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 claims 1 and 11-13 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 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher et al. (US 12,572,296) in view of Liu et al. (US 2024/0163118).
In regard to claim 1, Fisher teaches a method of operating a device that constitutes a blockchain network, the method comprising:
generating a first hash value regarding unit data using a first hash function and determining a target shard to store the unit data from among a plurality of shards based on the first hash value (Fisher column 17 line 65 – column 18, line 35)
transmitting a first request to store the unit data in the target shard to an external device (Fisher column 17 line 65 – column 18, line 35);
Fisher failed to disclose:
obtaining a changed root value of the target shard changed as the unit data is stored from the external device, wherein the root value represents entire data stored in the target shard
However, Liu disclosed:
obtaining a changed root value of the target shard changed as the unit data is stored from the external device, wherein the root value represents entire data stored in the target shard (Liu claim 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the root value of the storage location (shard) in Fisher based on a change in the data stored in Fisher in order to adequately target the optimal storage in Fisher.
In regard to claim 11, Liu disclosed wherein the external device comprises a device corresponding to the target shard from among a plurality of devices respectively corresponding to the plurality of shards; and Liu [0030]
the plurality of devices each comprise a device capable of accessing data stored in a corresponding shard. Liu [0030]
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10 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. Claim 2 is the allowable claim in claims 2-6, where claims 3-6 are objected to as being dependent from claim 2. Claim 7 is the allowable claim in claims 7-9, where claims 8-9 are objected to as being dependent from claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey R. Swearingen whose telephone number is (571)272-3921. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Oscar Louie can be reached at 571-270-1684. 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.
Jeffrey R. Swearingen
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2445
/Jeffrey R Swearingen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Prosecution Insights