DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The following is a Final Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendments filed on 08/17/2026.
a. Claims 1, 4, 9, 10, 13, and 20 are amended.
b. Claims 3, 6, 12, 15, 17, and 19 are cancelled.
c. Claims 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 18 were previously cancelled.
Overall, claims 1, 4, 7, 9, 10, 13, 16, and 20 are pending and have been considered below.
Priority
The application claims foreign priority to application KR10-2023-0078605, filed on 06/20/2023. The priority is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 USC 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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 9, 10, 13, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to a judicial exception, i.e. an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, and without significantly more.
Per Step 1 of the multi-step eligibility analysis, claims 1, 4, 7, 9, 16, 17, 20 are directed to a computer implemented method, and claims 10 and 13 are directed to a system.
Thus, on its face, each independent claim and the associated dependent claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
Per Step 2A.1. The limitations of independent claim 1 (which is representative of claim 10) shown in bold recite an abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below.
[A] A computer-implemented method for performing a distributed consensus in a blockchain system,
[B] performed by a distributed consensus apparatus comprising one or more processors and memory storing instructions executed by the one or more processors, the method comprising:
[C] generating, by each node in the blockchain system, public vote identifiers using public node identifiers corresponding to nodes constituting the blockchain system, wherein the public node identifiers are cryptographic public keys associated with the nodes.
[D] for each of the public vote identifiers, performing a hash operation that generates a deterministic value H-1 based on the public vote identifier and previous block information in the blockchain system:
[E] generating, by each node without communication with other nodes, a pass vote list comprising identifiers for which the deterministic value satisfies a success condition determined by a success probability p, such that all nodes generate an identical pass vote list at a given time; and
[F] performing, by the distributed consensus apparatus, a distributed consensus to add a new block to the blockchain system, based on at least part of consensus congress nodes selected from among nodes corresponding to the pass vote list,
[G] wherein the consensus is performed using a consensus algorithm without prior exchange of messages to configure the consensus congress.
[H] wherein the pass vote list is generated by performing an operation corresponding to the success probability p for each of the public vote identifiers,
[I] wherein the operation comprises comparing the deterministic value generated using the public vote identifier and the previous block information with a threshold corresponding to the success probability, and
[J] wherein a consensus for a previous block corresponding to the previous block information is finally confirmed by a chair node selected from among the consensus congress nodes for a current block and the chair node is recognized based on the pass vote list.
Claim 1 (which is representative of claim 10) recites: generating a number using public key ([B]-[C]); performing has operation ([D]); generating a list ([E]); performing selection using an algorithm on the generated list ([F]-[G]); generating pass vote list by performing operation ([H]), and comparing values and confirming consensus ([I]-[J]), which, based on the claim language and in view of the application disclosure, represents enabling a system for voting.
The overall claim elements in combination cover a system for voting, including using an algorithm to perform consensus without communicating between nodes. The applicant’s specification filed on 06/18/2024 paragraph 0008 discloses “use public node identifiers such that a consensus congress, which is randomly selected for each block without the exchange of messages for forming the consensus congress, performs a consensus using a simple consensus algorithm, such as PBFT or the like”. One in the ordinary skill in the art would conclude this overcome the disadvantage of communicating for determining a consensus (see para. 0005). Such limitations express fundamental economic principles or practices like mitigating risk, which falls under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Alternatively, and/or in addition, the limitations cover determining value using a hash operation, and performing a selection using an algorithm; such limitations express mathematical concepts like mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations. These fall under the Mathematical Concepts. i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I).
Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that claim 1 (which is representative of claim 10) recites an abstract idea that represents a judicial exception.
Per Step 2A.2. The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the independent claims only amount to instructions to apply the judicial exception to a computer or are a general link to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(h)). For example, the added elements “node,” “processor,” “blockchain,” “cryptographic,” recite computing elements at a high level of generality, which is equivalent to instructions to implement the abstract idea “by a computer” or “on a computer.” The additional elements do not preclude from carrying out the identified abstract idea of enabling a system for voting. Therefore, those additional elements do not serve to integrate the identified abstract idea into practical application.
The additional elements in the independent claims, shown not bolded above, recite: distributed consensus … performed by a distributed consensus apparatus ([A]); apparatus comprising one or more processors and memory storing instructions executed by the one or more processors, the method comprising ([B]); “blockchain,” ([A], [C]-[D], [F]); “node(s)” ([C], [E]-[F]). When considered individually or as an ordered combination, they amount to nothing more than reception, transmission and/or general computation (i.e., not specific enough computation) of claim elements that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (adding the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea.
Therefore, the additional elements of claim 1 (which is representative of claim 10) do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and the claims remain a judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Claim 1 (which is representative of claim 10) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Therefore, when considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, the additional elements in the claim amount to instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. Moreover, as noted above, there is nothing the computing and additional elements (limitations [A]-[F]), that is significant or meaningful to the underlying abstract idea because the identified abstract idea of enabling a system for voting could have been reasonably performed when provided with the relevant data and/or information. Therefore, it is concluded that independent claim 1 (which is representative of claim 10) is deemed ineligible.
Per Step 2A.1. The limitations of independent claim 16 shown in bold recite an abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below.
[A] A method for generating a blockchain, comprising:
[B] by a computing device corresponding to a node of the blockchain,
[C] receiving a committed message corresponding to a previous block;
[D] generating a pass vote list using information about the previous block and public vote identifiers;
[E] receiving, by a chair node corresponding to a current block, confirm messages from consensus congress nodes corresponding to the pass vote list and finally confirming, by the chair node, a result of a consensus for the previous block based on the confirm messages, the chair node being recognized based on the pass vote list; and
[F] transmitting, by the chair node, a prepare message for connecting the current block to the blockchain to consensus committee nodes selected from among the consensus congress nodes.
[G] wherein the generating of the pass vote list comprises:
[H] generating, by each node in the blockchain, public vote identifiers using public node identifiers corresponding to nodes constituting the blockchain, wherein the public node identifiers are cryptographic public keys associated with the nodes,
[I] for each of the public vote identifiers, performing a hash operation that generates a deterministic value H based on the public vote identifier and the information about the previous block,
[J] generating, by each node without communication with other nodes, the pass vote list comprising identifiers for which the deterministic value satisfies a success condition determined by a success probability p, such that all nodes generate an identical pass vote list at a given time.
[K] wherein the pass vote list is generated by performing an operation corresponding to the success probability p for each of the public vote identifiers, and
[L] wherein the operation comprises comparing the deterministic value generated using the public vote identifier and the information about the previous block with a threshold corresponding to the success probability.
Claim 16 recites: receiving a message and generating a list ([C]-[D]); confirming the message ([E]); transmitting the message ([F]); generating a number using public key ([G]-[H]); performing has operation ([I]); generating a list ([J]); generating list by performing an operation ([K]), and, comparing values ([L]), which, based on the claim language and in view of the application disclosure, represents enabling a system for voting.
The overall claim elements in combination cover a system for voting, including generating a list, selecting from list using an algorithm, such limitations express following rules, which falls under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships, or Interactions Between People grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Alternatively, and/or in addition, the limitations cover determining value using a hash operation; such limitations express mathematical concepts like mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations. These fall under the Mathematical Concepts. i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I).
Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that claim 16 recites an abstract idea that represents a judicial exception.
Per Step 2A.2. The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the independent claims only amount to instructions to apply the judicial exception to a computer or are a general link to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(h)). For example, the added elements “node(s),” “computing device,” “blockchain,” “cryptographic,” recite computing elements at a high level of generality, which is equivalent to instructions to implement the abstract idea “by a computer” or “on a computer.” The additional elements do not preclude from carrying out the identified abstract idea of enabling a system for voting. Therefore, those additional elements do not serve to integrate the identified abstract idea into practical application.
The additional elements in the independent claim, shown not bolded above, recite: blockchain ([A], [F], [H]); a computing device corresponding to a node of the blockchain ([B]); node(s) ([E]-[F], [H], [J]); cryptographic ([H]). When considered individually or as an ordered combination, they amount to nothing more than reception, transmission and/or general computation (i.e., not specific enough computation) of claim elements that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (adding the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea.
Therefore, the additional elements of claim 16 do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and the claims remain a judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Claim 16 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Therefore, when considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, the additional elements in the claim amount to instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. Moreover, as noted above, there is nothing the computing and additional elements (limitations [A]-[B], [E]-[F], [H], [J]), that is significant or meaningful to the underlying abstract idea because the identified abstract idea of enabling a system for voting could have been reasonably performed when provided with the relevant data and/or information. Therefore, it is concluded that independent claim 16 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent Claims: Claims 4, 7, 9, 13, 17, 20 are analyzed for subject matter eligibility. However, these claims fail to recite patent eligible subject matter for following reasons:
Claim 4 (which is representative of claim 13), recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] wherein a number of public vote identifiers equal to a number of votes of each of the nodes is generated for the node using the public node identifier corresponding to the node.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of performing vote. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 7, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the public vote identifiers are generated by adding or subtracting one of generation values, including 0, to or from the public node identifier corresponding to each of the nodes.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of performing vote. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 9, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] wherein among the consensus congress nodes, a node corresponding to a largest or smallest value, among values corresponding to results of the operations, becomes a chair node.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of performing vote. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 17, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] receiving, by the chair node, commit messages from the consensus committee nodes; and
[B] transmitting, by the chair node, a committed message corresponding to the current block to all nodes.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of performing vote. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “interactions between people” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 20, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] wherein a number of public vote identifiers equal to a number of votes of each of the nodes is generated for the node using a public node identifier corresponding to the node.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of performing vote. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “interactions between people” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
When the dependent claims are considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the claim elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense, i.e., a computer receives information from another computer, processes that information and then sends a response based on processing results. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified in the independent claims as an abstract idea. The fact that the computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer subject matter eligibility. Overall, the further elements do not confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance are not changing the nature of the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application do not amount to significantly
more. (See MPEP 2106.05).
In sum, claims 1, 4, 7, 9, 10, 13, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 7, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Micali (US 20190147438 A1), in view of Xie (US 20200120157 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 10. Micali discloses:
A computer-implemented method for performing a distributed consensus in a blockchain system, performed by a distributed consensus apparatus comprising one or more processors and memory storing instructions executed by the one or more processors, the method comprising: [see at least (0017) A subset of users, Cr, collectively considered a “committee”, are randomly selected and tasked to reach consensus of the … authenticate it, and propagate their authentication to the network.]
generating, by each node in the blockchain system, public vote identifiers using public node identifiers corresponding to nodes constituting at the blockchain system, [see at least (0753) each user i to consist of K+1 copies (i, v), each of which is independently selected to be a verifier. [0756]-[0762] If i is an user in PKr−k, then i′s copies are (i, 1), . . . , (i, K+1)]
wherein the public node identifiers are cryptographic public keys associated with the nodes; [see at least (0362) a central authority A generates a public master key, PMK, and a corresponding secret master key, SMK. Given the identity, U, of a player U, A computes, via SMK, a secret signature key skU relative to the public key U, and privately gives skU to U.]
for each of the public vote identifiers, performing a hash operation that generates a deterministic value H1 based on the public vote identifier and previous block information in the blockchain system: [see at least (0021) a user digitally signs (via the corresponding secret key sk) some information derivable from all prior blocks. In the preferred embodiment, he actually digitally signs a quantity Qr derivable from the last block, Br−1, hash it, and check whether the hash is less that a given (probability) threshold p (which depends on the amount of money owned by the user's public key). If this is the case, this digital signature of the user can be used as a proof that the public key pk has been selected. Indeed, everyone can check the user signature, hash it, and compare it to the given threshold p]
wherein the pass vote list is generated by performing an operation corresponding to the success probability p for each of the public vote identifiers. [see at least (0021)-(0022) determine whether a public key pk he owns is selected, as a leader or a committee member, a user digitally signs (via the corresponding secret key sk) some information derivable from all prior blocks … the hash of a signature can be considered as the binary expansion of a random number between 0 and 1, and thus will be less than or equal to 1/1,000 with probability equal to p=1/1,000. Thus, the total expected number of selected users will be 1M/1K=1/1K.]
wherein the operation is to compare a random value generated using the public vote identifier and previous block information with a threshold corresponding to the success probability. [(0028) public keys select themselves to have a role in the generation of the block Br by digitally signing a quantity Qr, that is preferably part of the previous block, Br−1, already publicly known, and verifying whether their signature satisfies a special property: namely, its hash must be less than a given selection threshold.]
wherein a consensus for a previous block corresponding to the previous block information is finally confirmed by a chair node selected from among the consensus congress nodes for a current block and the chair node is recognized based on the pass vote list. [(0079) we select a user, the leader, in charge of proposing the new block Br, and the verifier set SVr, in charge to reach agreement on the block proposed by the leader. The inventive system leverages some information, Qr−1, that is deducible from the content of the previous block and is non-manipulatable even in the presence of a very strong adversary.]
Note: Examiner notes the determination of the previous information is non-functional descriptive material (see MPEP 2111.05). The process of determining information regarding the previous block information does not further limit any prior methods steps (see MPEP 2111.04). Therefore, the smart contract cannot be given patentable weight.
Micali discloses performing consensus voting, however, Micali does not disclose:
generating, by each node without communication with other nodes, a pass vote list comprising identifiers for which the deterministic value satisfies a success condition determined by a success probability p, such that all nodes generate an identical pass vote list at a given time; and
performing, by the distributed consensus apparatus, a distributed consensus to add a new block to the blockchain system, based on at least part of consensus congress nodes selected from among nodes corresponding to the pass vote list,
wherein the consensus is performed using a consensus algorithm without prior exchange of messages to configure the consensus congress.
Nonetheless, Xie discloses:
generating, by each node without communication with other nodes, a pass vote list comprising identifiers for which the deterministic value satisfies a success condition determined by a success probability p, [(0107) With a successful consensus verification, the second transaction is added to the blockchain, and thus the local blockchain copy of node Y is updated to B_act. (reads on: performing an action without communicating with other node) The shaded box attached to the “block” represents a possible time lag before the second transaction is added to the blockchain]
such that all nodes generate an identical pass vote list at a given time; and [see at least (0039) through multiple synchronizations before, between, and after executing the first and second transactions, the newly-added node is able to obtain, within a short time, an identical copy of node list as those kept by existing consensus nodes and synchronize to identical blockchain data.]
performing, by the distributed consensus apparatus, a distributed consensus to add a new block to the blockchain system, based on at least part of consensus congress nodes selected from among nodes corresponding to the pass vote list, [(0039) In some embodiments, by dynamically executing a first transaction for adding a node and a second transaction for activating the node, the node can be added as a new consensus node to the pool of existing consensus nodes without having to disrupt the operation of the blockchain network.]
wherein the consensus is performed using a consensus algorithm without prior exchange of messages to configure the consensus congress. [see at least (0039) adding a node in a blockchain network increases the total number of consensus nodes n of the blockchain network (e.g., a Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance (PBFT) system), which increases the blockchain network's tolerance level for malicious or faulty (e.g., abnormal, offline) nodes … (0107) With a successful consensus verification, the second transaction is added to the blockchain, and thus the local blockchain copy of node Y is updated to B_act. (reads on: performing an action without communicating with other node) The shaded box attached to the “block” represents a possible time lag before the second transaction is added to the blockchain]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Micali to include the features of Xie. A person with the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform consensus voting with the voting system as taught by Micali using the algorithm for determining consensus as taught by Xie. Micali discloses performing consensus operation. Xie teaches using PBFT algorithm to make the operation of voting more efficient (see the Xie para. 0066). Because both Micali, as well as Xie, are in the field of voting using blockchain and the PBFT algorithm taught by Xie would have used the consensus voting system of Micali to securely complete the consensus vote. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Micali, as well as Xie would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Micali/Xie.
Regarding Claim 7. Micali, Xie discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Micali further discloses:
wherein the public vote identifiers are generated by adding or subtracting one of generation values, including 0, to or from the public node identifier corresponding to each of the nodes. [see at least (0762) © has 4 copies: (©, 1), . . . , (©, 4). Then, the first 3 copies belong to SVr,s automatically. For the 4th one, conceptually, Algorand′ independently rolls a biased coin, whose probability of Heads is 0.7. Copy (©, 4) is selected if and only if the coin toss is Heads.]
Regarding Claim 9. Micali, Xie discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Micali further discloses:
wherein among the consensus congress nodes, a node corresponding to a largest or smallest value, among values corresponding to results of the operations, becomes a chair node. [(0023) Then, the system may first use secret cryptographic sortition to select—say—100 public keys and then let the leader be the public key whose (hashed) proof is smaller. The owner, ©, of each selected key, assembles his own block of new valid transactions, Bi r, and propagates Pi as well as the properly authenticated block Bi r… Then the leader … will be the key whose proof is lexicographically smaller, and the block Br will the block on which the committee Cr reaches consensus as being the block proposed by r.]
Claims 4, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Micali, in view of Xie, as applied to claims [1, 10] above, and further in view of Tang (US 20190068380 A1).
Regarding Claims 4, 13. Micali, Xie discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 10. Micali further discloses:
wherein a number of public vote identifiers equal to a number of votes of each of the … [see at least (0436) He sets vi to be the majority vote of the … in the second components of all the valid … he has received…. computes bi as follows. If more than ⅔ of all the valid … he has received are of the form …]
The above combination of Micali in view of Xie discloses consensus voting using blockchain. However, the above combination of Micali, Xie does not disclose:
wherein a number of public vote identifiers equal to a number of votes of each of the nodes is generated for the node using the public node identifier corresponding to the node.
Tang discloses total number of votes performed by each entity:
wherein a number of public vote identifiers equal to a number of votes of each of the nodes is generated for the node using the public node identifier corresponding to the node. [(0032) the total number of votes of a shareholder node is no more than the number of voting shares owned by the shareholder node. The voting shares do not include shares that other shareholder nodes vote for during consensus node selection.]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Micali, Xie to include the features of Tang. A person with the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform consensus voting with the voting system as taught by Micali, Xie using the voting power of each entity as taught by Tang. Micali, Xie discloses performing consensus operation. Tang teaches the number of votes each entity can perform. Because both Micali, Xie as well as Tang are in the field of voting using blockchain and the restricted number of votes as taught by Tang would have used the consensus voting system of Micali, Xie to securely complete the consensus vote. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Micali, Xie as well as Tang would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Micali, Xie/Tang.
Claims 16, 17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Micali (US 20190147438 A1), in view of Liu (US 20220237181 A1), in further view of Xie (US 20200120157 A1).
Regarding Claim 16 Micali discloses:
A method for generating a blockchain, comprising: by a computing device corresponding to a node of the blockchain … [see at least Fig. 2 and Fig. 3]
generating a pass vote list using information about the previous block and public vote identifiers; [(0762) © has 4 copies: (©, 1), . . ., (©, 4). Then, the first 3 copies belong to SVr, s automatically. For the 4th one, conceptually, Algorand′ independently rolls a biased coin, whose probability of Heads is 0.7. Copy (©, 4) is selected if and only if the coin toss is Heads.]
receiving, by a chair node corresponding to a current block, confirm messages from consensus congress nodes corresponding to the pass vote list and finally confirming, by the chair node, a result of a consensus for the previous block based on the confirm messages, the chair node being recognized based on the pass vote list; and [(0023) Then, the system may first use secret cryptographic sortition to select—say—100 public keys, and then let the leader be the public key whose (hashed) proof is smaller. The owner, ©, of each selected key, assembles his own block of new valid transactions, Bi r, and propagates Pi as well as the properly authenticated block Bi r… Then the leader … will be the key whose proof is lexicographically smaller, and the block Br will the block on which the committee Cr reaches consensus as being the block proposed by r.]
transmitting, by the chair node, a prepare message for connecting the current block to the blockchain to consensus committee nodes selected from among the consensus congress nodes [see at least (0023) Then, the system may first use secret cryptographic sortition to select—say—100 public keys, and then let the leader be the public key whose (hashed) proof is smaller. The owner, ©, of each selected key, assembles his own block of new valid transactions, Bi r, and propagates Pi as well as the properly authenticated block Bi r… Then the leader … will be the key whose proof is lexicographically smaller, and the block Br will the block on which the committee Cr reaches consensus as being the block proposed by r. (0079) we select a user, the leader, in charge of proposing the new block Br, and the verifier set SVr, in charge to reach agreement on the block proposed by the leader. The inventive system leverages some information, Qr−1, that is deducible from the content of the previous block and is non-manipulatable even in the presence of a very strong adversary.]
wherein the generating of the pass vote list comprises: generating, by each node in the blockchain, public vote identifiers using public node identifiers corresponding to nodes constituting the blockchain, [see at least (0753) each user i to consist of K+1 copies (i, v), each of which is independently selected to be a verifier. (0756)-(0762) If i is an user in PKr−k, then i′s copies are (i, 1), . . . , (i, K+1)]
wherein the public node identifiers are cryptographic public keys associated with the nodes, [(0362) a central authority A generates a public master key, PMK, and a corresponding secret master key, SMK. Given the identity, U, of a player U, A computes, via SMK, a secret signature key skU relative to the public key U, and privately gives skU to U.]
for each of the public vote identifiers, performing a hash operation that generates a deterministic value Hi based on the public vote identifier and the information about the previous block, [(0021) a user digitally signs (via the corresponding secret key sk) some information derivable from all prior blocks. In the preferred embodiment, he actually digitally signs a quantity Qr derivable from the last block, Br−1, hash it, and check whether the hash is less that a given (probability) threshold p (which depends on the amount of money owned by the user's public key). If this is the case, this digital signature of the user can be used as a proof that the public key pk has been selected. Indeed, everyone can check the user signature, hash it, and compare it to the given threshold p]
wherein the pass vote list is generated by performing an operation corresponding to the success probability p for each of the public vote identifiers. [see at least (0021)-(0022) determine whether a public key pk he owns is selected, as a leader or a committee member, a user digitally signs (via the corresponding secret key sk) some information derivable from all prior blocks … the hash of a signature can be considered as the binary expansion of a random number between 0 and 1, and thus will be less than or equal to 1/1,000 with probability equal to p=1/1,000. Thus, the total expected number of selected users will be 1M/1K=1/1K.]
wherein the operation is to compare a random value generated using the public vote identifier and the information about the previous block with a threshold corresponding to the success probability [(0028) public keys select themselves to have a role in the generation of the block Br by digitally signing a quantity Qr, that is preferably part of the previous block, Br−1, already publicly known, and verifying whether their signature satisfies a special property: namely, its hash must be less than a given selection threshold.]
Micali discloses performing consensus voting, however, Micali does not disclose:
… receiving a committed message corresponding to a previous block;
generating, by each node without communication with other nodes, the pass vote list comprising identifiers for which the deterministic value satisfies a success condition determined by a success probability p, such that all nodes generate an identical pass vote list at a given time,
Nonetheless Liu discloses:
receiving a committed message corresponding to a previous block; [(0023) Then, the system may first use secret cryptographic sortition to select—say—100 public keys, and then let the leader be the public key whose (hashed) proof is smaller. The owner, ©, of each selected key, assembles his own block of new valid transactions, Bi r, and propagates Pi as well as the properly authenticated block Bi r… Then the leader … will be the key whose proof is lexicographically smaller, and the block Br will the block on which the committee Cr reaches consensus as being the block proposed by r.]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Micali to include the features of Liu. A person a having the ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to accurately perform operation using the data of Liu with the voting technique of Micali. Micali discloses performing consensus voting. Liu teaches receiving data. Because both Micali as well as Liu are implemented through field of performing vote. Moreover, since the features disclosed by Micali as well as Lie would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Micali/Liu.
The above combination of Micali in view Liu discloses performing consensus voting, however, the above combination of Micali, Liu does not disclose:
generating, by each node without communication with other nodes, the pass vote list comprising identifiers for which the deterministic value satisfies a success condition determined by a success probability p, such that all nodes generate an identical pass vote list at a given time,
However, Xie discloses:
generating, by each node without communication with other nodes, a pass vote list comprising identifiers for which the deterministic value satisfies a success condition determined by a success probability p, [see at least (0107) With a successful consensus verification, the second transaction is added to the blockchain, and thus the local blockchain copy of node Y is updated to B_act. (reads on: performing an action without communicating with other node) The shaded box attached to the “block” represents a possible time lag before the second transaction is added to the blockchain]
such that all nodes generate an identical pass vote list at a given time; and [see at least (0039) through multiple synchronizations before, between, and after executing the first and second transactions, the newly-added node is able to obtain, within a short time, an identical copy of node list as those kept by existing consensus nodes and synchronize to identical blockchain data.]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Micali, Liu to include the features of Xie. A person with the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform consensus voting with the voting system as taught by Micali, Liu using the algorithm for determining consensus as taught by Xie. Micali, Liu discloses performing consensus operation. Xie teaches using PBFT algorithm to make the operation of voting more efficient (see the Xie reference [0066]). Because both Micali, Liu as well as Xie are in the field of voting using blockchain and the PBFT algorithm taught by Xie would have used the consensus voting system of Micali, Liu to securely complete the consensus vote. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Micali, Liu as well as Xie would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Micali, Liu/Xie.
Regarding Claim 17. Micali, Liu, Xie discloses the limitations of Claim 16. Micali further discloses:
receiving, by the chair node, commit messages from the consensus committee nodes; and [(0023) Then, the system may first use secret cryptographic sortition to select—say—100 public keys, and then let the leader be the public key whose (hashed) proof is smaller. The owner, ©, of each selected key, assembles his own block of new valid transactions, Bi r, and propagates Pi as well as the properly authenticated block Bi r… Then the leader … will be the key whose proof is lexicographically smaller, and the block Br will the block on which the committee Cr reaches consensus as being the block proposed by r.]
transmitting, by the chair node, a committed message corresponding to the current block to all nodes. [(0023) Then, the system may first use secret cryptographic sortition to select—say—100 public keys, and then let the leader be the public key whose (hashed) proof is smaller. The owner, ©, of each selected key, assembles his own block of new valid transactions, Bi r, and propagates Pi as well as the properly authenticated block Bi r… Then the leader … will be the key whose proof is lexicographically smaller, and the block Br will the block on which the committee Cr reaches consensus as being the block proposed by r. (0079) we select a user, the leader, in charge of proposing the new block Br, and the verifier set SVr, in charge to reach agreement on the block proposed by the leader. The inventive system leverages some information, Qr−1, that is deducible from the content of the previous block and is non-manipulatable even in the presence of a very strong adversary.]
generating, by each node in the blockchain system, public vote identifiers using public node identifiers corresponding to nodes constituting at the blockchain system, [(0753) each user i to consist of K+1 copies (i, v), each of which is independently selected to be a verifier. (0756)-(0762) If i is an user in PKr−k, then i′s copies are (i, 1), . . . , (i, K+1)]
wherein the public node identifiers are cryptographic public keys associated with the nodes; [(0362) a central authority A generates a public master key, PMK, and a corresponding secret master key, SMK. Given the identity, U, of a player U, A computes, via SMK, a secret signature key skU relative to the public key U, and privately gives skU to U.]
for each of the public vote identifiers, performing a hash operation that generates a deterministic value H1 based on the public vote identifier and previous block information in the blockchain system: [see at least (0021) a user digitally signs (via the corresponding secret key sk) some information derivable from all prior blocks. In the preferred embodiment, he actually digitally signs a quantity Qr derivable from the last block, Br−1, hash it, and check whether the hash is less that a given (probability) threshold p (which depends on the amount of money owned by the user's public key). If this is the case, this digital signature of the user can be used as a proof that the public key pk has been selected. Indeed, everyone can check the user signature, hash it, and compare it to the given threshold p]
Xie further discloses:
generating, by each node without communication with other nodes, a pass vote list comprising identifiers for which the deterministic value satisfies a success condition determined by performing an operation corresponding to a success probability p [(0107) With a successful consensus verification, the second transaction is added to the blockchain, and thus the local blockchain copy of node Y is updated to B_act. (reads on: performing an action without communicating with other node) The shaded box attached to the “block” represents a possible time lag before the second transaction is added to the blockchain]
such that all nodes generate an identical pass vote list at a given time. [see at least (0039) through multiple synchronizations before, between, and after executing the first and second transactions, the newly-added node is able to obtain, within a short time, an identical copy of node list as those kept by existing consensus nodes and synchronize to identical blockchain data.]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Micali, Liu, and Xie to include the additional features of Xie. A person with the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform consensus voting with the voting system as taught by Micali, Liu, Xie using the algorithm for determining consensus as taught by Xie. Micali, Liu, Xie discloses performing consensus operation. Xie further teaches using PBFT algorithm to make the operation of voting more efficient (see the Xie reference [0066]). Because both Micali, Liu, Xie as well as Xie are in the field of voting using blockchain and the PBFT algorithm taught by Xie would have used the consensus voting system of Micali, Liu, Xie to securely complete the consensus vote. Moreover, since the subject matter is merely a combination of old features, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 20. Micali, Liu, Xie discloses the limitations of Claim 16. Micali further discloses:
wherein a number of public vote identifiers equal to a number of votes of each of the … [see at least (0436) He sets vi to be the majority vote of the … in the second components of all the valid … he has received…. computes bi as follows. If more than ⅔ of all the valid … he has received are of the form …]
The above combination of Micali in view of Xie discloses consensus voting using blockchain. However, the above combination of Micali, Xie does not disclose:
wherein a number of public vote identifiers equal to a number of votes of each of the nodes is generated for the node using the public node identifier corresponding to the node.
Tang discloses total number of votes performed by each entity:
wherein a number of public vote identifiers equal to a number of votes of each of the nodes is generated for the node using the public node identifier corresponding to the node. [see at least (0032) the total number of votes of a shareholder node is no more than the number of voting shares owned by the shareholder node. The voting shares do not include shares that other shareholder nodes vote for during consensus node selection.]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Micali, Xie to include the features of Tang. A person with the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform consensus voting with the voting system as taught by Micali, Xie using the voting power of each entity as taught by Tang. Micali, Xie discloses performing consensus operation. Tang teaches the number of votes each entity can perform. Because both Micali, Xie as well as Tang are in the field of voting using blockchain and the restricted number of votes as taught by Tang would have used the consensus voting system of Micali, Xie to securely complete the consensus vote. Moreover, since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Applicant submits: “Because the participating nodes use the same public node identifiers and previous-block information and perform the same deterministic threshold comparison, each node independently generates the same pass vote list. Thus, a node can determine the consensus-congress membership and recognize the chair node without receiving eligibility results or proofs from other nodes and without prior message exchange to configure the consensus congress. This provides a concrete improvement to blockchain consensus processing by eliminating communications that would otherwise be required to establish and verify consensus-congress membership. The resulting reduction in network communication and bandwidth consumption is a technological improvement to the operation of the blockchain network, not merely an abstract improvement in decision-making. The newly added chair-node limitation further confirms the technical nature of the claimed process. The pass vote list is not merely information generated for an abstract voting purpose; it is used to select consensus-congress nodes for a current block, from which a chair node is selected and recognized to finally confirm consensus for a previous block. Thus, the claimed operations establish a specific relationship between successive blocks and consensus operations.”
Examiner response: Examiner has fully considered but does not find Applicant’s argument persuasive. Examiner argues the claim elements in combination fall under mitigating risk because the claim recites system for voting, including using an algorithm to perform consensus without communicating between nodes. Furthermore, the claim limitations further recite determining value using a hash operation and performing a selection using an algorithm; such limitations express mathematical calculation, as it uses an algorithm to determine a value. Additionally, the amended claim language further recites the abstract idea as it describes how the operation works to generate a list. Thus, the Examiner has maintained the 35 USC § 101 rejection.
Applicant submits: “In any event, the claims recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea under Step 2B. The claimed combination is not merely the use of generic computers to perform voting. Rather, the claims require a particular distributed architecture in which each blockchain node independently derives an identical pass vote list from cryptographic identifiers and common previous-block information, uses that list to determine the consensus congress without prior message exchange, and recognizes a chair node from the consensus congress for final confirmation of the previous-block consensus. This ordered combination eliminates the need for nodes to communicate eligibility results or proofs merely to establish the consensus congress, thereby reducing communication overhead in the blockchain network. Such a specific, non-generic arrangement provides significantly more than an alleged abstract idea. See BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT& T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Moreover, any assertion that this particular combination is well-understood, routine, or conventional must be supported by appropriate evidence. See Berkheimer V. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Accordingly, whether considered under Step 2A or Step 2B, the amended claims recite a concrete technological improvement to distributed blockchain consensus rather than an abstract voting or risk-mitigation concept.”
Examiner response: Examiner has fully considered but does not find Applicant’s argument persuasive. Examiner argues the claim elements of “node,” “processor,” “blockchain,” “cryptographic,” are categorize as additional element. The claim as whole does not indicate technological improvement, rather it uses the additional elements as tool to perform the abstract idea. Furthermore, performing consensus in a blockchain environment does not indicate a technological improvement, but the claim limitation falls under fundamental economic principle. See the updated 35 USC § 101 rejection. Thus, the Examiner has maintained the 35 USC § 101 rejection.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 112(b).
Applicant submits: “Claim 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9-10, 12-13, 15-17, 19-20 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. In view of the Amendment, Applicant respectfully submits that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is overcome. The limitations previously recited in dependent Claims 3, 12, and 19 have been incorporated into independent Claims 1, 10, and 16, respectively, expressly defining the operation as comparing the deterministic value generated using the public vote identifier and previous-block information with a threshold corresponding to the success probability.”
Examiner response: In light of Applicant’s amendments, the Examiner has withdrawn the 35 USC § 112(b) rejection.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 103.
Applicant submits: “For example, the cited references do not disclose that (1) each node uses the public node identifiers of the nodes constituting the blockchain system, together with common previous- block information, to generate deterministic values for the respective public vote identifiers, (2) each node then compares the deterministic values with a threshold corresponding to the success probability p and independently generates a pass vote list. Further, the cited references do not teach that, given that the nodes use the same public node identifiers and previous-block information, the nodes independently generate an identical pass vote list for a given block. Micali does not teach such architecture that allows each node to identify the nodes forming the consensus congress without receiving eligibility results or proofs from the candidate nodes. There is no suggestion in Micali that when the previous-block information is updated, the nodes can independently generate a new pass vote list for the subsequent block. Rather, Micali's cryptographic sortition determines a node's own eligibility using its secret key, after which the selected node provides a selection proof that can be verified by other participants. Micali therefore relies on a selected node demonstrating its eligibility, rather than having every node independently determine the eligibility of every candidate node from common public information. Xie likewise fails to cure this deficiency. Xie describes a PBFT-based arrangement involving communication among replicas, including broadcasting and exchanging messages during the consensus process. The cited portions of Xie, including paragraphs [0039] and [0107], do not disclose or suggest that every node independently determines the eligibility of all candidate nodes using their public keys and common previous-block information to generate an identical pass vote list.”
Examiner response: Examiner has fully considered but does not find Applicant’s argument persuasive. Examiner argues that the Micali references discloses performing an operation of checking if the hash is less than selected threshold (see Micali para. 0028). The amended claim 1 limitation recites, “wherein the operation comprises comparing the deterministic value generated using the public vote identifier and the previous block information with a threshold”. One skilled in the art would conclude the operation as disclosed by Micali and the operation recited by the amended claim are the same as both operations require determining if number is within threshold. Thus, the examiner has maintained the 35 USC § 103 rejection.
Applicant submits: “B. The cited references fail to disclose or suggest final confirmation of the previous- block consensus by the current chair node. The cited references do not teach or suggest that a consensus for a previous block corresponding to the previous-block information is finally confirmed by a chair node selected from among the consensus-congress nodes for a current block, with the chair node being recognized based on the pass vote list. As described in paragraphs [0104]-[0106] of the present specification, the chair node for a subsequent block receives confirmation messages from the consensus-congress nodes and finally confirms the consensus result for the preceding block. After the block is validated, a new pass vote list is generated based on information of that block to form the consensus congress for the next block. This provides a continuous consensus process in which confirmation of one block is linked to formation of the consensus congress for the subsequent block. Because every node independently generates the same pass vote list, the nodes can identify the consensus congress and the chair node for the current block without a separate message exchange. The current chair node can therefore finally confirm the consensus result for the previous block. However, the cited references do not disclose or suggest this particular relationship among (1) the independently generated pass vote list, (2) selection and recognition of the chair node for the current block, and (3) final confirmation by that current chair node of the consensus result for the previous block. Accordingly, the combination of Micali and Xie fails to teach or suggest "wherein the operation comprises comparing the deterministic value generated using the public vote identifier and the previous block information with a threshold corresponding to the success probability, and wherein a consensus for a previous block corresponding to the previous block information is finally confirmed by a chair node selected from among the consensus congress nodes for a current block and the chair node is recognized based on the pass vote list," as claimed. The additional teachings of Tang and/or Liu do not cure these deficiencies. In view of the foregoing, withdrawal of the 35 USC § 103 rejections [are] respectfully requested.”
Examiner response: Examiner has fully considered but does not find Applicant’s argument persuasive. The amended language recites “wherein a consensus for a previous block corresponding to the previous block information is finally confirmed by a chair node selected from among the consensus congress nodes for a current block and the chair node is recognized based on the pass vote list.” However, this claim limitation does recite meaning and purpose to the manipulative the prior steps, and the claim limitation does not positively recite a method steps. The claim recites confirming information by a chair node, but one of skilled in art cannot determine, which prior method step is the “wherein” claim limitation further gives meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps (see MPEP 2111.04). Thus, the examiner has maintained the 35 USC § 103 rejection.
Relevant Prior Art Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon which, however, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20200286049 A1 2020-09-10 SYSTEMS AND METHODS OF SELF-ADMINISTERED PROTOCOLS ON A BLOCKCHAIN PLATFORM - The present invention is systems and methods of self-administering protocols on a blockchain platform. A system and method of self-administered protocols on a blockchain platform, comprising: self-administering one or more of the following actions: consensus, governance, self-forking, view change or finality of transactions on the blockchain platform; operating without a hierarchical structure to make decisions; validating the decision to avoid rogue decisions or attacks; setting of a time period to lapse to finalize the decision; allowing the set time period to lapse; finalizing the decision by saving the state on the blockchain platform. Self-administering also includes the capability of the blockchain platform to prune the state of the smart contracts and the global state of the blockchain platform.
US 20240386422 A1 2024-11-21 REVOCATION OF CRYPTOGRAPHIC KEYS BY WAY OF A BLOCKCHAIN-BASED BANKNOTE - The method sending a revocation request to the banknote, in response to the revocation request, receiving a cryptogram signed by the banknote, wherein the first cryptogram includes an identification number of the banknote and a revocation confirmation, and forwarding the signed cryptogram to a blockchain server of a blockchain for entering the revocation confirmation of the banknote identified by the identification number in the blockchain.
US 20190205547 A1 2019-07-04 PROVIDING AND CHECKING THE VALIDITY OF A VIRTUAL DOCUMENT - A method for providing and checking the validity of a virtual document on a first computer system is disclosed. The virtual document is provided by means of a mobile second computer system for a first computer system. The method includes receiving a password-protected storage address of a first database at which the virtual document can be read, reading the virtual document, displaying the virtual document on a display of the first computer system, receiving a unique second identifier of the mobile second computer system, calculating a third identifier using the received second identifier and a hash value of the virtual document, identifying the database entry of the second database in which a first identifier of a first pairing consisting of the mobile second computer system and the first virtual document is stored, comparing the calculated third identifier with the first identifier stored in the identifier database entry.
US 20200394648 A1 2020-12-17 SCALABLE, SECURE, EFFICIENT, AND ADAPTABLE DISTRIBUTED DIGITAL LEDGER TRANSACTION NETWORK - The present disclosure relates to systems, methods, and non-transitory computer readable storage media for implementing a scalable, secure, efficient, and adaptable distributed digital ledger transaction network. Indeed, the disclosed systems can reduce storage and processing requirements, improve security of implementing computing devices and underlying digital assets, accommodate a wide variety of different digital programs (or “smart contracts”), and scale to accommodate billions of users and associated digital transactions. For example, the disclosed systems can utilize a host of features that improve storage, account/address management, digital transaction execution, consensus, and synchronization processes. The disclosed systems can also utilize a new programming language that improves efficiency and security of the distributed digital ledger transaction network.
US 20220237181 A1 2022-07-28 METHOD, APPARATUS, DEVICE, AND STORAGE MEDIUM FOR PROPOSAL MESSAGE PROCESSING FOR BLOCKCHAIN - A computer device obtains a block proposal message and obtains a first block from the block proposal message. In accordance with a determination that a current consensus node of the computer device has a second block in a locked state and a block height of the first block is the same as a block height of the second block, the computer device deletes the block proposal message and obtains block voting information of the second block in a first consensus stage. The locked state is a state of a block that has passed the first consensus stage and has not passed a second consensus stage. The computer device obtains block submission voting information of the second block in the second consensus stage according to the block voting information, and determines a consensus result corresponding to the second block according to the block submission voting information.
US 20190097790 A1 2019-03-28 SCALABLE BYZANTINE FAULT-TOLERANT PROTOCOL WITH PARTIAL TEE SUPPORT - A method for establishing consensus between a plurality of distributed nodes connected via a data communication network includes preparing a set of random numbers, wherein each of the random numbers is a share of an initial secret, wherein each share of the initial secret corresponds to one of a plurality of active nodes; encrypting, in order to generate encrypted shares of the initial secret, each respective share of the initial secret with a shared key corresponding to respective one of the plurality of active nodes to which the respective share corresponds; applying a bitwise xor function to the set of random numbers to provide the initial secret; and binding the initial secret to a last counter value to provide a commitment and a signature for the last counter. The method includes generating shares of a second and of a plurality of subsequent additional secrets by iteratively applying a hash function.
Conclusion
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 MD S HYDER whose telephone number is (571)270-1820. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 6:00pm.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571) 272-7575. 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.
/M.S.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights