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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs and/or columns and lines in the references as applied to Applicant’s claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06.
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 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.
Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application
Applicant is encouraged to file an Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application form (http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) along with the response to this office action to facilitate and expedite future communication between Applicant and the examiner. If the form is submitted then Applicant is requested to provide a contact email address in the signature block at the conclusion of the official reply.
Specification Objection
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cheng et al. (US 2021/0182872) (hereinafter Cheng).
As per claim 1, Cheng teaches a method applied to a blockchain network management platform ([0055] management environment including blockchain platforms) , wherein the method comprises:
receiving a user registration request comprising a user type of a user, wherein the user type is based on a deployment manner of a blockchain network managed by the user ([0102] smart contract retrieval unit of the blockchain platform retrieves a smart contract based on a request for registration from a user. The smart contract retrieval is triggered by the event that a request for registration is received from a user. The smart contract is retrieved from a blockchain. The smart contracts are already deployed on the blockchain network, e.g., the consensus nodes of the blockchain network or the blockchain platform, and the act of smart contract retrieval identifies the smart contracts as applicable to the received user registration request. For different types of user registrations, the smart contract retrieval unit may retrieve different smart contracts. Each smart contract stipulates user registration requirements and a consensus algorithm for verifying and validating the user registration. A smart contract also generates or identifies a user software module for locally processing data package for user registration on a user terminal);
registering a corresponding organization for the user in response to the user registration request ([0080] the business registration unit of the business user application obtains and locally processes registration information of the business entity based on the requirements of the smart contract), wherein the corresponding organization is associated with a resource space corresponding to the user type ([0036] a financial institution, insurance company, etc. and [0086] for example, a manufacturing entity is allowed to purchase parts, assembly products, and ship products to a delivery service entity); and
invoking a processing interface of the resource space to execute corresponding service logic ([0049] a client sends a request to the primary consensus node to invoke a service operation e.g., execute a transaction within the blockchain network. In response to receiving the request, the primary consensus node multicasts the request to the backup consensus nodes).
As per claim 12, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
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.
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng in view of Zhang et al. (US 2018/0136960) (hereinafter Zhang).
As per claim 2, Cheng does not explicitly teach wherein the user type comprises an on-cloud user, and wherein the resource space comprises tenant space.
However, Zhang teaches wherein the user type comprises an on-cloud user ([0017] cloud users), and wherein the resource space comprises tenant space ([0028] tenant space).
Zhang and Cheng are both concerned with distributed computing environments and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cheng in view of Zhang because it would provide customers of a cloud computing service the ability to control when updates affect the services provided to the customers. Because multiple customers share the cloud's infrastructure, each customer may have conflicting preferences for when an update and associated downtime occurs. Preventing and resolving conflicts between the preferences of multiple customers while providing them with input for scheduling a planned update may reduce the inconvenience posed by updates. Additionally, the schedule for the update may be transmitted to customers so that they can prepare for the downtime of services associated with the update.
As per claim 13, it has similar limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng in view of Zhang in view of Merrick et al. (US 8,650,320) (hereinafter Merrick).
As per claim 3, Cheng in view of Zhang do not explicitly teach wherein invoking the processing interface of the resource space to execute the corresponding service logic comprises invoking a service chain creation interface of the tenant space to create a service chain.
However, Merrick teaches wherein invoking the processing interface of the resource space to execute the corresponding service logic comprises invoking a service chain creation interface of the tenant space to create a service chain (col. 30, ll. 58-65 a typical use of the flow language is to create a service chain. In a service chain, the flow service invokes an initial service with the inputs that were provided to the service. The outputs of this initial service are then passed as inputs to another service. This cascade of passing outputs to inputs proceeds until the last service in the chain has been executed. The outputs of this last service become the outputs of the flow service itself).
Merrick and Cheng are both concerned with distributed computing environments and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cheng in view of Zhang in view of Merrick because it would provide for controlling a flow of data among services and the sequences of execution of those services. This data processing language is characterized by at least some of the following features and advantages these models may be used to perform an analysis of the consequences of the presence, absence, or incorrectness of data that enters the integration server, and tools may help perform this analysis; and these models may be used to perform an analysis of the consequences of changing the implementation of services appearing on an integration server.
As per claim 14, it has similar limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng in view of Zhang in view of Merrick in view of Yadav et al. (US 2015/0124645) (hereinafter Yadav).
As per claim 4, Cheng in view of Zhang in view of Merrick do not explicitly teach wherein creating the service chain comprises: creating a plurality of service chains, wherein at least two of the plurality of service chains have a shared node; creating the plurality of service chains, wherein the plurality of service chains does not have the shared node; or creating a single service chain, wherein nodes of the single service chain are located in a same tenant space.
However, Yadav teaches wherein creating the service chain comprises: creating a plurality of service chains, wherein at least two of the plurality of service chains have a shared node; creating the plurality of service chains, wherein the plurality of service chains does not have the shared node; or creating a single service chain, wherein nodes of the single service chain are located in a same tenant space ([0018] the application owner can attach an endpoint group to a service chain in a service graph created by the administrator. The endpoint groups in the service graph can be represented by a specific route, label, or address, for example. Moreover, the application owner can include specific details about the attached endpoint group, such as a tag, information about an application group, routing information, policy information, network segment or tenant space).
Yadav and Cheng are both concerned with distributed computing environments and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cheng in view of Zhang in view of Merrick in view of Yadav because it would provide for a service graph and attached endpoint groups to be used to provision services and deploy applications dynamically and/or automatically while minimizing or avoiding downtime. For example, in some cases, an endpoint group can be attached to a specific service node in the service graph, such as a terminal node e.g., node corresponding to the destination endpoint group or source endpoint group. In some cases, the remaining service nodes can be defined as function nodes to identify their particular role within the service provisioning chain.
As per claim 15, it has similar limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng in view of Zhang in view of Merrick in view of Bichot et al. (US 2018/0176177) (hereinafter Bichot).
As per claim 5, Cheng in view of Zhang in view of Merrick do not explicitly teach wherein creating the service chain comprises: obtaining a chain creation mode parameter; and creating one or more service chains based on the chain creation mode parameter.
However, Bichot teaches wherein creating the service chain comprises: obtaining a chain creation mode parameter; and creating one or more service chains based on the chain creation mode parameter ([0143] when receiving an Ethernet frame from a virtual network function running either in mode 1 or in mode 2, a service function forwarder can hold all the parameters to identify the next virtual network function or next service function forwarder, service chaining information being integrally embedded into the frame).
Bichot and Cheng are both concerned with distributed computing environments and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cheng in view of Zhang in view of Merrick in view of Bichot because it would provide a way for service chaining information to be embedded in a destination address or a source address of data frames without creating extra header consuming bandwidth. In addition, no adaptation is then required for supporting the forwarding of data frame based on such extra header.
As per claim 16, it has similar limitations as claim 5 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng in view of Zhang in view of Merrick in view of Bichot in view of Cheng et al. (US 2013/0091552) (hereinafter Cheng’552).
As per claim 6, Cheng in view of Zhang in view of Merrick in view of Bichot do not explicitly teach wherein the chain creation mode parameter is based on a trust relationship between users.
However, Cheng’552 teaches wherein the chain creation mode parameter is based on a trust relationship between users ([0047] the Local Internet Protocol Access sends a radio access network based security mode command message to the user equipment according to the security mode command message forwarded from Local Internet Protocol Access, and the radio access network based security mode command message contains information of the information issued by the core network, such as the keys and the algorithms etc. The user equipment receives the radio access network based security mode command message and verifies the message parameters to validate the trust relationship between the user equipment and the core network, and also validates the trust relationship between the user equipment and Local Internet Protocol Access because the core network trusts the Local Internet Protocol Access. The user equipment may trust the core network and the Local Internet Protocol Access).
Cheng’552 and Cheng are both concerned with distributed computing environments and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cheng in view of Zhang in view of Merrick in view of Bichot in view of Cheng’552 because it would provide for local processing of a consumer's personal or other information which splits the data processing burden or costs between the blockchain platform and the consumer user. This saves computing resources at the platform, improves the processing efficiency at the blockchain platform, and reduces delays on the pipeline of batching a transaction into a block pending for a consensus process. The local data processing is linked to the central data processing at the blockchain platform through the smart contract, which enhances consistency and predictability in data processing.
As per claim 17, it has similar limitations as claim 6 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng in view of Jain et al. (US 2018/0007031) (hereinafter Jain).
As per claim 7, Cheng does not explicitly teach wherein the user type comprises an off-cloud user, and wherein the resource space comprises a physical resource set.
However, Jain teaches wherein the user type comprises an off-cloud user, and wherein the resource space comprises a physical resource set ([0030] provide secure access to physical resources in a cloud environment, and the server may be hosted at another remote site, on or off the cloud, as appropriate for the tenant or cloud environment).
Jain and Cheng are both concerned with distributed computing environments and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cheng in view of Jain because it would enable convenient, on-demand network access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources e.g., networks, network bandwidth, servers, processing, memory, storage, applications, virtual machines, and services that can be rapidly provisioned and released with minimal management effort or interaction with a provider of the service.
As per claim 18, it has similar limitations as claim 7 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng in view of Yan (US 2019/0251079).
As per claim 8, Cheng does not explicitly teach wherein invoking the processing interface of the resource space to execute the corresponding service logic comprises: invoking a consortium creation interface of the resource space to create a blockchain node in the resource space in order to create a consortium; invoking a consortium joining interface of the resource space to create the blockchain node in the resource space in order to join the consortium; invoking a consortium exit interface of the resource space to reclaim the blockchain node in the resource space in order to exit the consortium; or invoking a consortium deletion interface of the resource space to reclaim the blockchain node from the resource space in order to delete the consortium.
However, Yan teaches wherein invoking the processing interface of the resource space to execute the corresponding service logic comprises: invoking a consortium creation interface of the resource space to create a blockchain node in the resource space in order to create a consortium; invoking a consortium joining interface of the resource space to create the blockchain node in the resource space in order to join the consortium; invoking a consortium exit interface of the resource space to reclaim the blockchain node in the resource space in order to exit the consortium; or invoking a consortium deletion interface of the resource space to reclaim the blockchain node from the resource space in order to delete the consortium ([0073] each financial institution in the consortium blockchain can first register as a consortium member of the consortium blockchain, to obtain a public key and a private key returned by the consortium blockchain. The public key is used as an account address of each financial institution in the consortium blockchain, and the private key is used as a unique key used by each financial institution to operate the account. Then, all financial institutions joining the consortium blockchain can be simultaneously authorized by the operator of the consortium blockchain to create an asset object. When authorized to create an asset object, the financial institution can create and deploy a smart contract in the consortium blockchain based on actual needs, to create a new asset type).
Yan and Cheng are both concerned with distributed computing environments and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cheng in view of Yan because it would provide a way to solve technical problems in managing assets in a blockchain. The blockchain is a distributed storage solution that provides immutable and tamper-resistant data transfer and storage, and the data is stored in a database of the blockchain in an encrypted form. Such security measures ensure that that system state data stored on the blockchain is not corrupted or altered by malicious processes. For example, an alteration of an asset-receiving object can be a tactic used by an attacker when a target user is compromised for fraudulent purposes, and storage of system state data on an immutable blockchain prevents the use of that tactic by an attacker. Moreover, because the blockchain is distributed across multiple network locations, implementations avoid the use of a centralized database for data storage and are therefore less vulnerable to corruption or deletion by malicious processes, in comparison to traditional, previously available risk analysis solutions that are vulnerable to attack at such a centralized storage hub.
As per claim 19, it has similar limitations as claim 8 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng in view of Chan et al. (US 2023/0073337) (hereinafter Chan).
As per claim 9, Cheng does not explicitly teach wherein the resource space is from a heterogeneous blockchain platform, and wherein the method further comprises: receiving a platform registration request; and registering a standard interface of the heterogeneous blockchain platform through a platform registration interface.
However, Chan teaches wherein the resource space is from a heterogeneous blockchain platform, and wherein the method further comprises: receiving a platform registration request; and registering a standard interface of the heterogeneous blockchain platform through a platform registration interface ([0155] heterogenous blockchain networks and [0157]-[0158] event request to blockchain network using staging service that is registered with the trusted registration authority).
Chan and Cheng are both concerned with distributed computing environments and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cheng in view of Chan because it would provide a way to reduce the time to complete a transaction by having the system, service provider, participant in the transaction, or merchant pay additional incentive for nodes to process a returned transaction. As an example, a service provider may identify a network of preferred miners based on geography or based on a volume discount perspective. The time to complete a transaction may be optimized by routing a returned transaction to specific preferred nodes. A transaction may be associated with an address that limits which of the preferred nodes will get to process the transaction if it is returned due to its inclusion in a discarded block.
As per claim 20, it has similar limitations as claim 9 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng in view of Ingram et al. (US 2020/0013049) (hereinafter Ingram).
As per claim 10, Cheng does not explicitly teach wherein the resource space is from a heterogeneous blockchain platform, wherein the heterogeneous blockchain platform has a management plane interface, and wherein the method further comprises: receiving a platform registration request; and obtaining a first standard interface corresponding to the management plane interface in order to register a second standard interface of the heterogeneous blockchain platform.
However, Ingram teaches wherein the resource space is from a heterogeneous blockchain platform ([0023] heterogenous mix of blockchain), wherein the heterogeneous blockchain platform has a management plane interface ([0066] layer intelligent workspace user interface), and wherein the method further comprises: receiving a platform registration request ([0026] provide access to registered information and [0062] use libraries to register onto various networks); and obtaining a first standard interface corresponding to the management plane interface in order to register a second standard interface of the heterogeneous blockchain platform ([0062] use libraries to register onto various networks and [0066] layer intelligent workspace user interface).
Ingram and Cheng are both concerned with distributed computing environments and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cheng in view of Ingram because it would provide for automated artificial intelligence integration to manage proof of work and permissioned block chain to eliminate weaknesses of blockchains, particularly private blockchains, that allow a compromise of the block chain creation tools to corrupt data in a leger. This would provide for cost savings including acquisition and sustainability for ongoing integration, development, and maintenance costs for a digital valuation service. The service can reduce the potential legal cost for mismanaging blockchain contracts and ledgers, reduce auditing costs, and lower legal costs from potential mismanaging financial information.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng in view of Merrick.
As per claim 11, Cheng does not explicitly teach wherein the blockchain network management platform provides a service interface, and wherein executing the corresponding service logic comprises executing the corresponding service logic in response to invocation of the service interface by a service server.
However, Merrick teaches wherein the blockchain network management platform provides a service interface, and wherein executing the corresponding service logic comprises executing the corresponding service logic in response to invocation of the service interface by a service server (col. 14, ll. 52-55 the client request invokes a particular service on the integration server, and this service conforms to a service definition found in a Web Interface Definition Language interface specification and col. 16, ll. 63 to col. 17, ll. 3 use Web Interface Definition Language mapping to translate between a client request issued to the integration server and a web-site that serves as a parts supplier for the client. The SupplierQ WIDL-MAPPING conforms to the Supplier interface specification. This WIDL-MAPPING tells the integration server that when a service named "order" is invoked via the SupplierQ interface, the server maps the invocation to a particular URL).
Merrick and Cheng are both concerned with distributed computing environments and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cheng in view of Merrick because it would provide for controlling a flow of data among services and the sequences of execution of those services. This data processing language is characterized by at least some of the following features and advantages these models may be used to perform an analysis of the consequences of the presence, absence, or incorrectness of data that enters the integration server, and tools may help perform this analysis; and these models may be used to perform an analysis of the consequences of changing the implementation of services appearing on an integration server.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Akune et al. (US 2015/0280961) in at least [0129] disclose the cloud user operates the input unit of the gateway to request the gateway to register site network information of the cloud user environment, and the gateway caches the site network information. The site network information is, for example, information including the site network ID, site network name, site network address, site ID, site name, and site type of the cloud user environment. In the case of the cloud user environment, for example, the site network ID is “SA1,” the site network name is “N(SA1),” the site network address is “A(SA1),” the site ID is “201A,” the site name is “Cloud User Environment A,” and the site type is “Cloud User Environment.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam Lee whose telephone number is (571) 270-3369. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 8AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the above noted Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Pierre Vital, can be reached at the following telephone number: (571) 272-4215. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/Adam Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198 July 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights