or more transactions and the pre-selected complexity, surpasses the pre-selected complexity.
However, Agrawal discloses:
wherein generating a new block including one or more transactions comprises verifying that a sum of a difference between a complexity of the one or more transactions and the pre-selected complexity, surpasses the pre-selected complexity. ([0096] “FIG. 4 illustrates a diagram depicting the epoch concept, according to some embodiments. Blockchain 400 may include any number of blocks 1 through x. Each block may include one or more transactions. The number of transactions in each block can vary depending on the gas required for each transaction in the block. Transactions requiring more complex proof validation may consume more gas than less complex transactions. Each block has a fixed gas limit that is set by the system, and the sum of the gas required for each transaction in a block may not exceed the limit of the block. Thus, block(1) may include n transactions that do not exceed that limit, and block(2) may include m transactions that do not exceed that limit, where m and n can be different numbers.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the block has a fixed gas limit that is set by the system and the sum of the gas required for each transaction must not exceed the limit of the block. If the sum does exceed the limit of the block, a new block is generated.
Both Ajoy and Agrawal are in the same field of endeavor as they are both in the blockchain transaction complexity art and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ajoy’s blockchain handling process because Agrawal’s block complexity is based upon the combination of the transactions in the block and the gas they consume based on an increased complexity meaning more gas.
Motivation would improve complexity of the blockchain based upon an ever increasing level of complexity to ensure that the pre-selected complexity is greater than the complexity of a block in the blockchain.
Conclusion
16. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Such prior art includes:
- Mitra et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,171,931) which discloses hash value delivery.
- Petersen (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0075623) which discloses information regarding the decentralized peer-to-peer network of blockchains and their verification of data integrity between peers.
- Adams III et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0191034) which discloses client devices performing proof of work algorithms to facilitate transactions.
- Wright et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0205030 and 2024/0214179) which disclose new blocks being created by a plurality of nodes competing to perform proof of work equations to have their validated pending transactions included in new block of the blockchain.
- Fazzone et al. (U.S. 2020/0084020) which discloses an overhead view of early blockchain technology with proof of work new block validations.
- King (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0344580) which discloses generating a segmented blockchain based on peer-to-peer block verification via proof of work along with peer-to-peer hash verification.
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraphs/sections and line numbers in the references applied and not relied upon to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
When responding to the Office action, applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the reference(s) cited or the objections made. A showing of how the amendments avoid such references or objections must also be present. See 37 C.F.R. 1.111(c).
When responding to this Office action, applicant is advised to provide the line and page numbers in the application and/or reference(s) cited to assist in locating the appropriate paragraphs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL B TRAINOR whose telephone number is (571)272-3710. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, Pierre Vital can be reached at (571) 272-4215. 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.
/D.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2198
/PIERRE VITAL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2198
Prosecution Insights