DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is in response to the application filed on 07/17/2024. This application is a continuation (CON) of the patent US 12,074,976 B2.
Claims 1 and 2 are currently pending in this application.
No information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed.
Examiner’s Note
Applicant is suggested to include information from figures 2 and 3 with related text (e.g., including root signature, proof-of-space challenge, proof-of time challenge, pseudorandom function plot seed, matching, etc.) of the specification in the claims to provide the application in a better position for an allowance.
Please note that changing the scope of the claims (e.g., cancelling all claims and adding new claims after non-final office action) may cause a restriction/election, a new matter or other issues.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites “The inventions as shown and/or described herein”, however, it is not clear what the inventions are as nothing is shown and/or described (or the clam 2 is NOT a complete claim).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim recites the limitation of accessing a blockchain data structure with verification information, etc., as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or/and using a pen and paper. In the context of the claim encompasses the user manually performing the claimed functions (e.g., looking the blockchain data structure on a paper, which includes proof-of-space information with delay information, etc.). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or using a pen and paper, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. According, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites additional element – identifying matching pairs of entries, generating for next entry, etc., can also be performed in mind and made a decision. According, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of identifying matching pairs of entries, generating for next entries, etc. cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of the patent, US 12,074,976 B2.
A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). “ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
Current Application No. 18/775810
Reference Patent No. US 12,074,976 B2
Claim 1: A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that when executed by a processor cause the processor to:
access a block of a blockchain data structure, the block comprising verification information comprising:
a proof-of-space based on a first verifiable delay function output in a preceding block of the blockchain data structure; and
a second verifiable delay function output based on a preceding proof-of-space in the preceding block.
Claim 1: A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to:
store (equivalent to accessing which is needed to store) a block of a blockchain data structure, the block comprising: verification information comprising:
a proof-of-space based on a first verifiable delay function output in a preceding block of the blockchain data structure; and
a second verifiable delay function output based on a preceding proof-of-space in the preceding block …
Examiner’s Note Regarding Prior-art Rejections
As explained in the 112(b), and/or the 101 rejections stated above, the current limitations are in a condition of lack of clarity for a prior-art examination. However, a potential concept of the application can be found in:
Greco et al. (US 10,708,071 B1) discloses a method for: forwarding an input challenge to a prover at a start time, the input challenge having a time-stamp; receiving a proof of storage responsive to the input challenge from the prover; generating a new input challenge based on the proof of storage and forwarding the new input challenge to the prover; and repeating receiving step and generating step to obtain result of a final proof. The method further includes receiving a proof result based on the final proof, the proof result having a timestamp; determining that the time between the start time time-stamp and the proof result time-stamp is less than a specified period of time; and determining a winning prover from a plurality of candidate provers where a probability of a candidate prover being a winning prover is proportional to the candidate prover's assigned storage which is indicated at least in part by the candidate miner's proof result - see figs. 1A, 3, 15; abstract; columns 1-3 of Greco.
Gavaudan et al. (US 11,126,659 B2) discloses a system for providing a graph protocol for forming a decentralized and distributed graph database. The system involves receiving, from a device, a bid request to generate a graph on a graph protocol network via the graph protocol. A plurality of master-nodes in the system may transmit ask requests associated with providing storage and computation power to service the bid request. If the system determines that the requirements of the bid request match or correlate with the requirements of the ask request, the system may select any master-nodes having matching or correlating ask requests to service the ask request. The system may incorporate the use of verifiable delay functions in order to create a fair and secure process to select the main router - see figs. 1, 4, 10, 11; abstract; columns 3-5, 14 of Gavaudan.
Wang et al. (US 2019/0173667 A1) teaches a block generation method, a device and a blockchain network used for improving the safety of a blockchain. The method comprises: signing a block generated by a block generation device according to private key information of the block generation device to obtain a signed block; and issuing the signed block to other node devices through a first node device in the blockchain network. The method operates for performing signature verification on the signed block according to public key information; performing proof-of-work verification on the signed block after the signature verification succeeds; and determining whether to add the signed block to a blockchain according to a result of the proof-of-work verification – see abstract, figs. 2, 4; paras. [0032] – [0035] of Wang.
Goeringer et al. (US 2017/0337534 A1) teaches a method for a virtualized blockchain forest including a plurality of individual blockchains. Each individual blockchain of the plurality includes a blockchain height, a genesis block, and at least one additional block. A block of the blockchain is created after a configurable consensus criterion, such as a specified time limit after a previous block has been added, has been met. The blockchain notifies that a new block has been created for the particular node associated with the new block. The immutable nature of blockchain provides a decentralized payment system and public ledger of content transactions and rights. Content sellers and buyers, as well as other ecosystem parties, are able to monetize media distribution untrusted business relationships, and the content creator may verify each such use – see abstract, figs. 10, 15; paras. [0107] and [0108], [0137] of Goeringer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAUNG T LWIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7845. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 6:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached on 571-272-3739. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MAUNG T LWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2495