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 .
Response to Amendment & Arguments
Applicant has amended claims 13-24 to overcome claim objections issued in the previous office action. These amendments have been reviewed and has found to have overcome claim objections issued. Claim objections issued for claims 13-24 has been withdrawn. However, these amendments have not avoided invocation of 112f as identified in the previous office action and hence, 112f Interpretation issued in the previous office action has been maintained.
The Applicant argued in the remarks that ““a mission control center” is well known term and mentioned Google as a source of his argument. Examiner reviewed this argument but found it to be unpersuasive as Examiner cannot rely on Google as the Examiner can only rely on the guide lines mentioned in MPEP § 2181, regarding this issue.
The Applicant further argued in the remarks that structure of “mission control center” may be implicit or inherent in the specification to a skilled person in the art. Examiner found this argument also unpersuasive as Examiner is not convinced that the speciation/disclosure provides any reference to the presence of the structure of the “mission control center”. Hence, rejections 112b issued in the previous office action has also been maintained.
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) are: “a mission control center is configured to enroll a plurality of ledger-capable nodes” (as if recites 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) of claim 13 and “the mission control center is configured to publish” of claim 16.
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 § 112b
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 13-24 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 13 element “a mission control center is configured to enroll a plurality of ledger-capable nodes” and claim 16 element “the mission control center is configured to publish” are limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The written description only implicitly or inherently sets forth the corresponding structure, material, or acts that perform the claimed function.
Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181, applicant should:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts that perform the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) State on the record what corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function.
Claims 14-24 as they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 13 and are also rejected under 35 USC 112b, for their dependencies upon claim 13.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the allowance:
The prior arts on record:
Michaels (US 20240113902 A1) teaches a distributed ledger-based system, method and apparatus for managing tasks. An authorization record proposal is validated by a localized blockchain authorization network against a validated schema published by, in some cases, a core blockchain network. Once validated, it is published on a localized channel for use by other nodes to validate actions of the task as the task is being performed. Data relating to completed tasks may be shared in accordance with sharing information in the validated authorization record and the data may be deleted upon the occurrence of a predetermined condition.
Yan (CN 115129785 A- English translated copy and original is attached)) teaches a method and a device for maintaining block chain data, an electronic device and a storage medium, applied to node device deployed with block chain node and the first trusted execution environment, node device maintains block chain non-relation type database and block chain relation type database, block chain non-relation type database is used for maintaining the ciphertext data, the ciphertext data is obtained by encrypting the block chain data generated when the block chain node operates the block chain service in the second trusted execution environment through the first key corresponding to the second trusted execution environment; The method comprises: under the condition that the block chain node corresponding to the first trusted execution environment remote certification verification, obtaining the ciphertext data maintained in the block chain non-relation type database; in the first trusted execution environment, decrypting the ciphertext data, converting and encrypting the ciphertext standard data; the cryptograph standard data is maintained in the block chain relation type database, block chain relation type database is used for providing data analysis service to the analysis demand party.
Salvarani (US 20100318788 A1) teaches a method of managing secure communications between nodes includes receiving a public key of a node associated with a certification authority. A root node certificate is provided to the node responsive to the received public key. The root node certificate indicates that the received public key belongs to the node. A root self-signed certificate corresponding to a public key of the certification authority is also provided to the node.
Chow (US 20190081796 A1) discloses processes that manage a cryptographically secure generation and exchange of data between network-connected systems operating within a computing environment using a permissioned distributed ledger. For example, and based on secure interaction with a distributed smart contract maintained within ledger blocks of the permissioned distributed ledger, an apparatus and a counterparty system may generate local symmetric encryption keys that facilitate a secure communication session between the apparatus and the counterparty system. Using the symmetric encryption key, the apparatus may generate a cryptographically secure representation of generated or obtained data, which may be transmitted to the counterparty system across the secure communications channel. In response to a verification of an integrity of the cryptographically secure representation, the counterparty system may perform operations that, in conjunction with corresponding node systems, record the cryptographically secure representation within a portion of the permissioned distributed ledger.
Reasons for allowance are as follows:
Regarding claim1, this claim is allowed as none of cited prior art teaches or suggests, alone or in combination, the particular combination of steps or elements as recited in the independent claims. Specifically, the cited prior art on record does not specifically disclose, teach or suggest as a whole the limitation “assigning the first ledger-capable node as a trust manager for a permissioned candidate channel of the distributed ledger network; enrolling, by the first ledger-capable node, the second ledger-capable node into the permissioned candidate channel to form a second trust relationship between the first ledger-capable node and the second ledger-capable node based on each node's membership in the permissioned candidate channel; establishing a third trust relationship between the first ledger-capable node and a first legacy node using public-key infrastructure; and establishing a fourth trust relationship between the second ledger-capable node and the first legacy node based on the second trust relationship between the first ledger-capable node and the first legacy node” in view of all the other limitations recited in the independent claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-12 are also allowed due to dependencies on claim 1.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHER A KHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8574. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am-500pm.
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, Eleni A Shiferaw can be reached at 571-272-3867. 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.
/SHER A KHAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2497
Prosecution Insights