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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the drawings are not readable. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
As to claim 1, line 4 of the claim starts with a capital letter P but is a continuation of the sentence of claim 1 and should therefore be a lower case p for proper punctuation. Appropriate correction is required.
As to claim 1, line 7 of the claim starts with a capital letter E but is a continuation of the sentence of claim 1 and should therefore be a lower case e for proper punctuation. Appropriate correction is required.
As to claim 1, line 9 of the claim starts with a capital letter E but is a continuation of the sentence of claim 1 and should therefore be a lower case e for proper punctuation. Appropriate correction is required.
As to claim 1, line 10 of the claim starts with a capital letter I but is a continuation of the sentence of claim 1 and should therefore be a lower case i for proper punctuation. Appropriate correction is required.
As to claim 1, line 12 of the claim starts with a capital letter A but is a continuation of the sentence of claim 1 and should therefore be a lower case a for proper punctuation. Appropriate correction is required.
As to claim 2, line 1, while it may or may not be technically grammatically incorrect, the examiners suggests amending the phrase “The process of claim 1 wherein” to “The process of claim 1, wherein” for improved readability.
As to claim 2, line 2, the term “AI” should be “artificial intelligence (AI)” for clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 2 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.
As to claim 1, line 1, the examiner is unclear if the phrase “automated connection of computing appliance as nodes” is meant to read “automated connection of a computing appliance as nodes” or “automated connection of computing appliances as nodes.” The phrase is grammatically incorrect in such a way that the examiner is unclear which of these meanings is intended.
As to claim 1, line 8, the examiner is unclear which element of the claim is being referred to by the phrase “said client.” Previously in the claim the limitation “Providing a plurality of computing appliances, each having a processor that operates a zero-trust client” is introduced. Therefore, a plurality of zero-trust clients are present in the claim language, namely one for each of the plurality of computing appliances. Therefore, the examiner is unclear on which particular zero-trust client, if any, of the plurality of computing appliances is being referred back to by “said client.”
As to claim 1, line 9, the examiner is unclear why the phrase “Cryptographic Wallet” is capitalized. The examiner is unclear if some special meaning is intended by capitalizing the phrase as opposed to the standard definition(s) of a cryptographic wallet.
As to claim 1, line 11, the examiner is unclear if the phrase “said consensus and validation” is meant to be “said consensus and validation processes” to properly refer back to the previously introduced limitation of “predetermined consensus and validation processes” in line 2 of the claim.
As to claim 2, lines 1 and 2, the examiner is unclear on the meaning of the phrase “consensus validation functions.” The examiner is unclear if the applicant meant to refer back to “said consensus and validation” of line 11 of claim 1, if the applicant meant to refer back to “predetermined consensus and validation processes” of line 2 of claim 1, or if the applicant is introducing a new limitation of “consensus validation functions” as written in claim 2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 2 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest the invention as claimed. This is not a statement that any one limitation in a vacuum is allowable subject matter, but rather that the combination of the claim limitations as a whole are not obvious over the prior art.
However, generally, the closest prior art such as Parvataneni et al., U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2021/0160314 A1, discloses automatically adding a new blockchain node to a set of blockchain nodes (¶ [0080]). However, Parvataneni et al. fails to disclose each computing appliance operating a zero-trust client, connecting to a cryptographic wallet, and most importantly, automatically performing network-bound listening events within the appliances to identify and connect to peer nodes to perpetuate the peer-to-peer blockchain network. While prior art such as Parvataneni et al. discloses automatically adding a new blockchain node (¶ [0080]), it is done in response to requests to join the blockchain network (¶ [0052]).
The prior art of Fay et al., U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2024/0137232 A1, does disclose automatically configuring new nodes in a block chain (¶ [0050]). However, a further review of this document shows the provisional application does not support this subject matter. Therefore, the effective filing date of the reference when it comes to this subject matter is after the effective filing date of the instant application.
Buschmann et al., U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2022/0398106 A1, discloses the automated configuration of a joining computing device done by listening for messages (Abstract), but is silent on the particulars of the claimed subject matter as they relate to blockchain networks. Buschmann et al. only generally discloses that the network may be based on a blockchain platform (¶ [0048]).
Zhan et al., U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2021/0344753 A1, discloses the automatic adding of a blockchain node (¶ [0049]), but does not disclose the specifics of such.
Wei et al., U.S. Patent App. Pub No. 2021/0328816 A1, discloses the automatic adding of a blockchain node (Fig. 1; ¶¶ [0031] through [0044) However, Wei et al. is directed to a centralized certificate authority (Abstract; Fig. 3) as opposed to the peer-to-peer network comprising zero-trust clients as in the claimed subject matter of the instant application. Wei et al. also fails to disclose a cryptographic wallet.
Sardesai et al., U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2021/0329075 A1, discloses the automatic adding of a blockchain node (¶ [0049]). However, Sardesai et al. fails to disclose each computing appliance operating a zero-trust client, connecting to a cryptographic wallet, and most importantly, automatically performing network-bound listening events within the appliances to identify and connect to peer nodes to perpetuate the peer-to-peer blockchain network.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Irazabal et al., U.S. Patent No. 11,188,920 B2, is the reference identified by the Office’s Similarity Search tool as being the most relevant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brian Whipple whose telephone number is 571-270-1244. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Thursdays from 9:30 AM to 3:30 PM ET; Fridays from 9:30 AM to 11:30 AM ET and 1:30 PM to 3:30 PM ET; and Saturdays from 9:30 AM to 9:30 PM ET.
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, Joon Hwang can be reached at 571-272-4036. 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.
/Brian Whipple/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2447
11/25/25