Detailed Action
This is a Non-final Office action in response to communications received on 7/29/2024. Claims 1-10 were amended via preliminary amendment. Claims 1-10 are pending and are examined.
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, filed 7/29/2024, are acknowledged.
Preliminary Amendment
The preliminary amendments, filed 7/29/2024, are acknowledged.
Foreign Priority
The foreign priority date of 1/31/2022 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 9 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as not falling within one of the four statutory categories of invention because the claims are directed to software per se.
Under 35 U.S.C. 101, a claimed invention must fall within one of the four eligible categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) and must not be directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception as interpreted by the courts. MPEP § 2106. The four eligible categories of invention include: (1) process which is an act, or a series of acts or steps, (2) machine which is an concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices, (3) manufacture which is an article produced from raw or prepared materials by giving to these materials new forms, qualities, properties, or combinations, whether by hand labor or by machinery, and (4) composition of matter which is all compositions of two or more substances and all composite articles, whether they be the results of chemical union, or of mechanical mixture, or whether they be gases, fluids, powders or solids. MPEP 2106(I).
Claim 9 is directed to a computer-program product, having computer-readable instructions stored therein, that when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform method steps. The claim does not explicitly list what hardware/elements are present in order to perform the method. It is not sufficient to specify that the system is designed to perform a function – the claim must recite what hardware the system itself comprises which performs the claimed functions. The claim does not disclose the system as comprising any sort of physical device or machine to perform the method. As such, the claim is interpreted as being directed to software per se.
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 1-10 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "for exchange of the private data by one of the nodes in the corresponding network zone to one or more other nodes in the corresponding network zone". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “exchanging private data between the nodes in the blockchain network in consideration of the defined limits for the corresponding network zones thereof”. It is unclear what is intended by the underlined section of the limitation. For example, “in consideration of” may mean “based on, but not limited to” or alternatively it may mean that it is “limited to” the expressed limits. More precise language should be used to determine how the “defined limits” affect the exchange of private data.
Claims 2-10 depend from claim 1, inheriting the same deficiencies and are likewise similarly rejected.
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 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wooden (US 20180309567 A1), in view of Johnsen (US 20190379582 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wooden teaches the limitations of claim 1 substantially as follows:
A method for exchanging private data among nodes in a blockchain network, the method comprising: (Wooden; [0030]: a computer network in a hierarchical, flat, mesh, or other suitable types of topology that allows communications between computing devices no and external network 140 (i.e., exchanging private data between the nodes in the blockchain network))
implementing a structured network topology with one or more network zones for establishing connections between the nodes in the blockchain network, (Wooden; [0030]: each of host sets 112a-112c is operatively coupled to a corresponding network node 120a-120c, respectively, which are commonly referred to as “top-of-rack” or “TOR” network nodes. TOR network nodes 120a-120C can then be operatively coupled to additional network nodes 120 to form a computer network in a hierarchical, flat, mesh, or other suitable types of topology that allows communications between computing devices no and external network)
such that the nodes in each of the one or more groups of nodes are arranged in one of the one or more network zones in the implemented structured network topology; (Wooden; [0030]: computing devices no can be organized into racks, action zones, groups, sets, or other suitable divisions)
assigning a topology identification number to each of the nodes, such that the topology identification numbers of the nodes in each of the network zones are in a series; (Wooden; [0030]: computing devices no are grouped into three host sets identified individually as first, second, and third host sets)
for exchange of the private data by one of the nodes in the corresponding network zone to one or more other nodes in the corresponding network zone; and (Wooden; [0030]: a computer network in a hierarchical, flat, mesh, or other suitable types of topology that allows communications between computing devices no and external network 140 (i.e., exchange of the private data by one of the nodes in the corresponding network zone to one or more other nodes in the corresponding network zone))
exchanging private data between the nodes in the blockchain network in consideration of the defined limits for the corresponding network zones thereof. (Wooden; [0030]: a computer network in a hierarchical, flat, mesh, or other suitable types of topology that allows communications between computing devices no and external network 140 (i.e., exchanging private data between the nodes in the blockchain network))
Wooden does not teach the limitations of claim 1 as follows:
defining one or more groups of nodes required to exchange the private data therebetween;
defining a limit for each of the network zones based, at least in part, on the topology identification numbers of the nodes therein
However, in the same field of endeavor, Johnsen discloses the limitations of claim 1 as follows:
defining one or more groups of nodes required to exchange the private data therebetween; (Johnsen; [0052]: networks can support partitioning as a security mechanism to provide for isolation of logical groups of systems sharing a network fabric (i.e., defining one or more groups of nodes ))
defining a limit for each of the network zones based, at least in part, on the topology identification numbers of the nodes therein (Johnsen; [0059]: At least one unique LID is assigned to each HCA port and each switch by the SM. The LIDs are used to route traffic within a subnet. The number of available unicast addresses defines the maximum size of an IB subnet (i.e., defining a limit for each of the network zones based, at least in part, on the topology identification numbers of the nodes therein))
Johnsen is combinable with Wooden because all are from the same field of endeavor of communication between groups of devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Wooden to incorporate a range of identifiers as in Johnsen in order to control communications within define groups or zones according to the identifiers.
Regarding claim 2, Wooden and Johnsen teach the limitations of claim 1.
Wooden and Johnsen teach the limitations of claim 2 as follows:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the topology identification numbers for the nodes in each of the network zones comprise a lowest topology identification number and a highest topology identification number, and wherein the limit for each of the network zones is defined based on the lowest topology identification number and the highest topology identification number of the nodes therein. (Johnsen; [0059]: The LIDs are used to route traffic within a subnet. Since the LID is 16 bits long, 65536 unique address combinations can be made, of which only 49151 (0x0001-0xBFFF) can be used as unicast addresses (i.e., highest and lowest). Consequently, the number of available unicast addresses defines the maximum size of an IB subnet)
The same motivation to combine as in claim 1 is applicable to the instant claims.
Regarding claim 3, Wooden and Johnsen teach the limitations of claim 2.
Wooden and Johnsen teach the limitations of claim 3 as follows:
The method according to claim 2, wherein in case of a given node in the blockchain network is required to exchange private data with nodes in two groups of the defined one or more groups of nodes, the method comprises:
assigning the topology identification number to the given node succeeding the highest topology identification number for the nodes in first of the said two groups of nodes and preceding the lowest topology identification number for the nodes in second of the said two groups of nodes, and (Johnsen; [0059]: The LIDs are used to route traffic within a subnet. Since the LID is 16 bits long, 65536 unique address combinations can be made, of which only 49151 (0x0001-0xBFFF) can be used as unicast addresses (i.e., highest and lowest). Consequently, the number of available unicast addresses defines the maximum size of an IB subnet)
the highest topology identification number for the nodes in first of the said two groups of nodes, the assigned topology identification number to the given node and the lowest topology identification number for the nodes in second of the said two groups of nodes are in a series. (Johnsen; [0059]: The LIDs are used to route traffic within a subnet. Since the LID is 16 bits long, 65536 unique address combinations can be made, of which only 49151 (0x0001-0xBFFF) can be used as unicast addresses (i.e., highest and lowest). Consequently, the number of available unicast addresses defines the maximum size of an IB subnet)
The same motivation to combine as in claim 1 is applicable to the instant claims.
Regarding claim 4, Wooden and Johnsen teach the limitations of claim 3.
Wooden and Johnsen teach the limitations of claim 4 as follows:
The method according to claim 3, wherein: the limit for the network zone corresponding to the first of the said two groups of nodes is defined based on the lowest topology identification number of the nodes therein and the assigned topology identification number to the given node, and (Johnsen; [0059]: The LIDs are used to route traffic within a subnet. Since the LID is 16 bits long, 65536 unique address combinations can be made, of which only 49151 (0x0001-0xBFFF) can be used as unicast addresses (i.e., highest and lowest). Consequently, the number of available unicast addresses defines the maximum size of an IB subnet)
the limit for the network zone corresponding to the second of the said two groups of nodes is defined based on the assigned topology identification number to the given node and the highest topology identification number of the nodes therein. (Johnsen; [0059]: The LIDs are used to route traffic within a subnet. Since the LID is 16 bits long, 65536 unique address combinations can be made, of which only 49151 (0x0001-0xBFFF) can be used as unicast addresses (i.e., highest and lowest). Consequently, the number of available unicast addresses defines the maximum size of an IB subnet)
The same motivation to combine as in claim 1 is applicable to the instant claims.
Regarding claim 5, Wooden and Johnsen teach the limitations of claim 2.
Wooden and Johnsen teach the limitations of claim 5 as follows:
The method according to claim 2, wherein in case of a given node in the blockchain network is required to exchange private data with nodes in two groups of the defined one or more groups of nodes, the method comprises: assigning a first topology identification number to the given node succeeding the highest topology identification number for the nodes in first of the said two groups of nodes, and (Johnsen; [0059]: The LIDs are used to route traffic within a subnet. Since the LID is 16 bits long, 65536 unique address combinations can be made, of which only 49151 (0x0001-0xBFFF) can be used as unicast addresses (i.e., highest and lowest). Consequently, the number of available unicast addresses defines the maximum size of an IB subnet)
assigning a second topology identification number to the same given node preceding the lowest topology identification number for the nodes in second of the said two groups of nodes. (Johnsen; [0059]: The LIDs are used to route traffic within a subnet. Since the LID is 16 bits long, 65536 unique address combinations can be made, of which only 49151 (0x0001-0xBFFF) can be used as unicast addresses (i.e., highest and lowest). Consequently, the number of available unicast addresses defines the maximum size of an IB subnet)
The same motivation to combine as in claim 1 is applicable to the instant claims.
Regarding claim 6, Wooden and Johnsen teach the limitations of claim 5.
Wooden and Johnsen teach the limitations of claim 6 as follows:
The method according to claim 5, wherein: the limit for the network zone corresponding to the first of the said two groups of nodes is defined based on the lowest topology identification number of the nodes therein and the assigned first topology identification number to the given node, and (Johnsen; [0059]: The LIDs are used to route traffic within a subnet. Since the LID is 16 bits long, 65536 unique address combinations can be made, of which only 49151 (0x0001-0xBFFF) can be used as unicast addresses (i.e., highest and lowest). Consequently, the number of available unicast addresses defines the maximum size of an IB subnet)
the limit for the network zone corresponding to the second of the said two groups of nodes is defined based on the assigned second topology identification number to the given node and the highest topology identification number of the nodes therein. (Johnsen; [0059]: The LIDs are used to route traffic within a subnet. Since the LID is 16 bits long, 65536 unique address combinations can be made, of which only 49151 (0x0001-0xBFFF) can be used as unicast addresses (i.e., highest and lowest). Consequently, the number of available unicast addresses defines the maximum size of an IB subnet)
The same motivation to combine as in claim 1 is applicable to the instant claims.
Regarding claim 7, Wooden and Johnsen teach the limitations of claim 1.
Wooden and Johnsen teach the limitations of claim 7 as follows:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the structured network topology is one of: a ring topology, a tree topology, an XOR topology, a cube topology, a hypercube topology. (Johnsen; [0060]: some of the IB based HPC systems employ a fat-tree topology to take advantage of the useful properties fat-trees offer)
The same motivation to combine as in claim 1 is applicable to the instant claims.
Regarding claim 8, Wooden and Johnsen teach the limitations of claim 1.
Wooden and Johnsen teach the limitations of claim 8 as follows:
A system for exchanging private data among nodes in a blockchain network, the system comprising: one or more processing units; and a memory communicatively coupled to the one or more processing units, the memory comprising a module stored in the form of machine-readable instructions executable by the one or more processing units, wherein the module is configured to perform the method steps as claimed in claim 1. (Johnsen; [0135]: Many features of the present invention can be performed in, using, or with the assistance of hardware, software, firmware, or combinations thereof. Consequently, features of the present invention may be implemented using a processing system (e.g., including one or more processors))
The same motivation to combine as in claim 1 is applicable to the instant claims.
Regarding claim 9, Wooden and Johnsen teach the limitations of claim 1.
Wooden and Johnsen teach the limitations of claim 9 as follows:
A computer-program product, having computer-readable instructions stored therein, that when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform method steps according to claim 1. (Johnsen; [0135]: Many features of the present invention can be performed in, using, or with the assistance of hardware, software, firmware, or combinations thereof. Consequently, features of the present invention may be implemented using a processing system (e.g., including one or more processors))
The same motivation to combine as in claim 1 is applicable to the instant claims.
Regarding claim 10, Wooden and Johnsen teach the limitations of claim 1.
Wooden and Johnsen teach the limitations of claim 10 as follows:
A computer readable medium on which program code sections of a computer program product, comprising a computer readable hardware storage device having the program code sections stored therein, said program code sections executable by a processor of a computer system to implement a method are saved, the program code sections being loadable into and/or executable in the computer system to make the system execute the method steps according to claim 1 when the program code sections are executed in the system.(Johnsen; [0135]: Many features of the present invention can be performed in, using, or with the assistance of hardware, software, firmware, or combinations thereof. Consequently, features of the present invention may be implemented using a processing system (e.g., including one or more processors))
The same motivation to combine as in claim 1 is applicable to the instant claims.
Prior Art Considered But Not Relied Upon
Padmanabhan (US 20190236606 A1) which teaches a virtual chain model for distributed ledger technologies in a cloud based computing environment.
Kamalapuram (US 20200050686 A1) which teaches a cost effective and robust security solution for shared files stored by file sharing software solutions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAKE ISAAC NARRAMORE whose telephone number is (303)297-4357. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 0700-1700 MT.
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, Taghi T Arani can be reached on (571) 272-3787. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BLAKE I NARRAMORE/Examiner, Art Unit 2438