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
1. This Office Action is responsive to the preliminary amendment filed 9/11/2024.
Claim Status
2. Claims 1, 5, and 7-10 have currently been amended.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/11/2024 was filed after the mailing date of the instant application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
4. Claims 1 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 7 of claim 1 should be concluded with a colon. Appropriate correction is required.
Lines 1-2 of claim 4 should be amended to --The method of claim 4, wherein the method includes/is further drawn to converting said consensus result of said MVBA protocol into a block on said confirmation blockchain--.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claim 5 is 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 Rejections – 35 USC 112
6. 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.
7. Claims 7-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 7, it is unclear whether the claimed asynchronous blockchain consensus system is drawn to an independent claim or if the claimed system is drawn to a dependent claim that claims dependency upon the method claim 1. It is improper to include language within an independent claim while including language that insinuates that the claim is dependent on another independent claim. Claim 8 is dependent upon claim 7 and, thus, is also rejected under 35 USC 112(b).
Regarding claim 9, it is unclear whether the claimed electronic device is drawn to an independent claim or if the claimed system is drawn to a dependent claim that claims dependency upon the method claim 1. It is improper to include language within an independent claim while including language that insinuates that the claim is dependent on another independent claim.
Regarding claim 10, it is unclear whether the claimed computer-readable storage medium is drawn to an independent claim or if the claimed system is drawn to a dependent claim that claims dependency upon the method claim 1. It is improper to include language within an independent claim while including language that insinuates that the claim is dependent on another independent claim.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 101
8. 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.
9. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being drawn to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed computer-readable storage medium may be drawn to a transitory, signal-bearing medium. Par [0079] of the applicant’s disclosure discloses that the computer storage medium may comprise a propagated data signal…as a part of a carrier. Using the broadest reasonable interpretation of the applicant’s specification, the claimed computer-readable storage medium may be implemented as a non-statutory entity, such as a carrier wave.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 103
10. 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.
11. Claims 1-2 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (CN 112862490 A) in view of Hoffberg (US 12,099,997).
Regarding claim 1, Chen et al teaches an asynchronous blockchain consensus method (Abstract, lines 1-5) with decoupled data broadcast (pg. 3, lines 9-14, “reliable broadcast”) and consensus, applied to a blockchain system containing a set of consensus nodes, executed by the consensus nodes in the set (Abstract & pg. 3, lines 1-3, “consensus nodes”), comprising:
running a plurality of parallel data broadcast protocols between said nodes (pg. 3, lines 1-3, “atomic broadcast protocol”);
executing a data sequential consensus protocol between said nodes based on the results of said data broadcast protocols using the height of the data block chain as input (pg. 9, lines 13-20, “adding txOps data item in the atomic broadcast data structure …comparing with the existing asynchronous consensus protocol, txOps data item…”); wherein:
the data broadcast protocols are required to satisfy the following conditions:
1) the protocol sequentially outputs blocks of data (pg. 11, lines 19-23, “each consensus node sequentially pre-executing the signature transaction sequence”);
2) the output is accompanied by evidence of completion of the broadcast protocol, which is constructed using a threshold signature (pg. 11, lines 16-20, “updated threshold signature configuration information will be loaded and effective from the account state when starting the next round of atomic broadcast protocol”), which proves that a majority of the participants have received the same (pg. 4, lines 37-39, “consensus nodes participating in the threshold signature”);
3) the output is derived from the input from the broadcast protocol (pg. 13, lines 3-10, “output consensus method…when atomic broadcast protocol is finished”);
in the data-sequential consensus protocol, all the participating nodes work together to sequentially execute the asynchronous multi-valued Byzantine consensus protocol, i.e., the MVBA protocol (pg. 3, lines 9-15, which discloses using asynchronous binary consensus protocol and adopting Multi-Valued Byzantine protocol),
maintaining a chain of confirmation blocks between said nodes based on the results of said data sequential consensus protocol (pg. 3, lines 8-15, “consistent confirmation of the data”), and
wherein the contents of said chain of confirmation blocks being the final consensus results (pg. 3, lines 8-15, “asynchronous binary consensus…consistent confirmation of the data”).
Chen et al does not explicitly teach wherein the adversary is unable to forge the evidence described in 2) and the specific implementation of the MVBA protocol is modular, and according to different needs, different MVBA protocols are used, but all these MVBA protocols need to satisfy the following conditions: 1) consistency; 2) external validity; 3) termination; and 4) quality.
However, Hoffberg teaches wherein the adversary is unable to forge the evidence described in 2) (col. 117, lines 45-50, “cannot be forged by an adversary”) and the specific implementation of the MVBA protocol is modular (col. 94, lines 3-7, “modular inverse of a modulo n”), and according to different needs, different MVBA protocols are used (col. 47, lines 37-41, “BFT….PBFT”), but all these MVBA protocols need to satisfy the following conditions:
1) consistency (col. 13, lines 62-65);
2) external validity (col. 4, lines 50-62, “prove validity of transactions”);
3) termination (col. 22, lines 36-42); and
4) quality (col. 125, lines 55-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of Hoffberg within the teachings of Chen et al in order to provide the predictive result of improving security performance in a blockchain environment by implementing a TPM to hash secret vales used to prevent adversaries from altering secure data within a blokchain (as disclosed in col. 117, lines 45-50 of Hoffberg) because this feature would further prevent potential attackers from descrambling encrypted data in each blockchain node, when incorporated in the disclosure of Chen et al.
Regarding claim 2, Chen et al and Hoffberg teach the limitations of claim 1.
Chen et al further teaches wherein said nodes use a customized method to determine whether a data broadcast protocol has output a new block of data (pg. 3, lines 1-10) and satisfies a customized validity condition before executing said MVBA protocol (pg. 3, lines 12-16 & pg. 6, lines 16-19, “verifying block”).
Regarding claim 9, Chen et al and Hoffberg teach the limitations of claim 1.
Chen et al further teaches an electronic device (pg. 12, lines 1-15), comprising:
a processor (pg. 12, lines 1-15); and
a memory for storing executable instructions of said processor (pg. 12, lines 18-25);
said processor for reading said executable instructions from said memory (pg. 12, lines 18-25) and executing said executable instructions to implement the asynchronous blockchain consensus method with decoupled data broadcast and consensus (pg. 6, lines 11-15, “asynchronous consensus protocol”) according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Chen et al and Hoffberg teach the limitations of claim 1.
Chen et al further teaches a computer-readable storage medium, having stored thereon computer program instructions, wherein the program instructions are executed by a processor when executed to implement the asynchronous blockchain consensus method with decoupled data broadcast and consensus (pg. 6, lines 11-15 & pg. 12, lines 18-25) according to claim 1.
11. Claims 3-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (CN 112862490 A) in view of Hoffberg (US 12,099,997), further in view of Zamani et al (US 2020/0162264).
Regarding claim 3, Chen et al and Hoffberg do not explicitly teach wherein said customized valid condition guarantees a minimum bound of system security: at least z data block chains with different nodes in leader roles have increased in height compared to the last consensus result, and the height of all the data block chains is not less than the last consensus result, wherein n−2t≤z≤n−t, n is the total number of consensus participants, and t is the system tolerates a maximum number of adversaries.
However, Zamani et al teaches wherein said customized valid condition guarantees a minimum bound of system security (par [0235], lines 7-9, “security guarantees of the protocol”):
at least z data block chains with different nodes in leader roles have increased in height compared to the last consensus result (par [0196], lines 3-4, “announces more than e leaders”), and the height of all the data block chains is not less than the last consensus result (par [0111], lines 4-8, “the total number of transactions processed in each consensus round by the entire protocol is multiplied by the number of committees”),
wherein n−2t≤z≤n−t, n is the total number of consensus participants (par [0347], lines 1-5), and t is the system tolerates a maximum number of adversaries (par [0347], “t may be the maximum number of dishonest parties”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of Zamani et al within the teachings of Chen et al and Hoffberg in order to provide the predictive result of reducing communication cost for sending large messages in a synchronous communication model (as disclosed in par [0099], lines 13-18 of Zamani et al).
Regarding claim 4, Chen et al and Hoffberg do not explicitly teach wherein the method of converting said consensus result of said MVBA protocol into a block on said confirmation blockchain is: when said node obtains said consensus result of said MVBA protocol, it compares it with the last consensus result, packs the data block which is more than the last consensus result into a confirmation block in accordance with a deterministic algorithm, and puts the confirmation block placed into a chain of confirmation blocks.
However, Zamani et al teaches wherein the method of converting said consensus result of said MVBA protocol into a block on said confirmation blockchain (par [0074], line 5, “blockchain consensus”) is:
when said node obtains said consensus result of said MVBA protocol, it compares it with the last consensus result (par [0089], “ comparison between the results”), packs the data block which is more than the last consensus result into a confirmation block in accordance with a deterministic algorithm (par [0122], lines 18-20), and puts the confirmation block placed into a chain of confirmation blocks (fig. 9, ‘S990, “incorporate the block into a blockchain”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of Zamani et al within the teachings of Chen et al and Hoffberg according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 3.
Regarding claim 6, Chen et al and Hoffberg do not explicitly teach wherein under different network model assumptions or more complex assumptions of switching between different network models, said data broadcast protocol and data order consensus protocol are implemented by specific protocols under corresponding network model assumptions.
However, Zamani et al teaches wherein under different network model assumptions or more complex assumptions of switching between different network models (par [0127-0131], “network model…threat model”), said data broadcast protocol and data order consensus protocol are implemented by specific protocols under corresponding network model assumptions (par [0008], lines 60-65, “consensus protocol to broadcast a message…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of Zamani et al within the teachings of Chen et al and Hoffberg according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Randy A. Scott whose telephone number is (571) 272-3797. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 7:30 am-5:00 pm, second Fridays 7:30 am-4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Luu Pham can be reached on (571) 270-5002. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/RANDY A SCOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2439 20260217