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 Amendment
The amendment filed 02/019/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-10 have been amended. Claims 12-16 have been newly added. No Claims has been/remains canceled. Claims 1-16 remain pending in the application.
Applicant amendments to the Claims have overcome the objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 11/26/2025. The objection has been withdrawn in view of the amended Claims.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s arguments, on page 8-11 of the remark filed on 02/09/2026, on the limitations of dependent Claims 2: “the processor is configured to further execute operations comprising: performing the secure computation on the secret information in accordance with a processing request from a smart contract function using the blockchain to obtain the secure computation result..”,
and the limitations of dependent claim 3: “the processor is configured to further execute operations comprising: blocking a request other than the processing request from the smart contract function.”, arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over Stone et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220138179) further in view of Zhan et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200329022), has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the following prior art: Natarajan et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200050386) in conjunction Stone et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220138179)). Please refer to the 35 U.S.C. 103 section below for a detailed explanation.
For the reasons stated above and the new ground(s) of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 below, Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument, see Applicant’s Remarks Page 8-11, regarding allowance of the application. Examiner asserts that claims 1-16 are rejected for the reasons stated above in conjunction with the new ground(s) of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 below.
Conclusion: Stone-Natarajan teaches the aforementioned limitations of independent claims and 1 and10 rendering the claim limitations obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention.
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, 4-6 and 10-11, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stone et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220138179, hereinafter referred to as “Stone”) further in view of Natarajan et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200050386, hereinafter referred to as “Natarajan”)
In regards to Claim 1, Stone teaches a computing device for performing at least a part of distributed secure computing according to a smart contract of a blockchain by serving as a node of the blockchain, (Par. (0052-0053); computing device in blockchain)), (Par. (0033-0035); contract of blockchain)), (Par. (0032); master node and nodes in blockchain))
comprising a processor processing circuitry configured to execute operations comprising: (Par. (0052); one or more processors))
obtaining consensus by executing a consensus algorithm of the blockchain, (Par. (0026 and 0033); consensus algorithm when majority is achieved confirming document into blockchain), (Par. (0047); consensus protocol to accept blocks in blockchain based on confirming)
wherein the consensus indicates the computing device that stores data in respective blocks of the blockchain as legitimate; and (Par. (0026); consensus algorithm confirming validity of document based on 51% confirmations))
the stored one-way function value is non-modifiable while maintaining safety of the blockchain according to the obtained consensus, (Par. (0038); the stored one-way function value is non-modifiable (the hash ill not be altered), (Par. (0025-0026); while maintaining safety of the blockchain according to the obtained consensus (consensus algorithm and providing security to blockchain)
thereby inhibiting irregularity of the computing device according to the obtained consensus of the blockchain. (Par. (0026); thereby inhibiting irregularity of the computing device (nodes will not be able to add modify or delete without consensus of blockchain )
Stone does not explicitly teach storing, in response to the obtained consensus, a one-way function value in a block of the respective blocks of the blockchain as a legitimate value according to the smart contract of the blockchain, wherein the one-way function value corresponds to a fragment representing secret information of original information in the distributed secure computing, and
Wherein Natarajan teaches storing, in response to the obtained consensus, a one-way function value in a block of the respective blocks of the blockchain as a legitimate value according to the smart contract of the blockchain, (Par. (0063); The steps/operations 608 may include one or more of the embodiments described or depicted and may represent output or written information that is written or read from one or more smart contracts 630 and/or blockchains 620)
wherein the one-way function value corresponds to a fragment representing secret information of original information in the distributed secure computing, and (Par. (0005-0007); one way function corresponds to a fragment (hash corresponding to plurality of file segments) representing secret information of original information in the distributed secure computing (file segments represent confidential data within nodes of blockchain), (Par. (0047); “For all other segments, only a hash is sent to the peer. For instance, peer 1 will get share 1 and the hash of all other n−1 shares. Peer 2 will get share 2 and the hash of all others, and so on. The function stores the secret segment in a side database. It will compute the hash of this secret segment, and along with the remaining n−1 hashes it received, write it into blockchain state. Every peer computes the hash of the secret segment it received, but writes all n hashes to blockchain. All peers thus write the same data (the n hashes) as part of the blockchain transaction”)
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 Stone to incorporate the teaching of Natarajan to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of hash verification of secret information within a blockchain network, with the motivation of protecting multiple attempts to access data and creating a way to prevent bottle neck or effective data storage by segmenting the data to storage nodes. (Natarajan Par. (0003-0006))
In regards to Claim 4, the combination of Stone and Natarajan teach the device of claim 1, Stone further teaches the computing device according to claim 1, wherein another one-way function value is stored in a block of another blockchain by another computing device serving as another node of said another blockchain for which another consensus has been obtained by executing the consensus algorithm in said another blockchain, (Par. (0038 and 0046, 0049); once consensus is agreed upon a new block of a blockchain with hash is stored within another node), (Par. (0049); plurality of blockchains with another node), (Figure 6A label 31E 52; one-way function (hash code is stored in another block of blockchain))
wherein said another one-way function value represents at least either one of: another secret information obtained by securely distributing information based on the original information, (Par. (0035); each block stores hash of secret information (document)), (Par. (0031, 0038); new block is added into blockchain)), (Par. (0037); one of other secret information (plurality of documents verified, processed and added to blockchain)), (Figure 1B labels 11E, 12A, 12C and 11D; one of other secret information obtained by securely distributing information n (plurality of document files is added to new block with hash and broadcasted to users B, C, D))
or another secure computation result obtained by performing secure computation on said another secret information. (Par. (0035); another secure computation (another creation of a hash code) result obtained by performing secure computation on said another secret information (hash code created for document and succeeding block)), (Examiner Note: By using the phrase “or” Examiner broadly and reasonably interprets in light of the specification that only one of the following above is sufficient for mapping of the claim as stated in MPEP 2111.04 SECTION II: CONTINGENET LIMITATIONS)
In regards to Claim 5, the combination of Stone and Natarajan teach the device of claim 1, Stone further teaches the computing device according to claim 1, wherein another one-way function value is stored in a block of the blockchain by another computing device serving as another node of the blockchain for which the consensus has been obtained by executing the consensus algorithm in the blockchain, (Par. (0038 and 0046, 0049); once consensus is agreed upon a new block of a blockchain with hash is stored within another node), (Par. (0049); plurality of blockchains with another node), (Figure 6A label 31E 52; one-way function (hash code is stored in another block of blockchain))
wherein said another one-way function value represents at least either one of: another secret information obtained by securely distributing information based on the original information, (Par. (0035); each block stores hash of secret information (document)), (Par. (0031, 0038); new block is added into blockchain)), (Par. (0037); one of other secret information (plurality of documents verified, processed and added to blockchain)), (Figure 1B labels 11E, 12A, 12C and 11D; one of other secret information obtained by securely distributing information n (plurality of document files is added to new block with hash and broadcasted to users B, C, D))
or another secure computation result obtained by performing secure computation on said another secret information. (Par. (0035); another secure computation (another creation of a hash code) result obtained by performing secure computation on said another secret information (hash code created for document and succeeding block)), (Examiner Note: By using the phrase “or” Examiner broadly and reasonably interprets in light of the specification that only one of the following above is sufficient for mapping of the claim as stated in MPEP 2111.04 SECTION II: CONTINGENET LIMITATIONS)
In regards to Claim 10, claim 10 is an independent claim that recites similar limitations to independent claim 1 and the teachings of Stone and Natarajan address all the limitation discussed in independent claim 1 and are thereby rejected under the same grounds.
In regards to Claim 11, the combination of Stone and Natarajan teach the device of claim 1, Stone further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program causing a computer to function as the computing device according to Claim 1. (Par. (0060-0061); non-transitory computer-readable recording medium)
Claims 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stone et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220138179, hereinafter referred to as “Stone”) and Natarajan et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200050386, hereinafter referred to as “Natarajan”) further in view of Yu et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200313902, hereinafter referred to as “Yu”)
In regards to Claim 2, the combination of Stone and Natarajan do not explicitly teach the processor configured to further execute operations comprising: secure computation on the secret information in accordance with a processing request from a smart contract function using the blockchain to obtain the secure computation result.
Wherein Yu teaches the processor configured to further execute operations comprising: secure computation on the secret information in accordance with a processing request from a smart contract function using the blockchain to obtain the secure computation result. (Par. (0105-0109); to perform the secure computation on the secret information (calculates hash value of result with identification) in accordance with a processing request from a smart contract (received request from client smart contract and smart contract determines validity) to obtain secure computation result (request result is obtained and determined to be error or valid)
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 Stone and Natarajan to incorporate the teaching of Yu to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of blockchain technologies, with the motivation of utilizing smart contracts to process request to allows the pre-defined rules to authenticate individuals more effectively and verify computing devices with efficient secure computational results. (Yu Par. (0003-0005))
In regards to Claim 3, the combination of Stone and Natarajan do not explicitly teach the processor is configured to further execute operations comprising: blocking a request other than the processing request from the smart contract function.
Wherein Yu teaches the processor is configured to further execute operations comprising: blocking a request other than the processing request from the smart contract function. (Par. (0080); other than the processing request from the smart contract function is blocked (attestation service and relay system node reject any requests if not genuine)
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 Stone and Natarajan to incorporate the teaching of Yu for the reasons discussed in dependent claim 2 stated above.
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stone et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220138179, hereinafter referred to as “Stone”) and Natarajan et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200050386, hereinafter referred to as “Natarajan”) further in view of Zhan et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200329022, hereinafter referred to as “Zhan”)
In regards to Claim 6, the combination of Stone and Natarajan teach the device of claim 1, Stone further teaches the computing device according to claim 5, wherein the consensus for the computing device and said another computing device is obtained in parallel using the consensus algorithm of the blockchain, and (Par. (0026); the consensus for the computing device and the other computing device is obtained in parallel (consensus algorithm requiring nodes at same time of vote to confirm validity))
the processor is configured to further execute operations comprising: storing at least one one-way function value of the secret information and (Par. (0035); each block stores hash of secret information (document)), (Par. (0031, 0038); new block is added into blockchain))
wherein the block comprises at least either one of: another one-way function value of said another secret information stored by said another computing device, or (Par. (0035); each block stores hash of secret information (document)), (Par. (0031, 0038); new block is added into blockchain)), (Par. (0037); one of other secret information (plurality of documents verified, processed and added to blockchain)), (Figure 1B labels 11E, 12A, 12C and 11D; one of other secret information obtained by securely distributing information n (plurality of document files is added to new block with hash and broadcasted to users B, C, D))
another one-way function value of said another secure computation result stored by said another computing device. (Par. (0035); another secure computation (another creation of a hash code) result obtained by performing secure computation on said another secret information (hash code created for document and succeeding block)), (Examiner Note: By using the phrase “or” Examiner broadly and reasonably interprets in light of the specification that only one of the following above is sufficient for mapping of the claim as stated in MPEP 2111.04 SECTION II: CONTINGENET LIMITATIONS)
Stone and Natarajan do not explicitly teach the secure computation result in the block of the blockchain,
Wherein Zhan teaches the secure computation result in the block of the blockchain, (Par. (0086);recording the secure computation result (verification result) into the data block in the blockchain)), (Par. (0066-0067); verification result corresponding to hashing on block), ), (Par. (0050); other computing device (broadcasting verification results to other nodes that stores))
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 Stone and Natarajan to incorporate the teaching of Zhan to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of consensus within a blockchain network, with the motivation of storing secure computation results based on secret information to determine if data is successful recorded and changes are made thereby enhancing the verification and creating trust and consensus within the blockchain (Zhan Par. (0007-0009))
Claim 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stone et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220138179, hereinafter referred to as “Stone”), and Natarajan et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200050386, hereinafter referred to as “Natarajan”) further in view of Davis et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20170344987, hereinafter referred to as “Davis”)
In regards to Claim 7, the combination of Stone and Natarajan teach the device of claim 1, Stone further teaches the computing device according to claim 5, wherein after the consensus for said another computing device is obtained using the consensus algorithm of the blockchain, (Par. (0026 and 0033); consensus algorithm when majority is achieved confirming document into blockchain)
the consensus for the computing device is obtained using the consensus algorithm of the blockchain, and (Par. (0026); consensus algorithm requiring nodes to vote to confirm validity))
Stone and Natarajan do not explicitly teach after the consensus for the computing device is obtained using the consensus algorithm of the blockchain, the computing device performs the secure computation on the secret information to obtain the secure computation result, said another computing device performs the secure computation on said another secret information to obtain another said secure computation result, and the one-way function value of the secure computation result and said another secure computation result are stored in the block of the blockchain by the computing device.
Wherein Davis teaches after the consensus for the computing device is obtained using the consensus algorithm of the blockchain, (Par. (0093); confirmation that a consensus has been reached)
the computing device performs the secure computation on the secret information to obtain the secure computation result, (Par. (0093-0096); following confirming consensus generating a hash/ hashing of secret information (block data) to obtain secure computation result (confirmation message that is included in block))
said another computing device performs the secure computation on said another secret information to obtain another said secure computation result, and (Par. (0092-0096); other computing devices perform secure computation (plurality of neighboring consensus nodes generate hashes of data) to obtain the other secure computation result (transmitted plurality of confirmation messages to nodes))
the one-way function value of the secure computation result and said another secure computation result are stored in the block of the blockchain by the computing device. (Par. (0094-0096); the one-way function of the secure computation result (generated hash of data) and other secure computation result (confirmation message with hash both included in block) are stored in block of blockchain (after verification block data with confirmation and hash are written into blockchain))
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 Stone and Natarajan to incorporate the teaching of Davis to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of consensus protocol in a blockchain network, with the motivation of establishing accurate and authentic distribution of data based on a consensus that saves computational power ad ensuring private data is added to blockchain more effectively and with trust (Davis Par. (0003-0004))
In regards to Claim 8, the combination of Stone and Natarajan teach the device of claim 1, Stone further teaches the computing device according to claim 5, wherein subsequent to obtaining the consensus for said another computing device using the consensus algorithm of the blockchain, (Par. (0041); for the other computing device (plurality of nodes used for consensus voting)(Par. (0026 and 0033); consensus algorithm when majority is achieved confirming document into blockchain)
the one-way function value of the other secret information is stored in the block of the blockchain by said another computing device, (Par. (0035); each block stores hash of secret information (document)), (Par. (0031, 0038); new block is added into blockchain))
Stone does not explicitly teach subsequent to storing the one-way function value of said another secret information in the block of the blockchain by said another computing device, the consensus for the computing device is obtained using the consensus algorithm of the blockchain, and subsequent to obtaining the consensus for the computing device using the consensus algorithm of the blockchain, the computing device performs the secure computation on the secret information to obtain the secure computation result, the said another computing device performs the secure computation on said another secret information to obtain said another secure computation result, and the computing device stores the one-way function value of the secret information, the one-way function value of the secure computation result, and said another secure computation result in the block of the blockchain.
Wherein Davis teaches subsequent to storing the one-way function value of said another secret information in the block of the blockchain by said another computing device, the consensus for the computing device is obtained using the consensus algorithm of the blockchain, and (Par. (0092-0096); hash of data is stored in block then confirmation message of consensus is obtained))
subsequent to obtaining the consensus for the computing device using the consensus algorithm of the blockchain, ((Par. (0093); confirmation that a consensus has been reached)
the computing device performs the secure computation on the secret information to obtain the secure computation result, ((Par. (0093-0096); following confirming consensus generating a hash/ hashing of secret information (block data) to obtain secure computation result (confirmation message that is included in block))
said another computing device performs the secure computation on said another secret information to obtain said another secure computation result, and ((Par. (0092-0096); other computing devices perform secure computation (plurality of neighboring consensus nodes generate hashes of data) to obtain the other secure computation result (transmitted plurality of confirmation messages to nodes))
the computing device stores the one-way function value of the secret information, the one-way function value of the secure computation result, and said another secure computation result in the block of the blockchain. ((Par. (0094-0096); the one-way function of the secure computation result (generated hash of data) and other secure computation result (confirmation message with hash both included in block) are stored in block of blockchain (after verification block data with confirmation and hash are written into blockchain))
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 Stone and Natarajan to incorporate the teaching of Davis to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of consensus protocol in a blockchain network, with the motivation of establishing accurate and authentic distribution of data based on a consensus that saves computational power ad ensuring private data is added to blockchain more effectively and with trust (Davis Par. (0003-0004))
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stone et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220138179, hereinafter referred to as “Stone”) and Natarajan et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200050386, hereinafter referred to as “Natarajan”) further in view of Ward et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20230316127, hereinafter referred to as “Ward”)
In regards to Claim 9, the combination of Stone and Natarajan do not explicitly teach wherein the original information is information identifying an aggregated model in federated learning, the information based on the original information is information identifying a worker model obtained by updating the aggregated model by machine learning, and the secure computation comprises obtaining the secure computation result, which is secret information of the information identifying the aggregated model obtained by aggregating a plurality of worker models, using the secret information, without obtaining the worker model.
Wherein Ward teaches wherein the original information is information identifying an aggregated model in federated learning, (Par. (0071-0074); original information is information identifying an aggregated model (information about data with aggregation model used for secret sharing techniques))
the information based on the original information is information identifying a worker model obtained by updating the aggregated model by machine learning, and (Par. (0061-0064); information about data corresponding to worker nodes and their models corresponding to model aggregation), (Par. (0074-0075); aggregators of model with updating of set of aggregations by members of committee and worker nodes with models)
the secure computation comprises obtaining the secure computation result, which is secret information of the information identifying the aggregated model obtained by aggregating a plurality of worker models, using the secret information, without obtaining the worker model. (Par. (0068-0070); hash digest published corresponding to aggregated weights and model trained by worker models and models), (Par. (0073-0074); using secret information (shared secret associated with aggregation model and weights)), (Par. (0070-0074); without obtaining worker model (validators send shared secret and publish aggregation by voting on the models ; worker nodes and models are assessed and models are drawn))
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 Stone and Natarajan to incorporate the teaching of Ward to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of hash based verification using secure computation in a network, with the motivation of using machine learning models to update and aggregate data models with secure computation to validator worker nodes models and assure users that each data used to develop the models are aggregated with validity and thus leading to more versatile machine learning models with sensitive data. (Ward Par. (0002-0006) and (0068-0070))
Claim 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stone et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220138179, hereinafter referred to as “Stone”) and Natarajan et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200050386, hereinafter referred to as “Natarajan”) further in view of Kawaguchi et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210258149, hereinafter referred to as “Kawaguchi”)
In regards to Claim 12, the combination of Stone and Natarajan do not explicitly teach wherein the one-way function value represents secret information obtained by securely distributing information based on original information according to a threshold secret distribution.
Wherein Kawaguchi teaches wherein the one-way function value represents secret information obtained by securely distributing information based on original information according to a threshold secret distribution. (Par. (0072 and 0100); one-way function (hash) represents secret information (represent a secret key and share and the share corresponding to hash function), (Par. (0040-0042); collecting a number of shares to compare to a threshold number corresponding to secret sharing with secret information (data pieces with confidentiality and threshold scheme))
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 Stone and Natarajan to incorporate the teaching of Kawaguchi to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of hash based verification using secure computation in a blockchain network, with the motivation of utilizing secure computation to prevent data leakage and create reliability in the network. (Kawaguchi Par. (0005-0006))
In regards to Claim 13, the combination of Stone and Natarajan do not explicitly teach wherein the one-way function value represents a secure computation result obtained by performing secure computation on secret information obtained by securely distributing information based on the original information according to a threshold secret distribution, thereby the computing device storing neither the original information nor a restored result of the secure computation result.
Wherein Kawaguchi teaches wherein the one-way function value represents a secure computation result obtained by performing secure computation on secret information obtained by securely distributing information based on the original information according to a threshold secret distribution, (Par. (0043, 0054); shares with hash corresponding to result), (Par. (0072 and 0100); one-way function (hash) represents secret information (represent a secret key and share and the share corresponding to hash function), (Par. (0040-0042); collecting a number of shares to compare to a threshold number corresponding to secret sharing with secret information (data pieces with confidentiality and threshold scheme))
thereby the computing device storing neither the original information nor a restored result of the secure computation result. (Par. (0040-0044); restoration of original data only from threshold number of shares a data pieces collected to determine illegal acquired data)
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 Stone and Natarajan to incorporate the teaching of Kawaguchi to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of hash based verification using secure computation in a blockchain network, with the motivation of utilizing secure computation to prevent data leakage and create reliability in the network. (Kawaguchi Par. (0005-0006))
In regards to Claim 14, the combination of Stone and Natarajan teach the computing device of claim 1, Natarajan further teaches wherein the one-way function value is obtained by the computing device applying a one-way function to a share which represents the secret information. (Par. (0005-0007); one way function corresponds to a share (hash corresponding to plurality of file segments) representing secret information of original information in the distributed secure computing (file segments represent confidential data within nodes of blockchain)
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 Stone to incorporate the teaching of Natarajan to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of hash verification of secret information within a blockchain network, with the motivation of protecting multiple attempts to access data and creating a way to prevent bottle neck or effective data storage by segmenting the data to storage nodes. (Natarajan Par. (0003-0006))
In regards to Claims 15, claims 15 is an dependent claims that recites similar limitations to dependent claims 12 and the teachings of Stone, Natarajan and Kawaguchi address all the limitation discussed in dependent claims 12 and are thereby rejected under the same grounds.
In regards to Claims 16, claims 16 is an dependent claims that recites similar limitations to dependent claims 13 and the teachings of Stone, Natarajan and Kawaguchi address all the limitation discussed in dependent claims 13 and are thereby rejected under the same grounds.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Qiu; Honglin (U.S Pub. No. 20200004788) “BLOCKCHAIN-BASED SMART CONTRACT INVOCATION METHOD AND APPARATUS, AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE”. Considered this reference because it addressed a consensus algorithm with one-way functions in blockchain.
TSUCHIDA; Hikaru (U.S Pub. No. 20220261507) “SECURE COMPUTATION SERVER, TRAIL MANAGEMENT METHOD, AND PROGRAM”. Considered this application because it relates to secure computation and result in a blockchain.
FLETCHER; John (U.S Pub. No. 20200311678) “SMART CONTRACT EXECUTION USING DISTRIBUTED COORDINATION”. Considered this application because it addressed smart contract and requests from authentication nodes in a blockchain network.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASSAN A HUSSEIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3554. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am-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, Eleni Shiferaw can be reached on (571)272-3867. 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-y.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.
/H.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2497 /ELENI A SHIFERAW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2497
Prosecution Insights