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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/27/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 17, 20, 22, and 35 are amended.
Claims 11-16, 18-19, 21, 23-34, and 36 are canceled.
Claims 1-10, 17, 20, 22, and 35 are pending.
Response to Remarks
35 U.S.C. § 101
Remark 1: Applicant contends that the claim relates to the secure storage of data records on a blockchain data structure. By verifying the link between the blockchain transaction and the further blockchain transaction, the method proves the integrity and authenticity of the associated data records and, thanks to the append-only nature of the blockchain, also proves their order of storage. We therefore respectfully submit that the claimed limitations do not recite abstract ideas, but rather essential features of a secure data storage technology.
Response to Remark 1: Applicant's argument is not persuasive because these features are part of the additional elements discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two.
Remark 2: Applicant contends that the claimed limitations solve this scalability problem by using a recursive proof to eliminate the need to download every intervening transaction just to verify the link between two stored data records. The claimed limitations therefore result in better memory management and improved system efficiency, and thus represent a clear improvement to data storage technology.
Response to Remark 2: Examiner respectfully disagrees. A computer using less energy or computation power to perform an abstract idea does not constitute an improvement in the functioning of computers, nor technology, nor a technical field. What applicant contends is an improvement is merely an improvement in an abstract idea itself. In other words, a general-purpose computer would be capable of performing these same operations. Accordingly, this contention is unpersuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10, 17, 20, 22, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-10, 17 and 20:
Step 1
Step 1 of the eligibility analysis asks is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter (See MPEP § 2106.03, subsections I and II). Claims 1-10 and 17 are directed to a computer-implemented method (i.e., process). Claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (i.e., manufacture). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon (MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1)). Claims 1 and 20 under a broadest reasonable interpretation recite an abstract idea because the claims describe providing proof of an ordered sequence of data records, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II). The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea are grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas because the limitations describe fundamental economic principles or practices, including mitigating risk, and describe commercial or legal interactions, including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea.
Claim 1:
A computer implemented method of using a blockchain to provide proof of an ordered sequence of data records, each data record in the ordered sequence associated with a user or a physical or digital object, the method performed on a computing device and comprising:
receiving a blockchain transaction associated with a first data record in the ordered sequence of data records;
applying a cryptographic hash function to the blockchain transaction to compute an identifier of the blockchain transaction;
generating a further blockchain transaction to be sent to a further computing device, the further blockchain transaction associated with a further data record in the ordered sequence of data records;
generating proof data associated with the further blockchain transaction that provides proof to the further computing device that the further blockchain transaction is linked to an initial blockchain transaction in a transaction chain comprising the blockchain transaction, wherein the initial blockchain transaction relates to an initial data record in the ordered sequence of data records, and the proof data comprises: (i) a recursive proof; (ii) the identifier of the blockchain transaction; and (iii) a unique identifier of the initial blockchain transaction; and
sending the further blockchain transaction and the proof data to the further computing device to verify that the further blockchain transaction is linked to the initial blockchain transaction in the transaction chain without sending any intervening transactions in the transaction chain between the initial transaction and the further transaction.
Claim 20:
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising computer readable instructions that, when executed by a computing device, cause the computing device to perform a method of using a blockchain to provide proof of an ordered sequence of data records, each data record in the ordered sequence associated with a user or a physical or digital object, the method performed on a computing device and comprising:
receiving a blockchain transaction associated with a first data record in the ordered sequence of data records;
generating a further blockchain transaction to be sent to a further computing device, the further blockchain transaction associated with a further data record in the ordered sequence of data records;
applying a cryptographic hash function to the blockchain transaction to compute an identifier of the blockchain transaction;
generating proof data associated with the further blockchain transaction that provides proof to the further computing device that the further blockchain transaction is linked to an initial blockchain transaction in a transaction chain comprising the blockchain transaction, wherein the initial blockchain transaction relates to an initial data record in the ordered sequence of data records, and the proof data comprises: (i) a recursive proof; (ii) the identifier of the blockchain transaction; and (iii) a unique identifier of the initial blockchain transaction; and
sending the further blockchain transaction and the proof data to the further computing device to verify that the further blockchain transaction is linked to the initial blockchain transaction in the transaction chain without sending any intervening transactions in the transaction chain between the initial transaction and the further transaction.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2)). Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations discussed in more detail in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.04(d)(2), 2106.05(a) through (c) and 2106.05(e) through (h). Here, the non-underlined claim limitations above recite additional elements. The additional elements do not improve the functioning of computers, another technology, or a technical field (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)). The Specification does not assert that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. The claim does not purport to improve computer capabilities, but rather invokes computers merely as a tool by adding general purpose computers post-hoc to an abstract idea. A commonplace business method being applied on a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement to technology. The claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. The Specification and the claim language provide evidence that the focus of the claim is on a scheme. An improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology. Even if the Specification describes technical improvements, they are not claimed. The additional elements do not apply the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)). The additional elements do not implement the abstract idea with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim (MPEP § 2106.05(b)). A general-purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. The additional elements do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP § 2106.05(c)). The claim does not recite any transformation of an article where the article changes to a different state or thing. Nor do the additional elements apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way or impose a meaningful limit on it beyond linking its use to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05(e)). The additional elements generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. A wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of additional feature that provides any practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea itself. The additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements are being used in their ordinary capacity. The additional elements do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. The additional elements generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Thus, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to the abstract idea identified above.
Step 2B
Step 2B determines whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP § 2106.05). In Step 2B examiners carry over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two; carry over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e), (f) and (h); re-evaluate any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; and evaluate whether any additional element or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d). The additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The additional elements generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Individually, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Here, the additional elements simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Here, the specification of the application indicates that additional elements are well-known or conventional (See Pre-Grant Publication 0029-0086, 0107-0120, 0139-0159). There is nothing in the specification to indicate that the operations recited in the claims require any specialized hardware or inventive computer components or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions. The ordered combination recites no more than the individual elements do. Thus, the additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to the abstract idea identified above without significantly more. The claims are not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Dependent Claims
Claim 2 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes providing proof of an ordered sequence of data records, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Pre-Grant Publication 0029-0086, 0107-0120, 0139-0159). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the blockchain transaction is the initial blockchain transaction, and
obtaining the proof data comprises:
setting the proof to a predetermined proof value, and setting the identifier of the blockchain transaction to a predetermined initial value.
Claim 3 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes providing proof of an ordered sequence of data records, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Pre-Grant Publication 0029-0086, 0107-0120, 0139-0159). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the blockchain transaction is not the initial blockchain transaction of the transaction chain,
the method comprises
verifying that the blockchain transaction complies with at least one predetermined condition.
Claim 4 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes providing proof of an ordered sequence of data records, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Pre-Grant Publication 0029-0086, 0107-0120, 0139-0159). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the at least one predetermined condition specifies that the blockchain transaction spends a transaction output of a previous blockchain transaction in the transaction chain.
Claim 5 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes providing proof of an ordered sequence of data records, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Pre-Grant Publication 0029-0086, 0107-0120, 0139-0159). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the at least one predetermined condition specifies that the blockchain transaction comprises an index of a transaction output of the blockchain transaction.
Claim 6 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes providing proof of an ordered sequence of data records, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Pre-Grant Publication 0029-0086, 0107-0120, 0139-0159). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein generating the proof data comprises generating the recursive proof using the blockchain transaction and a proving key.
Claim 7 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes providing proof of an ordered sequence of data records, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Pre-Grant Publication 0029-0086, 0107-0120, 0139-0159). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the method comprises including the proof data in the further blockchain transaction.
Claim 8 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes providing proof of an ordered sequence of data records, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Pre-Grant Publication 0029-0086, 0107-0120, 0139-0159). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the method comprises including the proof data in a spendable output of the further blockchain transaction.
Claim 9 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes providing proof of an ordered sequence of data records, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Pre-Grant Publication 0029-0086, 0107-0120, 0139-0159). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the method comprises including the proof data in an unspendable output of the further blockchain transaction.
Claim 10 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes providing proof of an ordered sequence of data records, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Pre-Grant Publication 0029-0086, 0107-0120, 0139-0159). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the proof data is not included in the further blockchain transaction and
the method comprises
separately sending the further blockchain transaction and the proof data to the further computing device.
Claim 17 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes providing proof of an ordered sequence of data records, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Pre-Grant Publication 0029-0086, 0107-0120, 0139-0159). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the first data record is stored on a remote device in association with the identifier of the blockchain transaction, and
the method comprising
storing the further data record on the remote device in association with an identifier of the further blockchain transaction.
Claims 22 and 35:
Step 1
Step 1 of the eligibility analysis asks is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter (See MPEP § 2106.03, subsections I and II). Claim 22 is directed to a computer-implemented method (i.e., process). Claim 35 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (i.e., manufacture). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon (MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1)). Claims 22 and 35 under a broadest reasonable interpretation recite an abstract idea because the claims describe verifying an ordered sequence of data records, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II). The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea are grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas because the limitations describe fundamental economic principles or practices, including mitigating risk, and describe commercial or legal interactions, including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea.
Claim 22:
A computer implemented method of using a blockchain to verify an ordered sequence of data records, the method performed on a computing device and comprising:
receiving a blockchain transaction from a further computing device without receiving any intervening transactions in the transaction chain between an initial blockchain transaction of the transaction chain and the blockchain transaction, the blockchain transaction associated with a data record in the ordered sequence of data records;
receiving, from the further computing device, proof data associated with the blockchain transaction, the proof data comprising: (i) a recursive proof; (ii) an identifier of a previous blockchain transaction in the transaction chain; and (iii) a unique identifier of the initial blockchain transaction of the transaction chain, wherein the initial blockchain transaction relates to an initial data record in the ordered sequence of data records; and
verifying that the blockchain transaction is linked to the initial blockchain transaction in the transaction chain using the recursive proof, the identifier of a previous blockchain transaction in the transaction chain, the unique identifier of the initial blockchain transaction, and a verification key, wherein verifying that the blockchain transaction is linked to the initial blockchain transaction in the transaction chain comprises:
obtaining the initial blockchain transaction;
applying a cryptographic hash function to the initial blockchain transaction to compute a unique identifier of the initial blockchain transaction; and
verifying that the computed unique identifier of the initial blockchain transaction matches the unique identifier of the initial blockchain transaction in the proof data.
Claim 35:
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising computer readable instructions that, when executed by a computing device, cause the computing device to perform a method of using a blockchain to verify an ordered sequence of data records, the method performed on a computing device and comprising:
receiving a blockchain transaction from a further computing device without receiving any intervening transactions in the transaction chain between an initial blockchain transaction of the transaction chain and the blockchain transaction, the blockchain transaction associated with a data record in the ordered sequence of data records;
receiving, from the further computing device, proof data associated with the blockchain transaction, the proof data comprising: (i) a recursive proof; (ii) an identifier of a previous blockchain transaction in the transaction chain; and (iii) a unique identifier of the initial blockchain transaction of the transaction chain, wherein the initial blockchain transaction relates to an initial data record in the ordered sequence of data records; and
verifying that the blockchain transaction is linked to the initial blockchain transaction in the transaction chain using the recursive proof, the identifier of a previous blockchain transaction in the transaction chain, the unique identifier of the initial blockchain transaction, and a verification key, wherein verifying that the blockchain transaction is linked to the initial blockchain transaction in the transaction chain comprises:
obtaining the initial blockchain transaction;
applying a cryptographic hash function to the initial blockchain transaction to compute a unique identifier of the initial blockchain transaction; and
verifying that the computed unique identifier of the initial blockchain transaction matches the unique identifier of the initial blockchain transaction in the proof data.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2)). Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations discussed in more detail in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.04(d)(2), 2106.05(a) through (c) and 2106.05(e) through (h). Here, the non-underlined claim limitations above recite additional elements. The additional elements do not improve the functioning of computers, another technology, or a technical field (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)). The Specification does not assert that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. The claim does not purport to improve computer capabilities, but rather invokes computers merely as a tool by adding general purpose computers post-hoc to an abstract idea. A commonplace business method being applied on a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement to technology. The claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. The Specification and the claim language provide evidence that the focus of the claim is on a scheme. An improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology. Even if the Specification describes technical improvements, they are not claimed. The additional elements do not apply the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)). The additional elements do not implement the abstract idea with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim (MPEP § 2106.05(b)). A general-purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. The additional elements do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP § 2106.05(c)). The claim does not recite any transformation of an article where the article changes to a different state or thing. Nor do the additional elements apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way or impose a meaningful limit on it beyond linking its use to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05(e)). The additional elements generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. A wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of additional feature that provides any practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea itself. The additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements are being used in their ordinary capacity. The additional elements do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. The additional elements generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Thus, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to the abstract idea identified above.
Step 2B
Step 2B determines whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP § 2106.05). In Step 2B examiners carry over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two; carry over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e), (f) and (h); re-evaluate any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; and evaluate whether any additional element or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d). The additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The additional elements generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Individually, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Here, the additional elements simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Here, the specification of the application indicates that additional elements are well-known or conventional (See Pre-Grant Publication 0029-0086, 0107-0120, 0139-0159). There is nothing in the specification to indicate that the operations recited in the claims require any specialized hardware or inventive computer components or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions. The ordered combination recites no more than the individual elements do. Thus, the additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to the abstract idea identified above without significantly more. The claims are not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claims Free of Art
Claims 1-10, 17, 20, 22, and 35 are free of art.
The closest prior art of record is US 2020/0193425 A1 by Ferenczi et al. (hereinafter “Ferenczi”).
Regarding claims 1 and 20, Ferenczi teaches:
receiving a blockchain transaction associated with a first data record in the ordered sequence of data records; (0017, 0022, 0046, 0051, 0056)
applying a cryptographic hash function to the blockchain transaction to compute an identifier of the blockchain transaction; (0017, 0045, 0050, 0054)
generating a further blockchain transaction to be sent to a further computing device, the further blockchain transaction associated with a further data record in the ordered sequence of data records; (0022, 0046, 0051, 0055-0056, 0058)
Therefore, the prior art does not teach, neither singly nor in combination the following:
generating proof data associated with the further blockchain transaction that provides proof to the further computing device that the further blockchain transaction is linked to an initial blockchain transaction in a transaction chain comprising the blockchain transaction, wherein the initial blockchain transaction relates to an initial data record in the ordered sequence of data records, and the proof data comprises: (i) a recursive proof; (ii) the identifier of the blockchain transaction; and (iii) a unique identifier of the initial blockchain transaction; and
sending the further blockchain transaction and the proof data to the further computing device to verify that the further blockchain transaction is linked to the initial blockchain transaction in the transaction chain without sending any intervening transactions in the transaction chain between the initial transaction and the further transaction.
Regarding claims 22 and 35, Ferenczi teaches:
verifying that the blockchain transaction is linked to the initial blockchain transaction in the transaction chain using the recursive proof, the identifier of a previous blockchain transaction in the transaction chain, the unique identifier of the initial blockchain transaction, and a verification key, wherein verifying that the blockchain transaction is linked to the initial blockchain transaction in the transaction chain comprises: (0041-0042, 0056-0057) obtaining the initial blockchain transaction; (0057) applying a cryptographic hash function to the initial blockchain transaction to compute a unique identifier of the initial blockchain transaction; and (0017, 0050, 0054)
verifying that the computed unique identifier of the initial blockchain transaction matches the unique identifier of the initial blockchain transaction in the proof data. (0056-0057)
Therefore, the prior art does not teach, neither singly nor in combination the following:
receiving a blockchain transaction from a further computing device without receiving any intervening transactions in the transaction chain between an initial blockchain transaction of the transaction chain and the blockchain transaction, the blockchain transaction associated with a data record in the ordered sequence of data records;
receiving, from the further computing device, proof data associated with the blockchain transaction, the proof data comprising: (i) a recursive proof; (ii) an identifier of a previous blockchain transaction in the transaction chain; and (iii) a unique identifier of the initial blockchain transaction of the transaction chain, wherein the initial blockchain transaction relates to an initial data record in the ordered sequence of data records;
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2020/0322128 A1 (“Hu”) teaches receiving one or more responses to a storage request for a blockchain from one or more endorser nodes of the blockchain, extracting transaction data of the storage request included in the one or more responses, generating a zero-knowledge proof of endorsement based on the extracted transaction data and the one or more responses, and transmitting the zero-knowledge proof to a blockchain node for inclusion within a data block among a hash-linked chain of data blocks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ari Shahabi whose telephone number is (571)272-2565. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John W Hayes can be reached at 571-272-6708. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ARI SHAHABI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights