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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to claims filed on 08/05/2024; the provisional application priority date 12/12/2023 is considered.
Claims 1-20 are pending and rejected; Claims 1 and 11 are independent claims;
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS)s submitted on 01/03/2025 and 08/05/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,081,670 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the instant claimed invention and the parent application are directed to validation of electronic documents using distributed ledgers and anticipate the claims of the instant application. See table of claim mapping below.
US 12,081,670 B1
Instant application
1. A method of validating electronic documents, comprising:
identifying, by a first server, an electronic document of a customer device to be validated for use across a plurality of second servers;
determining, by the first server, that the electronic document complies with a rule set for the plurality of second servers;
communicating, by the first server, data associated with the electronic document with the plurality of second servers, responsive to determining that the electronic document complies with the rule set;
validating, by the first server via communication of the data with the plurality of second servers, a record of the electronic document to be appended to a plurality of records on a distributed ledger in accordance a consensus algorithm;
generating, by the first server, responsive to the plurality of second servers successfully validating the record of the electronic document, a token using the electronic document;
generating, by the first server, an instruction to store the token on a wallet of the customer device to authorize the use of the electronic document across the plurality of second servers;
appending, by the first server, to the plurality of records on the distributed ledger, the record of the electronic document corresponding to the token;
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, by the first server, that the electronic document does not correspond to any of the plurality of records of the distributed ledger; and
initiating, by the first server, validation of the electronic document from the customer device, responsive to determining that the electronic document does not correspond to any of the plurality of records of the distributed ledger.
5. The method of claim 1, further comprising: refraining, by the first server, from generating the token, responsive to a failure to validate the electronic document; and
sending, by the first server, to the customer device, an indication of the failure to validate the electronic document.
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, by the first server from the customer device, a selection criterion for validation of the electronic document; and
selecting, by the first server, from a plurality of third servers, the plurality of second servers with which to communicate based on the selection criterion from the customer device.
1. identifying, by the first server, the electronic document corresponding to a second record of the plurality of records of the distributed ledger as stale based on a time of addition of the second record to the distributed ledger; and
initiating, by the first server, validation of the electronic document from the customer device, responsive to identifying the electronic document as stale.
9. The method of claim 1, wherein generating the instruction further comprises sending the instruction to store the token on the wallet to be used by the customer device to access a resource on at least one of the plurality of second servers associated with the electronic document.
6. The method of claim 1, further comprising: generating, by the first server, for each of the plurality of second servers, a respective key to decrypt encrypted data of the electronic document; and
storing, by the first server on a database, the respective key to decrypt for each of the plurality of second servers.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein determining that the electronic document complies with the rule set further comprises determining that the electronic document complies with the rule set defined for at least one of a location, an association, or the customer device.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein communicating with the plurality of second servers further comprises sending, to each of the plurality of second servers, the data including at least one of (i) a key to decrypt the electronic document, (ii) an identifier of the electronic document, and (iii) a signature generated by the first server for the electronic document.
1. validating, by the first server via communication of the data with the plurality of second servers, a record of the electronic document to be appended to a plurality of records on a distributed ledger in accordance a consensus algorithm;
generating, by the first server, responsive to the plurality of second servers successfully validating the record of the electronic document, a token using the electronic document
(Claim 11 is rejected Similarly) A method, comprising:
identifying, by a first server, an electronic document to be validated for use across a plurality of second servers;
determining, by the first server, that the electronic document complies with a rule set associated with the plurality of second servers;
validating, by the first server, by communicating data associated with the electronic document with the plurality of second servers, the record in accordance a consensus algorithm; and
generating, by the first server, a record of the electronic document to be added to a plurality of records on a distributed ledger, responsive to determining that the electronic document complies with the rule set;
adding, by the first server, to the plurality of records on the distributed ledger, the record to indicate validation of the electronic document for use across the plurality of second servers.
2. (Claim 12 is rejected Similarly) The method of claim 1, further comprising determining, by the first server, that a second electronic document does not comply with the rule set associated with the plurality of second servers; and
refraining, by the first server, validation of a second record of the second electronic document, responsive to determining that the second electronic document does not comply with the rule set.
3. (Claim 13 is rejected Similarly) The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, by the first server, that a second record of a second electronic document is not validated to be added by the plurality of records; and
generating, by the first server, an indication of a failure to validate the second electronic document, responsive to determining that the second record is not validated.
4. (Claim 14 is rejected Similarly) The method of claim 1, further comprising: selecting, by the first server, from a plurality of third servers, the plurality of second servers with which to communicate the data to validate the record, based on a selection criteria; and
wherein communicating the data further comprises communicating the data associated with the electronic document with the plurality of second servers selected from the plurality of third servers.
5. (Claim 15 is rejected Similarly) The method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying, by the first server, a second record of the plurality of records corresponding to the electronic document as stale based on a time of addition of the second record to the distributed ledger; and
initiating, by the first server, validation of the electronic document, responsive to identifying the second record as stale.
6. (Claim 16 is rejected Similarly) The method of claim 1, further comprising generating, by the first server, a token using the electronic document, responsive to validating the record; and
sending, by the first server, an instruction to store the token on a wallet of a customer device for use across the plurality of second servers.
7 (Claim 17 is rejected Similarly). The method of claim 1, further comprising selecting, by the first server, from a plurality of rule sets, the rule set to apply based on the electronic document, and wherein determining that the electronic document complies with the rule set further comprises determining that the electronic document complies with the rule set selected from the plurality of rule sets.
8. (Claim 18 is rejected Similarly) The method of claim 1, wherein determining that the electronic document complies with the rule set further comprises determining that the electronic document complies with the rule set defining for at least one of a location, an association, or a customer device.
9. (Claim 19 is rejected Similarly) The method of claim 1, wherein communicating the data further comprises sending, to each of the plurality of second servers, the data including at least one of (i) a key to decrypt the electronic document, (ii) an identifier of the electronic document, or (iii) a signature generated by the first server for the electronic document.
10. (Claim 20 is rejected Similarly) The method of claim 1, wherein validating the record further comprises validating the record corresponding to the electronic document, in response to a number of consensus results with successful validations from the plurality of second servers satisfying a threshold number.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Jacobs et al. US Pub. No.: 2020/0099523 A1 (hereinafter Jacobs) in view of Fields et al. US Pub. No.: 2024/0152906 A1 (hereinafter Fields)
Jacobs discloses:
As to claim 1, a method, comprising:
identifying, by a first server, an electronic document to be validated for use across a plurality of second servers (see Jacobs Figs. 1A-1B, 5 ¶64, a member computing entity 200 may receive a submitted instance of information/data. For example, a supplying member computing entity 200A [i.e. first server] may generate an instance of information/data [i.e. electronic document to be validated], for example, based on an interaction, data exchange, and/or communication with an external computing entity 40; ¶31; two or more of the plurality of member computing entities 200 are nodes of the distributed ledger of the distributed system 100 [i.e. plurality of second servers])
generating, by the first server, a record of the electronic document to be added to a plurality of records on a distributed ledger, responsive to determining that the electronic document complies with the rule set (see Jacobs Fig. 5 and ¶¶68-71, responsive to determining that the submitted instance of information/data satisfies the predetermined/configurable quality threshold requirement and, in some embodiments, and is confirmed via the consensus process of the distributed ledger, the process continues to step/operation 506. At step/operation 506, a token for providing a reward and/or compensation value (e.g., a supplier token) is generated and attributed to the supplying member [i.e. generating by the first server a record of the electronic document…])
validating, by the first server, by communicating data associated with the electronic document with the plurality of second servers, the record in accordance a consensus algorithm (see Jacobs Fig. 5 and ¶¶71-73, At step/operation 508, one or more validation responses that validate the submitted instance of information/data (e.g., confirm one or more details of the submitted instance of information/data) are received. For example, one or more validating member computing entities 200B may provide validation responses to the distributed ledger and/or to a member computing entity 200 that is a node of the distributed ledger that validate the submitted instance of information/data; ¶¶69 validation by consensus) and
adding, by the first server, to the plurality of records on the distributed ledger, the record to indicate validation of the electronic document for use across the plurality of second servers (see Jacobs ¶75, the validated instance of information/data may be added to the distribution ledger such that one or more consuming members of the distributed ledger may access the validated instance of information/data)
Jacobs does not explicitly disclose but the related art Fields discloses:
determining, by the first server, that the electronic document complies with a rule set associated with the plurality of second servers (see Fields ¶37, nodes that share the ledger form what is referred to herein as the distributed ledger network. The nodes in the distributed ledger network validate changes to the blockchain (e.g., when a new transaction and/or block is created) according to a set of consensus rules. The consensus rules depend on the information being tracked by the blockchain and may include rules regarding the chain itself)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the access control for data/document in a distributed ledger system disclosed by Jacobs to include system for minting digital assets associated with user achievements in a distributed network, as thought by Fields, to determine the electronic document complies with a rule set associated with plurality of member nodes/servers. A person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to enhance consistency, efficiency and accuracy of document/record transfer (see Fields ¶¶3-5).
As to claim 2, the combination of Jacobs and Fields teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising determining, by the first server, that a second electronic document does not comply with the rule set associated with the plurality of second servers (see Fields ¶102, a valid proof-of-identity may be applied as a consensus rule by the nodes (e.g., node A 302, node B 304) participating in the blockchain network of the blockchain 318. As such, any transaction 308A-D attempting to add new property information without a cryptographic proof-of-identity matching an identity authorized to add new property information is rejected by the nodes 304 validating new entries to the blockchain 318 as being non-compliant with the consensus rule.) ; and
refraining, by the first server, validation of a second record of the second electronic document, responsive to determining that the second electronic document does not comply with the rule set (see Fields ¶102, a valid proof-of-identity may be applied as a consensus rule by the nodes (e.g., node A 302, node B 304) participating in the blockchain network of the blockchain 318. As such, any transaction 308A-D attempting to add new property information without a cryptographic proof-of-identity matching an identity authorized to add new property information is rejected by the nodes 304 validating new entries to the blockchain 318 as being non-compliant with the consensus rule) .
Similar rational is applied as above to combine the cited prior art references.
As to claim 3, the combination of Jacobs and Fields teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining, by the first server, that a second record of a second electronic document is not validated to be added by the plurality of records (see Fields ¶102, a valid proof-of-identity may be applied as a consensus rule by the nodes (e.g., node A 302, node B 304) participating in the blockchain network of the blockchain 318. As such, any transaction 308A-D attempting to add new property information without a cryptographic proof-of-identity matching an identity authorized to add new property information is rejected by the nodes 304 validating new entries to the blockchain 318 as being non-compliant with the consensus rule) ; and
generating, by the first server, an indication of a failure to validate the second electronic document, responsive to determining that the second record is not validated (see Fields ¶102, a valid proof-of-identity may be applied as a consensus rule by the nodes (e.g., node A 302, node B 304) participating in the blockchain network of the blockchain 318. As such, any transaction 308A-D attempting to add new property information without a cryptographic proof-of-identity matching an identity authorized to add new property information is rejected by the nodes 304 validating new entries to the blockchain 318 as being non-compliant with the consensus rule).
Similar rational is applied as above to combine the cited prior art references.
As to claim 4, the combination of Jacobs and Fields teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
selecting, by the first server, from a plurality of third servers, the plurality of second servers with which to communicate the data to validate the record, based on a selection criteria (see Fields ¶94, , quorum slices may be selected where a quorum is a set of nodes that participate in the consensus protocol and a quorum slice is its subset that helps a node in its agreement process); and
wherein communicating the data further comprises communicating the data associated with the electronic document with the plurality of second servers selected from the plurality of third servers (see Fields ¶94, , quorum slices may be selected where a quorum is a set of nodes that participate in the consensus protocol [i.e. communicating the data associated with the electronic document…] and a quorum slice is its subset that helps a node in its agreement process).
Similar rational is applied as above to combine the cited prior art references.
As to claim 5, the combination of Jacobs and Fields teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
identifying, by the first server, a second record of the plurality of records corresponding to the electronic document as stale based on a time of addition of the second record to the distributed ledger of information/data (see Jacobs ¶63, FIG. 4 illustrates an example of a time dependent value V(t) of an instance…lifetime of the second instance of information/data expires [i.e. stale] at time 418 at which time the value of the second instance of information/data reaches zero); and
initiating, by the first server, validation of the electronic document, responsive to identifying the second record as stale (see Jacobs ¶63, 66, the sharing plan may indicate a validation bounty which is the percentage/fraction of the realized value of the data that is to be split amongst the validating members that validate the submitted instance of information/data in a manner that contributes to the assurance level associated with the submitted instance of information/data)
As to claim 6, the combination of Jacobs and Fields teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising generating, by the first server, a token using the electronic document, responsive to validating the record (see Jacobs ¶54, a supplying member and/or validating member may be provided a reward and/or compensated for supplying and/or validating the instance of information/data with a token within the distributed ledger that is attributed a token value that is determined based on the value of the instance of information/data); and
sending, by the first server, an instruction to store the token on a wallet of a customer device for use across the plurality of second servers (see Jacobs Fig. 5 and ¶68-71, a supplier token may be generated and attributed to the supplying member by storing the supplier token in association with the member profile and/or account corresponding to the supplying member (e.g., within the token wallet of the member profile and/or account))
As to claim 7, the combination of Jacobs and Fields teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising selecting, by the first server, from a plurality of rule sets, the rule set to apply based on the electronic document, and wherein determining that the electronic document complies with the rule set further comprises determining that the electronic document complies with the rule set selected from the plurality of rule sets (see Fields ¶75, the distributed ledger 106b may also include the consensus rules [i.e. plurality of rule sets] and/or other instructions required [i.e. selected from plurality of rules] for the computing system 100 to perform the calculations necessary to validate new additions and/or changes to entries in the ledger 106b [i.e. selecting/required based on the electronic document]).
Similar rational is applied as above to combine the cited prior art references.
As to claim 8, the combination of Jacobs and Fields teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining that the electronic document complies with the rule set further comprises determining that the electronic document complies with the rule set defining for at least one of a location, an association, or a customer device (see Fields ¶37, consensus rules depend on the information being tracked by the blockchain and may include rules regarding the chain itself. For example, a consensus rule may include that the originator of a change supply a proof-of-identity such that only approved entities may originate changes to the chain [i.e. document rule set for an association or customer device]).
Similar rational is applied as above to combine the cited prior art references.
As to claim 9, the combination of Jacobs and Fields teaches the method of claim 1, wherein communicating the data further comprises sending, to each of the plurality of second servers, the data including at least one of (i) a key to decrypt the electronic document, (ii) an identifier of the electronic document, or (iii) a signature generated by the first server for the electronic document (see Fields ¶102 valid proof-of-identity may be applied as a consensus rule by the nodes (e.g., node A 302, node B 304) participating in the blockchain network of the blockchain 318. As such, any transaction 308A-D attempting to add new property information without a cryptographic proof-of-identity matching an identity authorized to add new property information is rejected by the nodes 304 validating new entries to the blockchain 318 as being non-compliant with the consensus rule. Each property owner may be assigned a public key/private key pair which is identified in the blockchain network as corresponding to the owner)
Similar rational is applied as above to combine the cited prior art references.
As to claim 10, the combination of Jacobs and Fields teaches the method of claim 1, wherein validating the record further comprises validating the record corresponding to the electronic document, in response to a number of consensus results with successful validations from the plurality of second servers satisfying a threshold number (see Jacobs ¶54, One or more validating members may validate the instance of information/data via corresponding validating member computing entities 200B. When the assurance level (e.g., a confidence level regarding the accuracy of the details provided by the instance of information/data) reaches a threshold assurance level, the instance of information/data is made available via the distributed ledger for access by one or more consuming members via corresponding consuming member computing entities 200C)
Similar rational is applied as above to combine the cited prior art references.
As to independent claim 11, this claim is directed to a system executing the method of claim 1; therefore it is rejected along similar rationale.
As to dependent claims 12-20, these claims contain substantially similar subject matter as claim 2-10; therefore they are rejected along the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEGA WOLDEMARIAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7478. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8am-5pm.
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, Cathy Thiaw can be reached at 5712701138. 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.
NEGA . WOLDEMARIAM
Examiner
Art Unit 2407
/N.W/Examiner, Art Unit 2407
/Catherine Thiaw/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2407 3/19/2026