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 .
Status of Claims
This is a first office action in response to the applicant’s arguments/remarks filed with an RCE on June 29, 2026.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-11, 17, 26, and 28 have been amended; claims 3, 6, 16, 18, 20-25, 27, and 29 have been canceled.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-15, 17, 19, 26, and 28 are pending and have been examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/29/2026 has been entered.
Responses to Arguments/Remarks
Claim Objections:
The amended claim 26 causes more issue, and the applicant is advised to refer to the claim object section for details.
35 U.S.C. § 101:
The applicant contends that the claim, as a whole, is directed to coordinating distributed IoT devices for controlled participation in a blockchain transaction via a non-direct architecture, which is a network control and communication protocol, not a fundamental economic practice or method of organizing human activity. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim 1 as a whole is directed to processing a transaction based on related information. In particular, the claim recites maintaining identification information, receiving one or more input-output pairs, generating a transaction, sending the transaction, sending a request to confirm an intention of participation prior to receiving the one or more input-output pairs, and sending an indication of the intention of participation. The claim recites a process related to fundamental economic principles or practices and/or commercial interactions. Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea, which falls under the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas in Step 2A Prong One (MPEP 2106.04(a)).
The examiner would like to point out that a controller, IoT devices, a blockchain, and a network are identified additional elements, and these additional elements serve as tools to perform the abstract idea and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
The applicant contends that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
One of ordinary skill in the art knows that the IoT devices work with low power consumption and that they are energy constrained. If they directly communicate to a blockchain network/cloud/internet, they won’t be effective in terms of power. Utilizing a controller/gateway/hub as an intermediate device to link the IoT devices to the blockchain network/cloud/internet is a commonly implemented practice. Therefore, architecturally preventing IoT devices from being directly connected to a blockchain network and utilizing a controller as an intermediate device to receive IoT devices-generated information are known procedures. Additionally, the additional elements of a controller, IoT devices, a blockchain, and a network serve as tools to perform the abstract idea and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)); the claim does not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)); and the claim does not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful ways beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claim does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor does it effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The applicant contends that the claims recite significantly more than alleged abstract idea. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner would like to point out that contracting a transaction by including information associated with multiple devices is part of the cited abstract idea. Utilizing a controller as an intermediate device to receive IoT devices-generated information is a common procedure. Participation confirmation prior to data collection is a regular business procedure. As discussed above, viewed as a whole, the combination of elements disclosed in the claim merely recites the concept of maintaining identification information and processing a transaction. Therefore, the use of the additional elements does nothing more than employing the computer components as tools to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional claim elements, when considered individually and in combination, fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
35 U.S.C. § 103:
The applicant contends: “With respect to claim 1, there appears to be no disclosure in Chau of collecting inputs from multiple devices and constructing a single transaction by collating those inputs.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, the examiner would like to point out that the amended independent claims 1, 26, and 28 cause 112(b) issues. These claims do not clearly disclose that a single transaction comprises the inputs from the multiple devices. The applicant is advised to refer to 112 rejection section for details.
Additionally, as mentioned by the applicant, Chau discloses that “each blockchain transaction can contain one or more eAsset-IDs” (see paragraph [0060]). Chau further discloses that each eAsset-ID uniquely identifies a IoT device for transactions (see paragraph [0111], “[t]he device public eAsset-ID 1014 can uniquely identify the device 102 for use in transactions on the public blockchain 127”). Based on these paragraphs, Chau discloses that a transaction includes multiple eAsset-IDs and that each eAsset-ID uniquely identifies a IoT device in a transaction. Therefore, these citations indicate that a transaction is generated based on the information associated with multiple IoT devices.
The applicant’s amendments have overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections. However, there are new grounds of rejection necessitated by the applicant’s amendments as detailed in the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection section.
Claim Objections
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 26 recites “in response to the request, sending, by at least odne device of the one or more devices, an indication of the intention to participate in the round of communication from at least one of the one or more IoT devices.” The letter “d” should be removed from “odne.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-15, 17, 19, 26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In this instance, claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-15, and 17-19 are directed to a method, claim 26 is directed to a method, and claim 28 is directed to a computer equipment. Therefore, claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-15, 17, 19, 26, and 28 fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 1 as a whole is directed to processing a transaction based on related information. In particular, the claim recites the steps of maintaining identification information, receiving one or more input-output pairs, generating a transaction, sending the transaction, sending a request to confirm an intention of participation prior to receiving the one or more input-output pairs, and sending an indication of the intention of participation, which could be a process related to fundamental economic principles or practices and/or commercial interactions. Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea, which falls under the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas in Step 2A Prong One (MPEP 2106.04(a)). More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite the abstract idea while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements, according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
Claim 1 recites “[a] computer-implemented method, the method performed by a controller, wherein the controller is part of a network comprising two or more Internet of Things, IoT, devices, wherein the controller is configured to communicate with a blockchain outside of the network comprising the two or more IoT devices and is configured to communicate within the network comprising the two or more IoT devices, wherein the two or more IoT devices are not configured to communicate directly with the blockchain outside of the network, the method comprising: maintaining identification information comprising an index number assigned to each of the two or more IoT devices; receiving one or more input-output pairs of a blockchain transaction, wherein each input- output pair is associated with an assigned index number and wherein each input-output pair comprises data from a device of the two or more IoT devices; generating a blockchain transaction based on the two or more input-output pairs, wherein the generating the blockchain transaction comprises collating the input-output pairs to generate the blockchain transaction; sending the blockchain transaction to the blockchain; prior to receiving the one or more input-output pairs of the blockchain transaction, sending a request to each of the two or more IoT devices to confirm an intention to participate in a round of communication; and in response to the request, receiving an indication of the intention to participant in the round of communication from at least one of the two or more IoT devices.”
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two (MPEP 2106.04(d)), the non-underlined additional elements of claim 1 — a controller, a blockchain, a network, and two or more IoT devices — perform the steps of maintaining identification information and processing a transaction. The additional elements in these steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., generic computer components performing the generic computer functions of maintaining identification information and processing a transaction) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Claim 1 as a whole, judging from the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements of “wherein the controller is part of a network comprising two or more Internet of Things, IoT, devices, wherein the controller is configured to communicate with a blockchain outside of the network comprising the two or more IoT devices and is configured to communicate within the network comprising the two or more IoT devices, wherein the two or more IoT devices are not configured to communicate directly with the blockchain outside of the network” merely disclose known procedures for connecting IoT devices with a blockchain network via an intermediate controller/gateway/hub. Additionally, the additional elements of a blockchain and IoT devices generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Specifically, a controller, a blockchain, a network, and two or more IoT devices perform the steps or functions of maintaining identification information, receiving one or more input-output pairs, generating a transaction, sending the transaction, sending a request to confirm an intention of participation prior to receiving the one or more input-output pairs, and sending an indication of the intention of participation. The additional elements above merely serve as tools to perform the abstract idea and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; the claim does not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine; and the claim does not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful ways beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claim as a whole fails to recite a practical application of the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under Step 2B (MPEP 2106.05), the additional elements — a controller, a blockchain, a network, and two or more IoT devices — amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements of “wherein the controller is part of a network comprising two or more Internet of Things, IoT, devices, wherein the controller is configured to communicate with a blockchain outside of the network comprising the two or more IoT devices and is configured to communicate within the network comprising the two or more IoT devices, wherein the two or more IoT devices are not configured to communicate directly with the blockchain outside of the network” merely disclose known procedures for connecting IoT devices with a blockchain network via an intermediate controller/gateway/hub. Additionally, the additional elements of a blockchain and IoT devices generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As discussed above, taking the additional elements separately, a controller, a blockchain, a network, and two or more IoT devices perform the steps or functions of maintaining identification information, receiving one or more input-output pairs, generating a transaction, sending the transaction, sending a request to confirm an intention of participation prior to receiving the one or more input-output pairs, and sending an indication of the intention of participation. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements disclosed in the claim merely recites the concept of processing a transaction based on related information. Therefore, the use of the additional elements does nothing more than employing the computer components as tools to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of computer components to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 26 recites the abstract idea similar to that discussed above in connection with claim 1. The additional elements of a controller, a blockchain, one or more devices, and two or more IoT devices are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The additional elements of “wherein the controller is part of a network comprising two or more Internet of Things, IoT, devices, wherein the controller can communicate with a blockchain outside of the network comprising the two or more IoT devices and can communicate within the network comprising the two or more IoT devices, wherein the two or more IoT devices are not configured to communicate directly with the blockchain outside of the network” merely disclose known procedures for connecting IoT devices with a blockchain network via an intermediate controller/gateway/hub. Additionally, the additional elements of a blockchain and IoT devices generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the additional elements do not recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 28 recites the abstract idea similar to that discussed above in connection with claim 1. The additional elements of a computer equipment comprising a controller, memory which includes one or more memory units, and a processing apparatus comprising one or more processing units, a blockchain, a network, and one or more IoT devices are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The additional elements of “a controller configured to communicate with a blockchain outside of a network and with the network, wherein the network comprises the controller and two or more IoT devices, wherein the two or more IoT devices are not configured to communicate directly with the blockchain outside of the network” merely disclose known procedures for connecting IoT devices with a blockchain network via an intermediate controller/gateway/hub. Additionally, the additional elements of a blockchain and IoT devices generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the additional elements do not recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 2, 4-5, 7-15, 17, and 19 also have been considered for subject-matter eligibility. However, these claims fail to recite patent-eligible subject matter for the following reasons:
Claim 2 recites assigning the index number by mapping an identifier to the respective index number, which is an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements of two or more IoT devices are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Additionally, the additional elements of two or more IoT devices generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Furthermore, the additional element of communicating, to each device of the two or more IoT devices, an index number assigned to the respective device adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is recognized as a well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Therefore, the additional elements do not recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 4 recites an additional element of wherein the data from the device of the two or more IoT devices is signed by a signature corresponding to a public key of the device. The additional element merely describes the characteristics of the data from a device. The additional element is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element does not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. The additional element does not offer significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional element merely describes information included in the abstract idea.
Claim 5 recites: prior to sending the transaction, adding an additional outpoint to the transaction, the additional outpoint indicating signing all of the inputs and all of the outputs of the transaction; and wherein the additional outpoint comprises an amount to fund all other outpoints in the transaction, which is an abstract idea under the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements of a blockchain and a controller are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Additionally, the additional element of a blockchain generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the additional elements do not recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 7 recites identifying a transaction comprising at least one message, which is an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements of a blockchain, a network, and one or more IoT devices are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The additional elements of a blockchain and two or more IoT devices generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Furthermore, the additional elements of retrieving the at least one message from the blockchain and sending the at least one message to the at least one of the two or more IoT devices add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and are recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activities (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Therefore, the additional elements do not recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 8 recites wherein identifying the transaction comprises monitoring for a transaction identifying an identifier, which is an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements of a blockchain and one or more IoT devices are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Additionally, the additional elements of a blockchain and two or more IoT devices generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the additional elements do not recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 9 recites the additional elements of wherein identifying the transaction in the blockchain comprises receiving a notification from a device external to the network, the notification comprising an identifier of at least one of the two or more IoT devices. The additional element of wherein identifying the transaction in the blockchain comprises receiving a notification from a device external to the network adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is recognized as a well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)). The additional element of the notification comprising an identifier of at least one of the two or more IoT devices merely describes the characteristics of the notification. Therefore, the additional elements do not recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 10 recites the additional elements of maintaining address information comprising addresses of each of the two or more IoT devices; and wherein sending the at least one message to the at least one of the two or more IoT devices comprises transmitting the at least one message directly to the at least one of the two or more IoT devices based on the address information. These additional elements add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and are recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activities (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Additionally, the additional element of maintaining address information comprising addresses of each of the one or more devices merely describes the characteristics of the address information. Therefore, the additional elements do not recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 11 recites the additional elements of wherein sending the at least one message to the at least one of the two or more IoT devices comprises broadcasting, by the controller, the at least one message to one or more neighbouring devices in the network, wherein the one or more neighbouring devices broadcast the at least one message to one or more further neighbouring devices until the at least one message is delivered to the at least one of the two or more IoT devices. These additional elements add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and are recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activities (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Therefore, the additional elements do not recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 12 recites the additional elements of receiving, from a first device in the network, a message intended for a second device in the network; transmitting the message to the second device in the network. These additional elements add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and are recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activities (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Therefore, the additional elements do not recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 13 recites the additional element of discarding the message after transmitting to the second device in the network. The additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is recognized as a well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Therefore, the additional element does not recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 14 recites the additional elements of receiving, from a neighbouring device in the network, a message broadcast from the neighbouring device, the message intended for a third device in the network; broadcasting the message to one or more neighbouring devices in the network. These additional elements add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and are recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activities (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Therefore, the additional elements do not recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 15 recites the additional element of discarding the message after transmitting to the one or more neighbouring devices in the network. The additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is recognized as a well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Therefore, the additional element does not recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 17 recites removing or reassigning an index number based on rules, which is an abstract idea under the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements of two or more IoT devices, a network, and a controller are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Additionally, the additional elements of two or more IoT devices generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the additional elements do not recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 19 recites the additional elements of wherein: for any communication to the network from an external entity, a record is stored on the blockchain; for any communication from the network to an external entity, a record is stored on the blockchain. These additional elements add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and are recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activities (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Therefore, the additional elements do not recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
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 1-2, 4-5, 7-15, 17, 19, 26, and 28 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.
Claims 1 and 28 recite “receiving one or more input-output pairs of a blockchain transaction, wherein each input-output pair is associated with an assigned index number and wherein each input-output pair comprises data from a device of the two or more IoT devices; generating a blockchain transaction based on the two or more input-output pairs, wherein the generating the blockchain transaction comprises collating the input-output pairs to generate the blockchain transaction.” First, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the two or more input-output pairs” in the claim. Additionally, it is unclear whether the input-output pairs refer to one or more input-output pairs or two or more input-output pairs. For examination purpose, the input-output pairs are interpreted as referring to one or more input-output pairs.
Claim 26 recites “[a] method performed by a system including one or more devices and a controller configured to communicate with a blockchain, wherein the controller is part of a network comprising two or more Internet of Things, IoT, devices … maintaining, by the controller, identification information comprising an index number assigned to each of the one or more devices … generating, by each device of the two or more IoT devices, an input-output pair of a blockchain transaction associated with an assigned index number … generating, by the controller, a blockchain transaction based on the one or more input-output pairs, wherein the generating the blockchain transaction comprises collating the input- output pairs to generate the blockchain transaction … sending a request to each of the two or more IoT devices to confirm an intention to participate in a round of communication; in response to the request, sending, by at least odne device of the one or more devices, an indication of the intention to participate in the round of communication from at least one of the two or more IoT devices.” An index number is assigned to each of the one or more devices, and each of the two or more IoT devices generates an input-output pair associated with an assigned index number. Therefore, it is unclear whether an assigned index number is an index number assigned to one of one or more devices or to one of two or more IoT devices. What is unclear is the relationship between one or more devices and two or more IoT devices. Additionally, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the one or more input-output pairs” in the claim. It is unclear whether the input-output pairs refer to one or more input-output pairs or two or more input-output pairs. For examination purpose, the input-output pairs are interpreted as referring to one or more input-output pairs. Furthermore, it is unclear where an indication is from one of one or more devices or from one of two or more IoT devices. For examination purposes, one or more devices are interpreted as the same as two or more IoT devices.
Dependent claims 2, 4-5, 7-15, 17, 19 are rejected because the depend on the rejected independent claim 1.
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, 26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chau et al. (US 20210377006 A1) in view of Tuli et al. (WO 2020018316 A1).
Claims 1, 26, and 28:
Chau discloses the following:
computer equipment comprising a controller configured to communication with a blockchain outside of a network and with the network, wherein the network comprises the controller and two or more devices, wherein the two or more IoT devices are not configured to communicate directly with the blockchain outside of the network; memory comprising one or more memory units and processing apparatus comprising on or more processing units, wherein the memory stores code arranged to run on the processing apparatus, the code being configured so as when run on the processing apparatus, the processing apparatus performs a method; or a system including two or more IoT devices and a controller configured to communicate with a blockchain, wherein the controller is part of a network comprising the two or more devices, wherein the controller can communicate with the blockchain outside of the network comprising the two or more devices and can communication within the network comprising the two or more devices, wherein the two or more devices are not configured to communicate directly with the blockchain outside of the network. (See Figs. 1A-1E; paragraph [0040]; paragraph [0042], “[t]he disclosed blockchain solution allows devices and assets to be provisioned separately”; paragraphs [0047]-[0049]; paragraphs [0057]-[0058], “[t]he reporting and revocation engine 142 can receive a report of IoT data issues from a reporting and revocation engine client 144 of the device gateway 120. The reporting and revocation engine 142 also can receive requests from the device gateway 120 to revoke devices…. The notification engine 146 can communicate with a notification engine client 148 of the device gateway 120 to notify the device gateway 120 (or other target EEP) of reports submitted against devices and/or assets that the device gateway 120 serves”; Fig. 4; paragraph [0080], “[f]rom operation 410, the method 400 proceeds to operation 412. At operation 412, the device gateway 120 generates an eAsset-ID 156 (shown in FIG. 1D) for the device 102. The eAsset-ID 156, in this example, is a public eAsset-ID that is particular to the device 102. From operation 412, the method 400 proceeds to operation 414. At operation 414, the device gateway 120 registers public data and the device public eAsset-ID 1014 with the network gateway 116”; Fig. 11; paragraphs [0114]-[0116], “[a]t operation 1102, the device gateway 120 receives a message, such as the data message 104 (best shown in FIG. 1A)…. At operation 1112, the device gateway 120 encrypts the public blockchain transaction payload using the encryption key retrieved at operation 1110. From operation 1112, the method 1100 proceeds to operation 1114. At operation 1114, the device gateway 120 sends the public blockchain transaction payload to the public transaction pool 150 of the public blockchain 127”; Fig. 16; paragraph [0150]; Fig. 17; paragraphs [0152]-[0153]; Fig. 19; and paragraphs [0165]-[0166].)
maintaining identification information comprising an index number assigned to each of the two or more IoT devices. (See paragraph [0042], “[t]he disclosed blockchain solution allows devices and assets to be provisioned separately. An eAsset-ID can represent either an IoT Device (e.g., the data source device 102 or the IoT device 1504) or an IoT Asset (e.g., the asset 1502) as described above”; paragraphs [0057]-[0058], “[t]he reporting and revocation engine 142 can receive a report of IoT data issues from a reporting and revocation engine client 144 of the device gateway 120. The reporting and revocation engine 142 also can receive requests from the device gateway 120 to revoke devices…. The notification engine 146 can communicate with a notification engine client 148 of the device gateway 120 to notify the device gateway 120 (or other target EEP) of reports submitted against devices and/or assets that the device gateway 120 serves”; Fig. 4; paragraph [0080], “[f]rom operation 410, the method 400 proceeds to operation 412. At operation 412, the device gateway 120 generates an eAsset-ID 156 (shown in FIG. 1D) for the device 102. The eAsset-ID 156, in this example, is a public eAsset-ID that is particular to the device 102. From operation 412, the method 400 proceeds to operation 414. At operation 414, the device gateway 120 registers public data and the device public eAsset-ID 1014 with the network gateway 116”; and paragraph [0119], “[a]t operation 1208, the device gateway 120 determines if the device serial number is valid. If so, the method 1200 proceeds to operation 1210. At operation 1210, the device gateway 120 retrieves the device public eAsset-ID.”)
receiving one or more input-output pairs of a blockchain transaction from two or more IoT devices, wherein each input-output pair is associated with an assigned index number and wherein each input-output pair comprises data from a device of the two or more IoT devices; generating a blockchain transaction based on two or more input-output pairs wherein the generating the blockchain transaction comprises collating the one or more input-output pairs to generate the blockchain transactions; sending the blockchain transaction to the blockchain. (See paragraph [0042], “[t]he disclosed blockchain solution allows devices and assets to be provisioned separately…. By spending this digital currency against the IoT device's eAsset-ID or the IoT asset's eAsset-ID, the blockchain ledger infrastructure incorporates the IoT data into the ledger along with the amount spent. This IoT data then becomes permanently stored within the distributed ledger, and referenced by the unique eAsset-ID allocated for the particular IoT device or IoT asset that generated the IoT data”; paragraphs [0057]-[0058]; paragraph [0060], “[e]ach blockchain transaction can contain one or more eAsset-IDs 134 and an encrypted payload 136”; paragraph [0111], “[t]he device public eAsset-ID 1014 can uniquely identify the device 102 for use in transactions on the public blockchain 127”; Fig. 11; paragraphs [0114]-[0116], “[a]t operation 1102, the device gateway 120 receives a message, such as the data message 104 (best shown in FIG. 1A)…. At operation 1112, the device gateway 120 encrypts the public blockchain transaction payload using the encryption key retrieved at operation 1110. From operation 1112, the method 1100 proceeds to operation 1114. At operation 1114, the device gateway 120 sends the public blockchain transaction payload to the public transaction pool 150 of the public blockchain 127”; and paragraphs [0119]-[0120], “[a]t operation 1208, the device gateway 120 determines if the device serial number is valid. If so, the method 1200 proceeds to operation 1210. At operation 1210, the device gateway 120 retrieves the device public eAsset-ID…. From operation 1214, the method 1200 proceeds to operation 1216. At operation 1216, the device gateway 120 encrypts the public blockchain transaction payload using the encryption key retrieved at operation 1214. From operation 1216, the method 1200 proceeds to operation 1216. At operation 1216, the device gateway 120 sends the public blockchain transaction payload to the public transaction pool 150 of the public blockchain 127.”)
Chau does not explicitly disclose prior to receiving the one or more input-output pairs of the blockchain transaction, sending, by the controller/the processing apparatus, a request to each of the two or more IoT devices to confirm an intention to participate in a round of communication and in response to the request, receiving an indication of the intention to participate in the round of communication from at least one of the two or more IoT devices/sending, by at least one device of the two or more IoT devices, an indication of the intention to participate in the round of communication.
However, Tuli, an analogous art of a system facilitating transactions, discloses prior to receiving one or more items of a transaction, sending, by the controller/the processing apparatus, a request to each of the two or more devices to confirm an intention to participate in a round of communication and in response to the request, receiving an indication of the intention to participate in the round of communication from at least one of the two or more devices/ sending, by at least one device of the two or more devices, an indication of the intention to participate in the round of communication. (See Fig. 2; paragraph [0032]; paragraphs [0038]-[0041], “[a] request to process a transaction may be received from one or more entities that are registered with the transaction system 200. Such transactions may include a request to offer for purchase (e.g., offer an item for exchange), or to purchase of an offered item (e.g., a request to exchange a first item, such as a specified amount of a currency, for a second item)”; Fig. 7; and paragraph [0060], “[a]t 740, the event server may broadcast the sales event to one or more patron device. At 745, one or more client devices 705 may transmit a message, including an intent to participate in the sales event, to event server 710 At 750, the event server may accumulate the patron responses and determine whether a sales criteria, such as minimum number of sales, has been satisfied. At 755 and 760, the server system may execute the group purchase, such as by enabling patrons that expressed an into to participate in the sales event to purchase the offered item at the offered discount.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Tuli in the Chau system. Moreover, in order to improve the reliability of the Chau system, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to communicate with IoT devices before initiating an event, so that the system can effectively determine further actions based on the responses from the one or more IoT devices.
Examiner’s Note: Claim 28 recites a computer equipment. The cited blockchain, network, and two or more IoT devices are out of the scope of the claimed computer equipment and do not have patentable weight.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chau et al. (US 20210377006 A1) in view of Tuli et al. (WO 2020018316 A1), and further in view of Channa et al. (WO 2019177298 A1).
Claim 2:
Chau in view of Tuli discloses the limitations shown above.
Chau further discloses assigning the index number of each device of the two or more IoT devices by mapping an identifier of each of the two or more IoT devices to the respective index number. (See paragraph [0042]; paragraphs [0057]-[0058]; and paragraphs [0114]-[0115], “[a]t operation 1106, the device gateway 120 determines if the device serial number is valid. If so, the method 1100 proceeds to operation 1108. At operation 1108, the device gateway 120 retrieves the device public eAsset-ID 1014.”)
Neither Chau nor Tuli explicitly discloses communicating, to each device of the two or more IoT devices, an index number assigned to the respective device.
However, Channa, an analogous art of processing transactions between IoT devices and a blockchain, discloses communicating, to each device of the two or more devices, an index number assigned to the respective device. (See paragraph [57], pages 9-10, “[t]he transaction provider may be at least one of, but not limited to, a sensor device 611, an electronic device 613, a service provider 615, a user device 617, and/or the IoT devices 202A-202N…. In operation S6040, the intelligent real-time snapshot provider 620 may transmit the generated new snapshot ID to the transaction provider 610”; paragraph [62], pages 11-12, “a new snapshot ID is assigned to the IoT device 202A-202N in operation S964.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Channa in the Chau system as modified. Moreover, in order to improve the efficiency of the Chau system as modified, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to transmit the generated identifier to the IoT device, so that the IoT device can effectively construct a message for sending data to a blockchain system based on the generated identifier.
Claims 7-8, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chau et al. (US 20210377006 A1) in view of Tuli et al. (WO 2020018316 A1), and further in view of Novo (“Blockchain Meets IoT: an Architecture for Scalable Access Management in IoT,” 2018).
Claim 7:
Chau in view of Tuli discloses the limitations shown above.
Chau further discloses identifying a transaction on the blockchain comprising at least one message intended for at least one of the two or more IoT devices in the network; retrieving the at least one message from the blockchain. (See paragraph [0042]; paragraphs [0057]-[0058]; Fig. 13; and paragraphs [0123]-[0125], “[a]t operation 1304, the device gateway 120 parses a blockchain transaction ID (e.g., the blockchain Tx-ID 152) from the blockchain message. From operation 1304, the method 1300 proceeds to operation 1306. At operation 1306, the device gateway 120 parses an eAsset-ID 156 associated with the device 102 or the asset 1502 served by the device gateway 120…. The method 1400 proceeds as described below and returns result indicating that the public data is restricted (fail state), a symmetrical key for the eAsset-ID 156, or asymmetrical keys for the EEP-ID and eAsset-ID 156…. At operation 1316, the device gateway 120 decrypts the public data using the EEP-ID public key and the eAsset-ID public key.”)
Neither Chau nor Tuli explicitly discloses sending the at least one message to the at least one of the two or more IoT devices.
Novo discloses identifying a transaction on the blockchain comprising at least one message intended for at least one of the two or more devices in the network; retrieving the at least one message from the blockchain; sending the at least one message to the at least one of the two or more devices. (See Fig. 3; Section Policy Discovery, page 1190, “[w]hen device S2 in Fig. 3 wishes to access a resource hosted by device S1, S1 consequently, can request the access control information of S2 through the management hub.… The operation queries the information from the blockchain stored in the miner…. Once the miner informs about the access policy of S1 to the management hub, the management hub translates the answer back to S1. S1 acts accordingly depending on the information received by the management hub.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Novo in the Chau system as modified. Moreover, in order to improve the reliability of the Chau system as modified, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to send the retrieved message to an IoT device, so that the IoT device can perform further actions based on the received message.
Claim 8:
Chau in view of Tuli and Novo discloses the limitations shown above.
Chau further discloses wherein identifying the transaction in the blockchain comprises monitoring the blockchain for a transaction identifying an identifier of at least one of the two or more IoT devices. (See paragraph [0042]; paragraphs [0057]-[0058]; and paragraphs [0123]-[0127].)
Claim 10:
Chau in view of Tuli and Novo discloses the limitations shown above.
Novo further discloses maintaining address information comprising addresses of each of the two or more IoT devices; and wherein sending the at least one message to the at least one of the two or more IoT devices comprises transmitting the at least one message directly to the at least one of the two or more IoT devices based on the address. (See pages 1189-1190, “[m]anager nodes can also register IoT devices under a manager’s control…. As in the previous case, the manager will receive an address of the registered device that will be used to identify the device into the access management system…. However, the permissions in our implementation list the devices entitled to access a particular resource. Thenceforth, managers not only need to know the address of the devices under their control but also the address of the devices authorized to access their IoT devices. Managers can enforce the policy creating a transaction toward the smart contract with all that information…. Once the miner informs about the access policy of S1 to the management hub, the management hub translates the answer back to S1. S1 acts accordingly depending on the information received by the management hub.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Novo in the Chau system as modified. Moreover, in order to improve the efficiency of the Chau system as modified, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to maintain address information associated with IoT devices, so that the IoT devices can be located via the address information.
Claim 19:
Chau in view of Tuli discloses the limitations shown above.
Neither Chau nor Tuli explicitly discloses wherein: for any communication to the network from an external entity, a record is stored on the blockchain; for any communication from the network to an external entity, a record is stored on the blockchain.
However, Novo discloses wherein: for any communication to the network from an external entity, a record is stored on the blockchain; for any communication from the network to an external entity, a record is stored on the blockchain. (See pages 1189-1190, “[o]nce it obtains that information, it can register itself sending a transaction to the function RegisterManager defined in the smart contract. Thereafter, the manager will receive the address of its registration once the transaction is successfully accepted into the blockchain. That address will identify the manager in the access management system…. Thenceforth, managers not only need to know the address of the devices under their control but also the address of the devices authorized to access their IoT devices. Managers can enforce the policy creating a transaction toward the smart contract with all that information.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Novo in the Chau system as modified. Moreover, in order to improve the reliability of the Chau system as modified, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to store registration and policy information in a blockchain, so that the important information can be protected via the immutability of the blockchain.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chau et al. (US 20210377006 A1) in view of Tuli et al. (WO 2020018316 A1), and further in view of Anonymous (CN 112689009 A).
Claim 4:
Chau in view of Tuli discloses the limitations shown above.
Neither Chau nor Tuli explicitly discloses wherein the data from the device of the two or more IoT devices is signed by a signature corresponding to a public key of the device.
However, Anonymous (CN 112689009 A), an analogous art of processing transactions between IoT devices and a blockchain, discloses wherein the data from the device of the two or more devices is signed by a signature corresponding to a public key of the device. (See paragraphs 3-7, page 4, “the main device decides an identifier groupID of a virtual trusted area to be created and decides an identifier objectID of the main device … the member equipment sends a data communication request, wherein the communication request comprises: the exchanged data, XX, YY and ECDSA signature connecting previous fields using the member device's private key.” One of ordinary skill in the art knows that a private key corresponds to a public key.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Anonymous (CN 112689009 A) in the Chau system as modified. Moreover, in order to improve the security of the Chau system as modified, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to sign the message transmitted from an IoT device via a private key of the IoT device, so that the message can be validated based on a public key of the IoT device.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chau et al. (US 20210377006 A1) in view of Tuli et al. (WO 2020018316 A1), and further in view of Wang et al. (“ChainSplitter: Towards Blockchain-based Industrial IoT Architecture for Supporting Hierarchical Storage,” 2019).
Claim 5:
Chau in view of Tuli discloses the limitations shown above.
Chau discloses: prior to sending the blockchain transaction to the blockchain, adding an additional outpoint to the blockchain transaction, the additional outpoint indicating that the controller has encrypted all of the inputs and all of the outputs of the blockchain transaction; and wherein the additional outpoint comprises an amount to fund all other outpoints in the blockchain transaction. (See paragraph [0042] and paragraph [0120].)
Neither Chau nor Tuli explicitly discloses signing the blockchain transaction.
However, Wang, an analogous art of processing transactions between IoT devices and a blockchain, discloses prior to sending the blockchain transaction to the blockchain, adding an additional outpoint to the blockchain transaction, the additional outpoint indicating that the controller has signed all of the information of the blockchain transaction. (See Sections C-D, page 171, “[t]he blockchain connector can be implemented on the local IoT gateway, thus the gateway must have the ability to perform the specified signature scheme…. Once passing the transaction validation and the transactions are signed, the blockchain connector in a gateway, as a consensus node in the overlay network, can propose blocks from the transactions according to specific rules or smart contract [36]. The verified and signed transactions are then broadcasted, via the blockchain connector, to the overlay network for consensus processes. Typically, devices in an IoT application might generate many transactions at the same time.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Wang in the Chau system as modified. Moreover, in order to improve the authenticity and integrity of a transaction in the Chau system as modified, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to sign the blockchain transaction by a connector of the IoT gateway, so as to ensure that the blockchain transaction is authorized by the signing party and that the transaction has not been compromised.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chau et al. (US 20210377006 A1) in view of Tuli et al. (WO 2020018316 A1), and further in view of Yuan (CN 108023883 A).
Claim 9:
Chau in view of Tuli discloses the limitations shown above.
Chau discloses two or more IoT devices. (See paragraphs [0040]-[0042].)
Neither Chau nor Tuli explicitly discloses wherein identifying the transaction in the blockchain comprises receiving a notification from a device external to the network, the notification comprising an identifier of at least one of the two or more IoT devices.
However, Yuan, an analogous art of processing transactions between devices and a blockchain, discloses wherein identifying the transaction in the blockchain comprises receiving a notification from a device external to the network, the notification comprising an identifier of at least one of the two or more devices. (See claims 1-3. Yuan, in claims 1-3, discloses that a blockchain node receives an authentication request associated with a device from a managing device. The request includes the device identification information associated with the device. The blockchain node queries the blockchain to locate information associated with the device based on the device identification information.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Yuan in the Chau system as modified. Moreover, in order to improve the reliability of the Chau system as modified, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to query a blockchain for stored data associated with an IoT device based on the IoT device identification information, so that the system can determine whether the authorization request associated with the IoT device can be approved based on the data stored in the blockchain.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chau et al. (US 20210377006 A1) in view of Tuli et al. (WO 2020018316 A1), and further in view of Novo (“Blockchain Meets IoT: an Architecture for Scalable Access Management in IoT,” 2018) and Zhu et al. (CN 106789336 A).
Claim 11:
Chau in view of Tuli and Novo discloses the limitations shown above.
Novo further discloses wherein sending a message to the at least one of the two or more IoT devices comprises broadcasting, by the controller, the at least one message to one or more neighbouring devices in the network. (See pages 1185-1186 and Fig. 3.)
None of Chau, Tuli, and Novo explicitly discloses wherein the one or more neighbouring devices broadcast the at least one message to one or more further neighbouring devices until the at least one message is delivered to the at least one of the two or more IoT devices.
However, Zhu, an analogous art of processing transactions between IoT devices and the gateway, discloses wherein the one or more neighbouring devices broadcast the at least one message to one or more further neighbouring devices until the at least one message is delivered to the at least one of the two or more devices. (See paragraphs 5-8, page 8, “while being broadcast to adjacent node, communication reliability is improved using the transmission of adjacent node.” Zhu discloses broadcasting a message to the neighboring node for transmitting the message between the IoT and the gateway.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Zhu in the Chau system as modified. Moreover, in order to improve the communication reliability of the Chau system, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to broadcast the message to the neighboring node, so that the communication reliability is improved by using the transmission ability of the neighboring node.
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chau et al. (US 20210377006 A1) in view of Tuli et al. (WO 2020018316 A1), and further in view of Wang et al. (CN 114257623 A).
Claim 12:
Chau in view of Tuli discloses the limitations shown above.
Neither Chau nor Tuli explicitly discloses receiving, from a first device in the network, a message intended for a second device in the network and transmitting the message to the second device in the network.
However, Wang, an analogous art of processing transactions associated with IoT devices, discloses receiving, from a first device in the network, a message intended for a second device in the network; transmitting the message to the second device in the network. (See claim 9.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Wang in the Chau system as modified. Moreover, in order to improve the flexibility of the Chau system as modified, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to transmit the message between the IoT devices via a relay party, so that the message can be transmitted via a different communication channel.
Claims 13 and 15:
Chau in view of Tuli and Wang discloses the limitations shown above.
Wang further discloses discarding the message after transmitting to the second device in the network. (See claim 9.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Wang in the Chau system as modified. Moreover, in order to improve the efficiency of the Chau system as modified, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to discard the transmitted message, so that the efficiency of the system can be improved.
Claim 14:
Chau in view of Tuli discloses the limitations shown above.
Neither Chau nor Tuli explicitly discloses receiving, from a neighbouring device in the network, a message broadcast from the neighbouring device, the message intended for a third device in the network and broadcasting the message to one or more neighbouring devices in the network.
However, Wang, an analogous art of processing transactions associated with IoT devices, discloses receiving, from a neighbouring device in the network, a message broadcast from the neighbouring device, the message intended for a third device in the network; broadcasting the message to one or more neighbouring devices in the network. (See claim 9.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Wang in the Chau system as modified. Moreover, in order to improve the flexibility of the Chau system as modified, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to transmit the message between two IoT devices via a relay party, so that the message can be transmitted via a different communication channel.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chau et al. (US 20210377006 A1) in view of Tuli et al. (WO 2020018316 A1), and further in view of Chen et al. (CN 110113164 A).
Claim 17:
Chau in view of Tuli discloses the limitations shown above.
Chau discloses an index number for a device of the two or more IoT devices. (See paragraphs [0040]-[0042])
Chau further discloses revoking a device. (See paragraph [0057].)
Neither Chau nor Tuli explicitly discloses wherein the index number for a device of the two or more IoT devices is removed or assigned to a different device if at least one of the following occurs: the device communicates that the device is leaving the network; the device does not reply to messages from the controller for a predetermined period of time; the device is identified by the controller as not broadcasting message to neighbouring devices.
However, Chen, an analogous art of managing IoT devices, discloses wherein the identification information for a device of the two or more devices is removed if at least one of the following occurs: a device communicates that the device is leaving the network. (See paragraphs 3-8, page 10, “[u]ser is determining that de-registration request information can be sent by not using IOT equipment, include in the de-registration request information…. The key information of IOT equipment, that is, the public private key pair of the IOT equipment to be nullified is deleted, to complete the cancellation to IOT equipment.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Chen in the Chau system as modified. Moreover, in order to improve the security of the Chau system as modified, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to delete the identification information associated with an IoT device if a deregister request of the IoT device is received, so as to ensure that the deregistered device is in an inactive status.
Conclusion
The prior art, made of record and not relied upon, is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Lundqvist et al. (“Thing-to-Thing Electricity Micro Payments Using Blockchain Technology,” 2017) discloses a single-fee micro payment protocol that incrementally aggregates multiple smaller payments into one larger transaction requiring only one transaction fee.
Vincent (US 12689625 B2) discloses controlling access to and/or use of an Internet of Things (IoT) device having a Blockchain IoT Device (BID) agent that executes predetermined instructions stored off the IoT device and accessed via cryptographic keys.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUNLING DING, whose telephone number is (571)270-3605. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 7:30 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, an 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, Neha Patel, can be reached at 571-270-1492. 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.
/CHUNLING DING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights