CTNF 18/746,263 CTNF 100141 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013 is being examined under the AIA first inventor to file provisions. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 07-42-04 AIA A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/12/2026 has been entered. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendments filed on 05/12/2026. Claims 1, 10, 16 are amended Claims 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 18 are previously cancelled Overall, Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9-10, 12-13, 15-17, 19-20 are pending and have been considered below. Priority The application claims priority to provisional application KR10-2023-0078605, filed on 06/20/2023. The priority is acknowledged. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9-10, 12-13, 15-17, 19-20 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, 3-4, 6-7, 9 are directed to a computer implemented method, claims 10, 12-13, 15 are directed to an apparatus, and claims 16-17, 19-20 are directed to a computer implemented method. 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. 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]), and generating pass vote list by performing operation ([H]), which, based on the claim language and in view of the application disclosure, represents enabling a system for voting. This overall combination, covers 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 expresses 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, covers determining value using a hash operation, and performing a selection using an algorithm; such limitations expresses 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 additional 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 (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) 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 congres s 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 a nd 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. 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]), and generating list by performing an operation ([K]), which, based on the claim language and in view of the application disclosure, represents enabling a system for voting. This overall combination, covers a system for voting, including generating a list, selecting from list using an algorithm, such limitations expresses 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, covers determining value using a hash operation; such limitations expresses 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 additional 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 claims, 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 deemed ineligible. Dependent Claims: Claims 3-4, 6-7, 9, 12-13, 15, 17, 19-20 are analyzed for subject matter eligibility. However, these claims fails to recite patent eligible subject matter for following reasons: Claim 3 (which is representative of claim 12), 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] 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. The claim further recites the abstract idea of performing an operation. 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 4 (which is representative of claim 13), 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] 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 6 (which is representative of claim 15), 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] 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. 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, 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] 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, 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] wherein among the consensus congress nodes, a node c orresponding 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, 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] 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 19, 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] 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. 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)). 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, 3-4, 6-7, 9-10, 12-13, 15-17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 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. Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the pass vote list is generated by performing an operation corresponding to the success probability p for each of the public vote identifiers.” The applicant’s specification on [0011] recites “the operation may be to compare a random value generated using the public vote identifier and previous block information with a threshold corresponding to the success probability.” One of skill in the art based on the recited portion of the cannot determine the scope of “operation” as the applicant specification only suggest it may be comparing random value with an identifier, but it also can be something else. The claims must particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the subject matter to be protected by the patent grant (see MPEP 2171). Additionally, a broad claim is not indefinite merely because it encompasses a wide scope of subject matter provided the scope is clearly defined. But a claim is indefinite when the boundaries of the protected subject matter are not clearly delineated and the scope is unclear (see MPEP 2173.04). In this case one of skill would not be able to avoid an infringement because the metes and bounds of what “performing an operation encompasses” is not sufficiently clear. Claims 10 and 16 recites similar limitations to claim 1, and are rejected for the same reasoning. The remainder of the claims are rejected by virtue of dependency. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claims 1, 3, 6-7, 9-10, 12 are re jected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mi cali (US 20190147438 A1), in view of Xie (US 20200120157 A1). Re garding 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.] Note: The above combination of Xie does not expressly disclose wherein the pass vote list is generated by performing an operation corresponding to the success probability p for each of the public vote identifiers. However this limitation represents non-functional descriptive material and does not affect how the claimed method functions (i.e., the descriptive material does not have any claim function in the claimed method; see MPEP 2106.01). A “wherein” clause does not function to actively limit the claim language. Therefore, the claim element is considered, but given no patentable weight. (MPEP 2111.05). The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution. 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, [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.] 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, [see at least (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 reference [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. Note: The above combination of Micali, Xie does not expressly disclose without prior exchange of messages . However this limitation represents non-functional descriptive material and does not affect how the claimed method functions (i.e., the descriptive material does not have any claim function in the claimed method; see MPEP 2106.01). A “wherein” clause does not function to actively limit the claim language. Therefore, the claim element is considered, but given no patentable weight. (MPEP 2111.05). The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution. Regarding Claims 3, 12. Micali, Xie discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 10. Micali further discloses: 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. [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.] Regarding Claim 6. Micali, Xie discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Micali further discloses: 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. [see at least (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.] 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 4 th 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.] Note: The above combination of Micali, Xie does not expressly disclose 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. However this limitation represents non-functional descriptive material and does not affect how the claimed method functions (i.e., the descriptive material does not have any claim function in the claimed method; see MPEP 2106.01). A “wherein” clause does not function to actively limit the claim language. Therefore, the claim element is considered, but given no patentable weight. (MPEP 2111.05). The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution. Regarding Claim 9. Micali, Xie discloses the limitations of Claim 3. 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. [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.] 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 4, 13, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Micali, in view of Xie as applied to claim [3, 12] above, and further in view of Tang (US 20190068380 A1) . Regarding Claims 4, 13. Micali, Xie discloses the limitations of Claims 3, 12. 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 my each entities: 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 entities 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. Regarding Claim 15. Micali, Xie, Tang discloses the limitations of Claim 13. Micali further discloses: 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. [see at least (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.] 07-21-aia AIA Claims 16-20 are re jected un der 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Micali (US 2 0190147438 A1), in view of Liu (US 20220237181 A1), in further view of Xie (US 20200120157 A1). Regarding C laim 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 4 th 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, [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 Hi based on the public vote identifier and the information about the previous block, [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.] Note: The above combination of Xie does not expressly disclose wherein the pass vote list is generated by performing an operation corresponding to the success probability p for each of the public vote identifiers. However this limitation represents non-functional descriptive material and does not affect how the claimed method functions (i.e., the descriptive material does not have any claim function in the claimed method; see MPEP 2106.01). A “wherein” clause does not function to actively limit the claim language. Therefore, the claim element is considered, but given no patentable weight. (MPEP 2111.05). The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution. 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 skill 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 [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.] transmitting, by the chair node, a committed message corresponding to the current block to all 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.] 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] 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 [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. [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, 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. Note: The above combination of Micali, Xie does not expressly disclose without prior exchange of messages . However this limitation represents non-functional descriptive material and does not affect how the claimed method functions (i.e., the descriptive material does not have any claim function in the claimed method; see MPEP 2106.01). A “wherein” clause does not function to actively limit the claim language. Therefore, the claim element is considered, but given no patentable weight. (MPEP 2111.05). The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution. Regarding Claim 19. Micali, Liu, Xie discloses the limitations of Claim 16. Micali further discloses: 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. [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.] Regarding Claim 20. Micali, Liu Xie discloses the limitations of Claim 19. 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 my each entities: 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 entities 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: “Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner reconsider the arguments submitted on April 7, 2026, in response to the § 101 rejection. Additionally, Applicant has amended claims 1, 10, and 16 to recite "wherein the pass vote list is generated by performing an operation corresponding to the success probability p for each of the public vote identifiers," which provides a technical advantage over the prior art and therefore transforms the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Additionally, Applicant respectfully submits that the pass vote list is generated independently by each node constituting the blockchain. This is not an abstract idea of "mitigating risk," but a specific reconfiguration of the technical architecture that achieves physical elimination of communication overhead (network bandwidth consumption). Message exchange is unnecessary because all nodes generate the same pass vote list, and there is no need to exchange messages (proofs) to verify the result of selecting the consensus group. In an embodiment of the present application, each node shares its public node identifier (public key) with all other nodes, generates a public vote identifier for each node using the shared node identifiers, and performs a hash operation on the header hash value of the previously agreed block and the vote identifiers. In this manner, all nodes independently compute the same "pass vote list" (shown in red rectangles).” Examiner Responds: The applicant argues the claimed invention addresses a technical solution. The examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant, claims recites “generating list and performing consensus”, and such limitation is a solution to mitigating risk, which falls under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Fundamental Economic Principals or Practices grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The applicant argues the claims provide a specific technical solution. However, the examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant, because the claim recites additional elements such as “node,” “processor,” “blockchain,” and “cryptographic” 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. Furthermore, the alleged technical improvement falls under environment of use. The examiner has considered the remarks but does not find them persuasive. With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 112. Applicant submits: “Claim 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant has amended claims 7 and 15 to depend from claims 1 and 13, respectively. Therefore, withdrawal of the rejections is respectfully requested.” Examiner response: Examiner has fully considered applicant’s arguments, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC § 112(b) and 35 USC § 112(d) rejection has been withdrawn based on applicants amendments to the claim. However, the examiner would like emphasize a new 35 USC § 112(b) rejection have been issued based on applicant’s amendment to the claims. With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 103. Applicant submits: “The pass vote list is generated independently by each node constituting the blockchain. This is not an abstract idea of "mitigating risk," but a specific reconfiguration of the technical architecture that achieves physical elimination of communication overhead (network bandwidth consumption). Message exchange is unnecessary because all nodes generate the same pass vote list, and there is no need to exchange messages (proofs) to verify the result of selecting the consensus group. In contrast, the consensus algorithm of Micali (Algorand) relies on each node's private key, thereby requiring message exchange to verify the result of selecting the consensus group- unlike the present invention. Moreover, Xie is related to a technique based on a traditional PBFT (FIG. 4), and PBFT fundamentally requires message exchange to verify consensus status. The cited references do not disclose or suggest the claimed "pass vote list" limitations. In particular, they fail to teach or suggest a mechanism in which all nodes independently and concurrently generate an identical pass vote list, thereby eliminating the need for inter-node message exchanges to verify consensus group selection. Rather, Micali (Algorand) relies on each node's private key, which inherently requires "proof-of-selection" message exchanges for other nodes to verify eligibility. In the present application, by contrast, each node finalizes the entire consensus congress list (the pass vote list) independently without receiving any external "proof" from other nodes. In the present application, public node identifiers (public keys), which have already been shared across the network, are used, enabling every node to compute the same result without additional communication. Xie, on the other hand, is based on traditional PBFT protocols (as illustrated in FIGS. 4-6), which require multiple rounds of message broadcasting (Pre-prepare, Prepare, Commit) to reach consensus.” Examiner response: Examiner has fully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s argument persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant, the applicant’s arguments are directed towards the amended claim language and not original set of claims. Examiner further emphasizes, the argument of “This is not an abstract idea of "mitigating risk," but a specific reconfiguration of the technical architecture that achieves physical elimination of communication overhead (network bandwidth consumption)” is a remark towards 35 USC § 101. Please see the response above regarding 35 USC § 101. Additionally, the Xie reference on [0039] (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. The recited portion of the Xie does not disclose nodes communicating with each other. The examiner has considered the remarks but does not find them persuasive. The rejection is maintained. 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 07-40 AIA 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 Application/Control Number: 18/746,263 Page 2 Art Unit: 3698 Application/Control Number: 18/746,263 Page 3 Art Unit: 3698 Application/Control Number: 18/746,263 Page 4 Art Unit: 3698 Application/Control Number: 18/746,263 Page 5 Art Unit: 3698 Application/Control Number: 18/746,263 Page 6 Art Unit: 3698 Application/Control Number: 18/746,263 Page 7 Art Unit: 3698 Application/Control Number: 18/746,263 Page 8 Art Unit: 3698 Application/Control Number: 18/746,263 Page 9 Art Unit: 3698 Application/Control Number: 18/746,263 Page 10 Art Unit: 3698 Application/Control Number: 18/746,263 Page 11 Art Unit: 3698 Application/Control Number: 18/746,263 Page 12 Art Unit: 3698 Application/Control Number: 18/746,263 Page 13 Art Unit: 3698 Application/Control Number: 18/746,263 Page 14 Art Unit: 3698 Application/Control Number: 18/746,263 Page 15 Art Unit: 3698 Application/Control Number: 18/746,263 Page 16 Art Unit: 3698 Application/Control Number: 18/746,263 Page 17 Art Unit: 3698 Application/Control Number: 18/746,263 Page 18 Art Unit: 3698 Application/Control Number: 18/746,263 Page 19 Art Unit: 3698 Application/Control Number: 18/746,263 Page 20 Art Unit: 3698 Application/Control Number: 18/746,263 Page 21 Art Unit: 3698 Application/Control Number: 18/746,263 Page 22 Art Unit: 3698 Application/Control Number: 18/746,263 Page 23 Art Unit: 3698 Application/Control Number: 18/746,263 Page 24 Art Unit: 3698 Application/Control Number: 18/746,263 Page 25 Art Unit: 3698 Application/Control Number: 18/746,263 Page 26 Art Unit: 3698 Application/Control Number: 18/746,263 Page 27 Art Unit: 3698 Application/Control Number: 18/746,263 Page 28 Art Unit: 3698 Application/Control Number: 18/746,263 Page 29 Art Unit: 3698 Application/Control Number: 18/746,263 Page 30 Art Unit: 3698 Application/Control Number: 18/746,263 Page 31 Art Unit: 3698 Application/Control Number: 18/746,263 Page 32 Art Unit: 3698 Application/Control Number: 18/746,263 Page 33 Art Unit: 3698 Application/Control Number: 18/746,263 Page 34 Art Unit: 3698 Application/Control Number: 18/746,263 Page 35 Art Unit: 3698 Application/Control Number: 18/746,263 Page 36 Art Unit: 3698 Application/Control Number: 18/746,263 Page 37 Art Unit: 3698 Application/Control Number: 18/746,263 Page 38 Art Unit: 3698 Application/Control Number: 18/746,263 Page 39 Art Unit: 3698 Application/Control Number: 18/746,263 Page 40 Art Unit: 3698 Application/Control Number: 18/746,263 Page 41 Art Unit: 3698
Prosecution Insights