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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alas (U.S. Pub 2018/0189312 A1), in view of Drego (U.S. Pub 2016/0330031 A1)
Claim 24
Alas discloses a super-node (fig. 2, item 500) of a blockchain network (fig. 2, block chain 1000), the super-node comprising (fig. 2, super-node 500):
a plurality of validation nodes (fig. 2, super-node 500 includes validators V1, V2,..Vn); and
a shared storage entity for storing the blockchain network ([0024], lines 7-8, “… some system will be storing the entire blockchain…” <examiner note: the system stores the blockchain 1000 as shown in fig. 2. Further, the system that stores the blockchain 1000 is accessed/shared by validators V1, V2…Vn>),
wherein the shared storage entity is either a common storage node (fig. 2, system that stores the blockchain 1000 in fig. is considered as common storage node), a distributed storage, or a combination of the two ([0024], lines 7-9, “… some system will be storing the entire blockchain, or at least the currently active portion of it…” <examiner note: the blockchain can be stored on multiple system [Wingdings font/0xF3] distributed storage>), and
wherein blocks assembled by the plurality of validation nodes are sent to, and stored on, the shared storage entity whereby the shared storage entity maintains the blockchain network ([0026], line 5-8, “… each validator that validates a block that is entered into the blockchain 1000 thus also includes its identifier…”)
Alas discloses blocks of blockchain if fig. 2. Constituents of block header includes timestamp, version, Merkle root, difficulty target, nonce, and previous hash. The nonce is a number which blockchain miners are finding.
However, Alas does not explicitly disclose the blocks further containing a nonce.
Drego discloses the blocks further containing a nonce ([0048], “… As shown in FIG. 5, transaction 140 includes information… may include a reserved coinbase identifier 142, a block height 144, and an extra-nonce value 146…”)
PNG
media_image1.png
194
818
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Alas discloses block headers of the blocks of the blockchain include nonce values. However, Alas does not explicitly disclose the blocks further containing a nonce. Drego discloses not only block headers include nonce values (fig. 7), but also extra-nonce value in the blocks (fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the extra-nonce value as disclosed by Drego into Alas because in the bitcoin network, only blocks with certain hashes get accepted and included in the official list. When the hashes ado not meet the criteria, the extra-nonce value can be modified during mining operation to get different hashes and the different hashes are checked whether they pass the networks’ difficulty checks.
Claim 28
Claim 24 is included, Alas discloses wherein the distributed storage comprises associated storage pools based on an internally decentralized, distributed peer-to-peer single node network (fig. 2, storage pools [Wingdings font/0xF3] storage(s) 510)
Claim 29
Claim 24 is included, Alas discloses wherein the plurality of validation nodes are members of storage pools (fig. 2, validators V1, V2,…, Vn with storage pools 510)
Claim 30
Claim 24 is included, Alas discloses wherein the plurality of validation nodes of the super-node are configured to: (i) receive transactions from the blockchain network (fig. 2, event/transaction E as a block from client 200 is sent to validator(s)); (ii) validate transactions received from the blockchain network (fig. 2, validator(s) validate the block); and (iii) maintain a distributed, decentralized storage of validated transactions (fig. 2, block is maintained in blockchain 100 and storages 510)
Claim 33
Claim 24 is included, Alas discloses wherein the plurality of validation nodes of the super-nodes are configured to distribute data corresponding to validated transactions to the blockchain network for mining ([0027] The receipt returned to whichever entity that submitted either an entire block, or an event that is included in a block, may contain the information typically used to identify the block, the various events (“transactions”) encoded in the block, the time the block was created, and other metadata. In general, a receipt will be a vector of different data values, which may be compiled and transmitted by any of the validators 500, by any of the entities in the reconciliation system 400, or by some other administrative system, to the corresponding user over any network or otherwise…”)
Claim 40
Alas discloses a blockchain network comprising a plurality of super-nodes according to claim 24 (fig. 2)
Claim 41
Claim 40 is included, Alas discloses wherein the super-nodes are connected on the blockchain network (fig. 2, super-nodes 500 connected to blockchain 1000)
Claim 42
Claim 40 is included, Alas discloses wherein the shared storage entity of each super-node is configured to store a copy of the blockchain ([0024], lines 7-8, “… some systems will be storing the entire blockchain. These are the “ledger nodes…”)
Claim 43
Claim 40 is included, Alas discloses wherein the blockchain network comprises at least 10 super-nodes ([0024], lines 7-8, “… some systems will be storing the entire blockchain. These are the “ledger nodes…”)
Claim(s) 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alas (U.S. Pub 2018/0189312 A1), in view of Drego (U.S. Pub 2016/0330031 A1), as applied in claim 24, and further in view of Ventura (U.S. Pub 2018/0101842 A1)
Claim 25
Claim 24 is included, however, Alas does not explicitly disclose wherein the shared storage entity is configured to have a storage capacity of at least 100 gigabytes.
Ventura discloses wherein the shared storage entity is configured to have a storage capacity of at least 100 gigabytes ([0099], lines 14-16, “… a distributed ledger or blockchain may store petabytes of information/data…”)
Claim 26
Claim 25 is included, Ventura discloses wherein the shared storage entity is configured to have a storage capacity of 1, 10, 100, or 1000 terabytes of storage capacity ([0099], lines 14-16, “… a distributed ledger or blockchain may store petabytes of information/data…”)
Claim 27
Claim 24 is included, Ventura discloses wherein the common storage node comprises a petabyte rack ([0099], lines 14-16, “… a distributed ledger or blockchain may store petabytes of information/data…” <examiner note: obviously there is a hardware that is used to mount/store that petabytes of data>)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate storage(s) that hold(s) petabytes information as disclosed by Ventura into Alas because the more storage capacity, the blockchain can hold more information.
Claim(s) 31 and 36-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alas (U.S. Pub 2018/0189312 A1), in view of Drego (U.S. Pub 2016/0330031 A1), as applied to claim 24 and 30 respectively, in view of Lam (U.S. Pub 2016/0342977 A1)
Claim 31
Claim 30 is included, however, Alas does not explicitly wherein the validated transactions are sorted into a defined order such that a common ordering system is used across transaction validation nodes in the blockchain network for maintaining the distributed, decentralized storage of validated transactions.
Lam discloses wherein the validated transactions are sorted into a defined order such that a common ordering system is used across transaction validation nodes in the blockchain network for maintaining the distributed, decentralized storage of validated transactions (fig. 1, B6, [0125], B6 shows the timestamp of the block. Timestamping a transaction may assign an order for transactions to take place or provide an additional proof that the transaction was made by an authorized account holder)
Alas discloses blocks are added to the blockchain with validations; however, Als does not discloses wherein the validated transactions are sorted into a defined order such that a common ordering system is used across transaction validation nodes in the blockchain network for maintaining the distributed, decentralized storage of validated transactions. Lam discloses the timestamping to the block to provide an improved account history. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporating timestamping as disclosed by Lam into Alas because “… Timestamping a transaction may also provide an improved account history for at least one blockchain address and may be used to track transactions made across blockchains in a private ledger or track transactions across accounts…” [0125]
Claim 36
Claim 24 is included, however, Alas does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of validation nodes of the super-node are configured to: (v) receive mined data from the blockchain network corresponding to validated transactions; (vi) assemble blocks based on said mined data; and (vii) send assembled blocks to a storage entity for storing on a blockchain.
Lam discloses wherein the plurality of validation nodes of the super-node are configured to: (v) receive mined data from the blockchain network corresponding to validated transactions ([0102]: When at least one node successfully finds a proof-of-work to a challenge the node broadcasts the block to all nodes mining the blockchain); (vi) assemble blocks based on said mined data ( [0104]: Nodes may express their acceptance of the block by working on creating the next block in the chain, using the hash of the accepted block as the previous hash for the new block); and (vii) send assembled blocks to a storage entity for storing on a blockchain ([0102]: broadcasts the block to all nodes mining the blockchain)
Claim 37
Claim 36 is included, Lam further discloses wherein the mined data received from the blockchain network comprises a block header corresponding to the validated transactions (FIG.1, B2, [0123]: The block header B4 contain a 32 byte hash of the previous block added to the blockchain).
Claim 38
Claim 36 is included, Lam further discloses wherein the mined data comprises a transaction for a digital asset in exchange for assembling blocks based on the mined data or storage of the assembled blocks ([0110]: All proposed transactions are added to a new ledger or potential new block which is mined by a node, an individual miner or a group of miners; [0110]: All transactions for a virtual currency, such as BitcoinTM, may be stored on a virtual ledger or blockchain. All proposed transactions are added to a new ledger or potential new block which is mined by a node, an individual miner or a group of miners)
Claim(s) 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alas (U.S. Pub 2018/0189312 A1), in view of Drego (U.S. Pub 2016/0330031 A1), in view of Lam (U.S. Pub 2016/0342977 A1), as applied to claim 31, and further in view of Laiben (U.S. Pub 30180276626 A1)
Claim 32
Claim 31 is included, however, Alas and Lam do not explicitly disclose wherein the validated transactions are sorted into the defined order using a canonical ordering system for maintaining the distributed, decentralized storage of validated transactions.
Laiben discloses wherein the validated transactions are sorted into the defined order using a canonical ordering system for maintaining the distributed, decentralized storage of validated transactions (Laiben, [0135]: A private copy of the public blockchain "virtual blockchain" (“canonical ordering system”) is implemented, which is separately and privately maintained to simulate the posting of batched transactions and ensure that all transactions are valid and will be accepted once submitted. Provided each transaction is submitted to the canonical blockchain in the same order as the virtual blockchain, the ultimate results of the transactions will be the same).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the “canonical ordering” of Laiben into the invention of Alas and Lam. The suggestion/motivation would have been to implement a "virtual blockchain," which is essentially a private copy of the public blockchain. Because transactions in a blockchain depend on prior transactions, batching presents a unique problem in that the status of the blockchain once these batched transactions are submitted must be known in order to validate future transactions. The "virtual blockchain," which is separately and privately maintained to simulate the posting of batched transactions and is submitted to the canonical blockchain in the same order as the virtual blockchain ensure that all transactions are valid and will be accepted once submitted (Laiben, Abstract, [0134-137]).
Claim(s) 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alas (U.S. Pub 2018/0189312 A1), in view of Drego (U.S. Pub 2016/0330031 A1), in view of Lam (U.S. Pub 2016/0342977 A1), as applied to claim 33 and 24 respectively, and further in view of Kashyap (U.S. Pub 2015/0199416 A1)
Claim 34
Claim 33 is included, however, Alas and Lam do not explicitly disclose wherein the data corresponding to the validated transactions is distributed to the blockchain network in a form of invertible bloom look up tables and any accompanying data (Kashyap, FIG.1, [0020]: a distributed computing system 100; [0028]: using invertible bloom filter (IBF) data structure for providing of reconcile or recover synchronization when the differences between data structure and are not too large).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the “data structure synchronization” of Kashyap into the invention of Alas-Lam. The suggestion/motivation would have been to incorporate reconciliation of data structures by exchanging additional data structures that are smaller than data structures 134 and 164, yet provide the ability for data structure 164 to be brought back into synchronization with data structure 134 without having to transmit a complete copy of data structure 134 to computing device 140. (Kashyap, Abstract, FIG.1, [0020-28]).
Claim 35
Claim 24 is included, Alas discloses wherein the plurality of validation nodes are synchronized by exchanging invertible bloom filter lookup tables (Kashyap, [0028]: Data structure is the invertible bloom filter (IBF).)
Response to Arguments
Applicant s arguments with respect to claim 24-40 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAU HAI HOANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5894. The examiner can normally be reached 1st biwk: Mon-Thurs 7:00 AM-5:00 PM; 2nd biwk: Mon-Thurs: 7:00 am-5:00pm, Fri: 7:00 am - 4:00pm.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571-270-5626. 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.
HAU HAI. HOANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2154
/HAU H HOANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154