DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9 and 11-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 16, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mercuri et. al. (US-20190043934), and further in view of Voell et al. (US-20200382478).
a. Referring to claims 1 and 11:
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Mercuri teaches a method comprising: before committing a transaction to a blockchain: associating an identifier of a client with an event that contains a payload, storing a hash of the payload of the event in the transaction without storing the payload in the transaction (Para 60 and 67… associating a participant with a record and storing a hash of the record in the blockchain); detecting, after committing the transaction, that the identifier of the client is associated with the event (Para 69 and 70…. participant associated with event in a committed block); and sending, responsive to said detecting, the payload of the event to the client (Para 65…. providing access to the record).
Mercuri teaches the record, the hash of the record and a context metadata of the record but fails to teach storing the three data objects in a table. However, a table that stores three relational objects such as a payload, hash of the payload and metadata of the payload is well known in the art and described by Voell in Para 4 (storing an encrypted payload, hash of the payload and a symmetric indication key). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Mercuri by storing the three data objects in one database table as taught by Voell for the purpose of reducing storage overhead and for efficiency when making payload related queries.
a. Referring to claims 2 and 12:
Regarding claims 2 and 12, the combination of Mercuri and Voell teaches the method of Claim 1 wherein: the method further comprises before said committing the transaction, associating an identifier of an organization of the client with the event (Para 72…. organizational config file that associates a participant with an event); said sending the payload of the event to the client comprises: based on the identifier of the organization of the client, selecting a web server, and sending the payload of the event to the web server (Para 65 and 61…. access to records through websites).
a. Referring to claims 6 and 16:
Regarding claims 6 and 16, the combination of Mercuri and Voell teaches the method of Claim 1 wherein said associating the identifier of the client comprises storing the identifier of the client in the event (Para 60…. event identifies participant).
a. Referring to claims 7 and 17:
Regarding claims 7 and 17, the combination of Mercuri and Voell teaches the method of Claim 1 wherein: said event is a first event; the method further comprises: associating an identifier of a second client with a second event that contains a payload, storing a hash of the payload of the second event in the transaction, and deciding not to send the payload of the first event to the second client (See the rejection in claim 1 with respect to multiple participants wherein records are sent to a blockchain and not the participants).
a. Referring to claims 9 and 19:
Regarding claims 9 and 19, the combination of Mercuri and Voell teaches the method of Claim 1 further comprising: receiving a request to replay a portion of the blockchain, wherein the request does not identify the event; responsive to said request to replay, sending the payload of the event (Para 37…. request to retrieve a portion of the blockchain and sending the blockchain object comprising the record).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 4, 5, 8, 14, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mercuri et. al. (US-20190043934) and Voell et al. (US-20200382478), and further in view of Kodeswaran et al. (US-20220329411).
a. Referring to claims 4 and 14:
Regarding claims 4 and 14, the combination of Mercuri and Voell teaches the method of claim 1 but fails to teach a permissionless blockchain. However, permissionless blockchains are well known in the art and taught by Kodeswaran in Para 72 (permissionless blockchain). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Mercuri and Voell by applying the event delivery techniques to a permissionless blockchain as taught by Kodeswaran for the purpose of enhanced transparency and true decentralization.
a. Referring to claims 5 and 15:
Regarding claims 5 and 15, the combination of Mercuri, Voell and Kodeswaran teaches the method of Claim 4 further comprising from the client before said associating, receiving a request to subscribe for a private event (See Kodeswaran, Para 62…. transaction proposal which is a request to register for events).
a. Referring to claims 8 and 18:
Regarding claims 8 and 18, the combination of Mercuri, Voell and Kodeswaran teaches the method of Claim 1 wherein said before committing the transaction to the blockchain comprises before a commit phase of a two phase commit (2PC) that consists of a prepare phase followed by the commit phase (See Kodeswaran, Para 117…. 2-phase commit that comprises checking the commit data followed by the commit).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The claim recites the limitation of sending payloads of multiple events in a single HTTP request. The prior art fails to teach such unique batching of HTTP requests with its blockchain processing offloading.
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 IZUNNA OKEKE whose telephone number is (571)270-3854. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8 - 4 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ELENI SHIFERAW can be reached at (571) 272-3867. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/IZUNNA OKEKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2497
Prosecution Insights