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 .
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 limitation(s) is/are:
“a claiming module, configured to claim a target computing task by querying a smart contract in a distributed ledger network” (claim 25);
“an acquisition module, configured to execute the target computing task based on task information of the target computing task, so as to obtain a target computing result” (claim 25); and
“a submission module, configured to submit the target computing result to the smart contract, so as to instruct the smart contract to initiate a process of verifying the target computing result and to execute allocation of a computing power token corresponding to a verification result” (claim 25).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/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 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 2-4, 6, 8-9, 11, 13-14 and 23-24 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.
Claims 4, 6, 9 and 11 recite the term “preferably” (lines 5, 6, 9 and 4, respectively) followed by claim limitation(s). By its definition, the term preferably (if possible) describes preference. Different persons of ordinary skill in the art could have different preferences of whether to include the claim limitation(s) following this term or not. Thus, the scope of claims 4, 6, 9 and 11 is indefinite.
Claims 2-3, and 11 recite the phrase “publishing same” (lines 7, 2 and 19 respectively). Similarly, claim 24 recites “publish same” in line 14. It is unclear to which of the numerous previously recited claim elements “same” refers to, which renders the scope of claims 2-3, 11 and 24 indefinite.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “second signature information” (lines 14-15, 17-18 and 21-22) and the limitation “third signature information” (lines 19-20). However, neither claim 6 or claim 1 (upon which claim 6 depends on) recite “first signature information”. Accordingly, the claim elements “second signature information” and “third signature information” appear non sequitur, which renders the cope of the claim indefinite.
The same rationale applies to claim 11, reciting “forth signature information” (lines 14-15, 17-18 and 21) and “fifth signature information” (lines 17 and 19-20).
Similarly for claim 13, reciting “a second node parameter” (lines 7 and 9).
Similarly for claim 14, reciting “third transaction” (lines 3 and 5).
Similarly for claim 23, reciting “second signature information” (lines 11, 13 and 16) and “third signature information” (lines 12 and 15).
Similarly for claim 24, reciting “fourth signature information” (lines 10, 12 and 15) and “fifth signature information” (lines 11 and 14).
Further, claim 3 recites the limitation “a computing power token” in line 4, whereas “a computing power token” was previously defined in claim 1, line 11 (upon which claim 3 depends on). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8, being dependent on claim 6, is rejected based on the same ground of rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 16-20, 25 and 27-28 are allowed.
Claims 2-4, 6, 8-9, 11, 13-14 and 23-24 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Hwang et al., US Patent Appl. Pb. No. 2022/0237695 a method and system that may perform a smart contract-based brokerage contract and trading to ensure data integrity and transparency of a power brokerage and trading (Abstract, paragraph 0008).
Goodson, US Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2020/0112434 teaches using blockchain technology to communicate power system data (Abstract, paragraph FIG. 3, paragraph 0035).
Minehan, US Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2021/0240474 teaches computing devices that may be used to carry out computing tasks/operations in connection with smart contracts (Abstract, FIG. 6, paragraphs 0096-0099).
Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) teaches that using a single fixed standard metric of computing power in a cloud-edge collaborative scheduling frame where computing devices are wide in types and systems due to different types of computing tasks, affects the fairness and ubiquitous computing power resources cannot be effectively scheduled, resulting in low utilization efficiency of overall network resources (specification, page 1, lines 13-17).
Regarding claim 1, none of the prior art and the AAPA disclose or suggest a target computing power node claiming a target computing task by querying a smart contract in a distributed ledger network, wherein the target computing power node is a node which completes computing power registration in the distributed ledger network in advance, and the target computing task is published by a target computing task publisher in the distributed ledger network, the target computing power node executing the target computing task based on task information of the target computing task, so as to obtain a target computing result, and the target computing power node submitting the target computing result to the smart contract, so as to instruct the smart contract to initiate a process of verifying the target computing result and to execute allocation of a computing power token corresponding to a verification result.
Regarding claim 16, none of the prior art and the AAPA disclose or suggest a smart contract in a distributed ledger network receiving a computing result that is submitted by a target computing power node after execution of a target computing task is completed, wherein the target computing power node is a node which completes computing power registration in the distributed ledger network in advance, the target computing task is a task that is published by a target computing task publisher in the distributed ledger network by calling the smart contract, the target computing power node claims and executes the target computing task by querying the smart contract, the smart contract initiating a process of verifying the computing result, so as to obtain a verification result, and the smart contract executing allocation of a computing power token corresponding to the verification result.
Regarding claim 25, none of the prior art and the AAPA disclose or suggest a claiming module, claiming a target computing task by querying a smart contract in a distributed ledger network, wherein the target computing power node is a node which completes computing power registration in the distributed ledger network in advance, and the target computing task is published by a target computing task publisher in the distributed ledger network, an acquisition module, executing the target computing task based on task information of the target computing task, so as to obtain a target computing result, and a submission module, submitting the target computing result to the smart contract, so as to instruct the smart contract to initiate a process of verifying the target computing result and to execute allocation of a computing power token corresponding to a verification result.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEFAN STOYNOV whose telephone number is (571)272-4236. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM - 4:30PM.
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, Andrew J Jung can be reached at 571-270-3779. 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.
/STEFAN STOYNOV/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175