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 .
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.
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 23-36 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/14/2024 has been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Form PTO-1449 is signed and attached hereto.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 09/27/2024 are accepted by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 33-36 recites, “system according to claim 32” in line 1. For clarity and consistency, it is suggested to change “the system according to claim 32”.
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 limitation recites in claim 23, “(referred to as speed of light)” and “(referred to as Special Relativity)” renders the claim vague and indefinite. The structure of “(referred to as speed of light)” and “(referred to as Special Relativity)” are unclear whether the limitations between the parenthesis are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 23 recites, "it" which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what "it" is refers to.
Claim 23 recites, "those" which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what "those" is refers to.
Claim 23 recites, "the next node" which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites, "the validation message" which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites, "the complete sequence of nodes" which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites, "the leader node" which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites, "the several sequences of hopes" which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites, "these elapsed time" which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what "these elapsed time" is refers to.
Claim 23 recites, "the full sequence of traversed nodes" which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites, "the path generation" which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
In claim 23, the phrase “possibly” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 23 recites, "their own hops" which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what "their own hops" is refers to.
In claim 24, the phrase “actually” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In claim 24, the phrase "which may be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In claim 25, the phrase “possibly” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In claim 25, the phrase "may be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 25 recites, "the highest probability" which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what " the highest probability " is refers to.
In claim 25, the term “hence” in the limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as to the true patentable measure of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In claim 26, the phrase "can be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 27 recites, "it" which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what "it" is refers to.
Claim 27 recites, "this proof" which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what " this proof " is refers to.
In claim 27, the phrase "may include" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In claim 27, the phrase "may be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In claim 27, the phrase "can be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In claim 28, the term "such as” in the limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as to the true patentable measure of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 28 recites, "this total" which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what " this proof " is refers to.
In claim 28, the phrase "can be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In claim 29, the phrase "can be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In claim 29, the phrase “examples of such process include, but are not limited to” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In claim 30, the phrase “possibly” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In claim 30, the phrase "can be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 30 recites, "it" which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what "it" is refers to.
The limitation recites in claim 30, the phrase “such as (but not limited to)” renders the claim vague and indefinite. The structure of “such as (but not limited to)” is unclear whether the limitations between the parenthesis are part of the claimed invention.
In claim 30, the term "such as” in the limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as to the true patentable measure of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In claim 31, the phrase "cannot be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The limitation recites in claim 31, the phrase “such as (but not limited to)” renders the claim vague and indefinite. The structure of “such as (but not restricted to)” is unclear whether the limitations between the parenthesis are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 32 recites, "the required software" which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 32 recites, "all computations" which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what "all computations" is refers to.
Claim 32 recites, "the Space PoET consensus" which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
In claim 32, the term "such hardware” in the limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as to the true patentable measure of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 32 recites, "other data" which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what "other data" is refers to.
Claim 32 recites, "them" which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what "them" is refers to.
In claim 32, the phrase "can be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In claim 32, the phrase “possibly” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 32 recites, "all required calculation" which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what "all required calculation" is refers to.
Claim 32 recites, "generally" which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what "generally" is refers to.
In claim 32, the phrase "it can be (but not limited to)" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In claim 33, the phrase “like” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In claim 33, the phrase “through” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 34 recites, "the modulation/demodulation (modem)" which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what " this proof " is refers to.
In claim 34, the term "such as (but not limited to)” in the limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as to the true patentable measure of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In claim 35, the phrase “including, but are not limited to” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In claim 35, the term "such auxiliary sources of data can be” in the limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as to the true patentable measure of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In claim 35, the term “(like atomic clock)” in the limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as to the true patentable measure of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In claim 36, the term "such as” in the limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as to the true patentable measure of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In claim 36, the term “(for example QRNG)” in the limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as to the true patentable measure of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In claim 36, the phrase "can be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In claim 36, the phrase "cannot be " renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the above independent claims 23 and 32 and therefore are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) by virtue of their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
1. Claims 23-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masini (US Pub No. 10,833,864, hereinafter “Masini”) in view of Niewiadomski et al. (US Pub No. 2022/0063671, hereinafter “Niewiadomski”).
Regarding claim 23, Masini does disclose, a method for Proof-of-Elapsed-Time (PoET), referred to as Space PoET (Masini, (col. 6 lines 28-30), Proof-of-elapsed-time consensus algorithms required specialized hardware to generate a tamper resistant proof of elapsed time in leader election), a consensus protocol used to secure the transaction data of blockchains or decentralized networks or ledgers (Masini, (col. 5 lines 34-36), miner nodes 104 execute the proof-of-work consensus protocol of a bitcoin blockchain network 112), based on the finite speed of light in the vacuum (referred to as speed of light) as per the special theory of relativity (referred to as Special Relativity), the method comprising: sending a validation message through several sequence of hops, hops made of nodes all situated in different locations, those nodes arranged in sequences building paths among the nodes participating in the consensus (Masini, (col. 13 lines 32-36 and figure 3), the blockchain user 302 connects to the network through a peer node 312. Before proceeding with any transactions, the peer node 312 retrieves the user's enrollment and transaction certificates from the certificate authority 318), signing cryptographically by each node the received validation message before re-transmitting it to the next node in the sequence as proof that the validation message effectively traveled through the complete sequence of nodes (Masini, (col. 9 lines 21-30), when a predetermined number of transactions 116 are received, a subset of the gaming peers 128 would be elected dynamically by taking into account the actions performed in the game. One of the gaming peers 128 in the subset is randomly selected to be the leader, and generates the next block 120 of transactions 116. The next block 120 includes a game state hash and a signature. The leader broadcasts the block 120 to the rest of the gaming peers 128 of the subset. Every gaming peer 128 of the subset validates the block 120 and adds its own signature to the block 120), using the transmission time along each sequence of nodes of the validation message to generate an elapsed time or sleeping time that determines the next leader node between the several sequences of hops, participating to the PoET consensus (Masini, (col. 6 lines 28-30), Proof-of-elapsed-time consensus algorithms required specialized hardware to generate a tamper resistant proof of elapsed time in leader election; (col. 14 lines 37-41), Gaming peers 411 of a massive multiplayer online gaming network 124 listen for the transactions 431. When a predetermined number of transactions 431 has been received, the gaming peers 411 elect a subset of the gaming peers 435 to participate in consensus for the received transactions.), the transmitted information represented by the validation message (col. 16 lines 41-42), rule change messages may be cryptographically validated in order to be accepted by the blockchain software), wherein a minimum transmission time occurs between two or more validating nodes, and these elapsed times accumulate along the full sequence of traversed nodes, subsequent nodes being separated by nonzero physical distances that impose a minimum transmission time (Masini, (col. 15 lines 59-66), there is no fixed interval for the distributed random number generation to be executed. The random number generation occurs before the consensus round to select the subset of gaming peers 411 that will participate, so it depends on the total time needed to execute one round of the disclosed consensus protocol. The total time may be tuned depending on the number of transactions 431 (i.e. predetermined number) required to generate a block 120), counting at least one hop between two nodes (Masini, (col. 13 lines 32-36), the blockchain user 302 connects to the network through a peer node 312. Before proceeding with any transactions, the peer node 312 retrieves the user's enrollment and transaction certificates from the certificate authority 318), wherein a source of sufficiently high entropy is used to introduce randomness or pseudorandomness into the path generation, ensuring a level of security through randomness or pseudorandomness, possibly employing a related random number generator or using any randomness certification protocol also based on elapsed times possibly resulting from Space PoET (Masini, (col. 6 lines 7-21), The consensus protocol disclosed herein is designed to provide trust based on the fact that gaming peers 128 executing the protocol are valid players of the massive multiplayer online game corresponding with the massive multiplayer online gaming network 124. Valid players may be confirmed by checking random elements of a game state, which provides the basis for the election rules 148. Random selection of election rules 148 is performed between all the gaming peers 128 participating in the consensus round (thus the need for the distributed random number generation), to ensure that no gaming peer 128 can tamper the election rules 148 selection (and thereby choose an election rule 148 that benefits a malicious gaming peer 128) and to ensure the leader election cannot be tampered with), allowing at least two nodes to independently initiate and execute their own hop path processes, each generating an elapsed time measurement, and wherein these elapsed times being used in a competitive selection process to determine the next validating node of transaction data in the Space PoET consensus protocol (Masini, (col. 11 lines 48-63), the transaction flow 250 may include a transaction proposal 291 sent by an application client node 260 to an endorsing peer node 281. The endorsing peer 281 may verify the client signature and execute a chaincode function to initiate the transaction. The output may include the chaincode results, a set of key/value versions that were read in the chaincode (read set), and the set of keys/values that were written in chaincode (write set). The proposal response 292 is sent back to the client 260 along with an endorsement signature, if approved. The client node 260 assembles the endorsements into a transaction payload 293 and broadcasts it to an ordering service node 284. The ordering service node 284 then delivers ordered transactions as blocks to all peers 281-283 on a channel. Before committal to the blockchain, each peer 281-283 may validate the transaction; (Masini, (col. 15 lines 60-66), The random number generation occurs before the consensus round to select the subset of gaming peers 411 that will participate, so it depends on the total time needed to execute one round of the disclosed consensus protocol. The total time may be tuned depending on the number of transactions 431 (i.e. predetermined number) required to generate a block 120).
Masini does not explicitly disclose but the analogous art Niewiadomski discloses, where the minimum elapsed time is ensured by the finite speed of light (Niewiadomski, (para. [0066]), The vehicle computer 110 can measure a time elapsed from emitting the light beam to receiving the reflected light beam. Based on the time elapsed and the speed of light, the vehicle computer 110 can determine the distance between the vehicle 105 and the object. The distance threshold may be determined empirically, e.g., based on a minimum distance at which the vehicle computer 110 can operate the vehicle 105 based on a type of object).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Masini by including the minimum elapsed time is ensured by the finite speed of light taught by Niewiadomski for the advantage of preventing the vehicle from impacting the moveable object (Niewiadomski, (para. [0075])).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Masini-Niewiadomski does disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the validation message contains a random seed and other specific meta-data, is transmitted from the first node to the second node(s), then from the second node(s) to the third node(s), and so on until the last node(s), each node in the sequence of hops successively receives, signs and transmits the message to guarantee that the message actually followed the sequence of hops, the final validating node being the destination of the last hop in the sequence, which may be the initial validating node or any other node in the sequence which uses the hop history signed by all the traversed nodes in the sequence resulting into a final random elapsed time (Masini, (col. 9 lines 21-30), when a predetermined number of transactions 116 are received, a subset of the gaming peers 128 would be elected dynamically by taking into account the actions performed in the game. One of the gaming peers 128 in the subset is randomly selected to be the leader, and generates the next block 120 of transactions 116. The next block 120 includes a game state hash and a signature. The leader broadcasts the block 120 to the rest of the gaming peers 128 of the subset. Every gaming peer 128 of the subset validates the block 120 and adds its own signature to the block 120).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Masini-Niewiadomski does disclose the method according to claim 1 , wherein at each node, the validation message is possibly re-transmitted from the current node to several other next nodes in parallel, using fanning, possibly resulting into more than one sequence of candidate nodes, in order to reduce the risk of hop-path interruption resulting from the fact that some nodes may be non-working, or unreachable, ensuring that the final node has the highest probability to receive the validation message and hence finalize the transaction data validation process, while increasing at the same time the randomness of the hop path (Masini, (col. 6 lines 7-21), The consensus protocol disclosed herein is designed to provide trust based on the fact that gaming peers 128 executing the protocol are valid players of the massive multiplayer online game corresponding with the massive multiplayer online gaming network 124. Valid players may be confirmed by checking random elements of a game state, which provides the basis for the election rules 148. Random selection of election rules 148 is performed between all the gaming peers 128 participating in the consensus round (thus the need for the distributed random number generation), to ensure that no gaming peer 128 can tamper the election rules 148 selection (and thereby choose an election rule 148 that benefits a malicious gaming peer 128) and to ensure the leader election cannot be tampered with).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Masini-Niewiadomski does disclose the method according to claims 1, wherein the validation message is re-transmitted through a number of successive nodes building the hop path, this number of nodes ranging from 2 to N with N greater or equal to 2, wherein the random selection of subsequent nodes in the sequence, including the number of nodes N, is done prior to the beginning of the hop-path travel or at the beginning of the hop-path travel at the first node, or progressively during the re- transmissions at all traversed nodes following a random-walk approach, and wherein the final node, which is the node number N, and which evaluates the final elapsed time of the hop-path, can be the same as the first node of the node path, or can be any another node from the sequence of nodes (Masini, (col. 13 lines 32-36 and figure 3), the blockchain user 302 connects to the network through a peer node 312. Before proceeding with any transactions, the peer node 312 retrieves the user's enrollment and transaction certificates from the certificate authority 318).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Masini-Niewiadomski does disclose the method according to claim 1 wherein nodes are the fundamental computing entities which achieve the elements of providing security against manipulation of the randomness or pseudo randomness, the elapsed amounts of time (or minimum transmission times), and a minimum elapsed amount of time guaranteed between two nodes of each pair of nodes, and accumulated amount of time (or minimum transmission time) along all nodes traversed by the message for each sequence of nodes, each node signing the validation message to prove that it passed through it, and modifying the validation message accordingly to store this proof within this validation message, storing cryptographic proof of traversal, which may include a digital signature, cryptographic commitment, or other verifiable proof, as well as any meta-data that helps to estimate the final elapsed time at the final node, resulting ad minima from the sum of times elapsed for each hop in the sequence (Masini, (col. 9 lines 21-30), when a predetermined number of transactions 116 are received, a subset of the gaming peers 128 would be elected dynamically by taking into account the actions performed in the game. One of the gaming peers 128 in the subset is randomly selected to be the leader, and generates the next block 120 of transactions 116. The next block 120 includes a game state hash and a signature. The leader broadcasts the block 120 to the rest of the gaming peers 128 of the subset. Every gaming peer 128 of the subset validates the block 120 and adds its own signature to the block 120), and wherein each node signs the validation message using its own secret data, which may be known only to the node or also to other nodes, depending on the cryptographic scheme used, but publishes in some way any information allowing any external entity to verify the digital signature of this validation message, like a public key which can be used by all other nodes to verify this signature as evidence that the message actually passed through the aforementioned node, but not allowing unwanted forgery, and where any suitable and secure cryptographic algorithm can be used, for example a quantum-resistant cryptographic scheme (Masini, (col. 11 lines 48-63), the transaction flow 250 may include a transaction proposal 291 sent by an application client node 260 to an endorsing peer node 281. The endorsing peer 281 may verify the client signature and execute a chaincode function to initiate the transaction. The output may include the chaincode results, a set of key/value versions that were read in the chaincode (read set), and the set of keys/values that were written in chaincode (write set). The proposal response 292 is sent back to the client 260 along with an endorsement signature, if approved. The client node 260 assembles the endorsements into a transaction payload 293 and broadcasts it to an ordering service node 284. The ordering service node 284 then delivers ordered transactions as blocks to all peers 281-283 on a channel. Before committal to the blockchain, each peer 281-283 may validate the transaction; (Masini, (col. 15 lines 60-66), The random number generation occurs before the consensus round to select the subset of gaming peers 411 that will participate, so it depends on the total time needed to execute one round of the disclosed consensus protocol. The total time may be tuned depending on the number of transactions 431 (i.e. predetermined number) required to generate a block 120).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Masini-Niewiadomski does disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein a node in the sequence, such as the final node, obtains a verifiable record of the sequence of traversed nodes, with each traversal certified by cryptographic proof stored in the validation message, and where the total elapsed time of a sequence of nodes is estimated using at least the metadata contained in the validation message, ensuring that any node participating in the consensus can verify it thanks to the nodes' public data / public keys, this elapsed time being associated with the final node, the original validating node, or any other node within the sequence, this total elapsed time being a wake-up time of the next leading node candidate in the Space PoET consensus, and wherein time data in the Space PoETconsensus can be either relative in some arbitrary unit or be quantified using external official date, time or timestamps (Masini, (col. 9 lines 21-30), when a predetermined number of transactions 116 are received, a subset of the gaming peers 128 would be elected dynamically by taking into account the actions performed in the game. One of the gaming peers 128 in the subset is randomly selected to be the leader, and generates the next block 120 of transactions 116. The next block 120 includes a game state hash and a signature. The leader broadcasts the block 120 to the rest of the gaming peers 128 of the subset. Every gaming peer 128 of the subset validates the block 120 and adds its own signature to the block 120).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Masini-Niewiadomski does disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein such estimated elapsed times calculated by the Space PoET consensus further secure any calculation of a random number, seed, or any message distribution. Such calculation can be used by any process requiring verifiable randomness or random elapsed time -based computation to ensure fairness and resistance to manipulation, preventing last-draw attacks or biases in random number generation, without the need for energy- intensive calculations. Examples of such processes include, but are not limited to, adaptations of slow-timed hashing to a relativistic version to incorporate the communication hop between nodes, namely a "Slow-Timed Hop" (SloTH), and using time asymmetry between the commit and output phases of an "UNCOntestable Random Number" (UNiCORN) collusion-resistant protocol which can guarantee un-flawed and un-biased random outputs, even if there is only one honest actor in the contribution phase (Masini, (col. 9 lines 21-30), when a predetermined number of transactions 116 are received, a subset of the gaming peers 128 would be elected dynamically by taking into account the actions performed in the game. One of the gaming peers 128 in the subset is randomly selected to be the leader, and generates the next block 120 of transactions 116. The next block 120 includes a game state hash and a signature. The leader broadcasts the block 120 to the rest of the gaming peers 128 of the subset. Every gaming peer 128 of the subset validates the block 120 and adds its own signature to the block 120).
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Masini-Niewiadomski does disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein all random numbers used by the nodes participating in the Space PoET consensus, in cryptographic algorithms, in the selection of the next nodes in the sequences of nodes, in the determination of the number of nodes, in the fanning of validation messages, or any other process requiring randomness, is determined from the contributions of at least one entropy source possibly combined from at least one Random Number Generator (RNG), and possibly combined with at least one Pseudo Random Number Generator (PRNG) to improve statistical distribution (Masini, (col. 6 lines 28-30), Proof-of-elapsed-time consensus algorithms required specialized hardware to generate a tamper resistant proof of elapsed time in leader election), wherein the entropy source can be any unpredictable and erratic physical process measured in-situ, such as (but not limited to): thermal noise, radio- waves, electric fields, magnetic fields, solar light, ionizing radiation (protons, electrons, heavy ions, X-rays, gamma-rays), wind, water flows, as well as any internal entropy generator that does not rely on external randomness sources, such as hardware-based quantum random number generators (QRNGs), lava-lamp based systems, , or any external server providing true random numbers, assuming the quality of its entropy is trusted, and accessible by any communication link (Masini, (col. 6 lines 28-30), Proof-of-elapsed-time consensus algorithms required specialized hardware to generate a tamper resistant proof of elapsed time in leader election).
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Masini-Niewiadomski does disclose the method according to claim 1 wherein sequences of nodes define sequences of hops with some minimum transmission time, in any environment where distances between nodes exist and cannot be reduced to zero, including a constellation of Earth-orbiting satellites hosting the nodes, as orbital nodes, such as (but not restricted to) Low Earth Orbit (LEO), Medium Earth Orbit (MEO), or GEO-stationary Orbit (GEO), satellites or stations orbiting the Earth, the Moon, the Sun, Mars, asteroids, nodes placed on the surface of such objects other than Earth, including ground-based nodes on Earth like in a fleet of vehicles, drones, planes, boats, trucks, trains, cars, different locations within the same building, any combination of Earth-based nodes or relays and space-based nodes or relays, or within the same computing device e.g. a computer, a Printed Circuit Board (PCB), a processor, as long as inter-node distances do exist and are guaranteed to be above some minimal value (Niewiadomski, (para. [0066]), The vehicle computer 110 can measure a time elapsed from emitting the light beam to receiving the reflected light beam. Based on the time elapsed and the speed of light, the vehicle computer 110 can determine the distance between the vehicle 105 and the object. The distance threshold may be determined empirically, e.g., based on a minimum distance at which the vehicle computer 110 can operate the vehicle 105 based on a type of object).
Regarding claim 32, the substance of the claimed invention is similar to that of claim 23. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Masini-Niewiadomski does disclose System according to claim 32, wherein the hardware achieving the message transmission, which transmit validation messages from node to node, uses any transmission carriers like radio- frequency emitter/receivers and antennas, through the air or in the vacuum of space for satellite communications, maser emitter/receivers, infrared (IR), visible or ultraviolet (UV) laser emitter/receivers, optical fibers, copper cables, sound waves , or internal wires or sockets on a chip, or communication buses (Niewiadomski, (para. [0066]), The vehicle computer 110 can measure a time elapsed from emitting the light beam to receiving the reflected light beam. Based on the time elapsed and the speed of light, the vehicle computer 110 can determine the distance between the vehicle 105 and the object. The distance threshold may be determined empirically, e.g., based on a minimum distance at which the vehicle computer 110 can operate the vehicle 105 based on a type of object).
Regarding claim 34, the combination of Masini-Niewiadomski does disclose System according to claim 32, in which the hardware transmitting the validation message from one node to another node, performs the modulation/demodulation (modem) to convert digital information to analogue signals and vice-versa, using any suitable protocol such as (but not limited to): ADSL, Ethernet, Internet, TCP/IP, UDP, WiFi, LiFi, 3G, 4G, 5G, lOG, HF, VHF, UHF, laser communication protocols, or without explicit modulation/demodulation when inside the same computing device nodes (Masini, (col. 9 lines 21-30), when a predetermined number of transactions 116 are received, a subset of the gaming peers 128 would be elected dynamically by taking into account the actions performed in the game. One of the gaming peers 128 in the subset is randomly selected to be the leader, and generates the next block 120 of transactions 116. The next block 120 includes a game state hash and a signature. The leader broadcasts the block 120 to the rest of the gaming peers 128 of the subset. Every gaming peer 128 of the subset validates the block 120 and adds its own signature to the block 120).
Regarding claim 35, the combination of Masini-Niewiadomski does disclose System according to claim 32, permitting the connection to any auxiliary source of data useful for the Space PoET consensus, including, but not limited to: time, time stamps, locations or random numbers. Such auxiliary sources of data can be: Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) like: GPS, Galileo or GLONASS; on-line time servers on the Internet; connection to True Random Number Generators (TRNG) servers or devices to get reliable random numbers; connection to a clock (like atomic clock (Masini, (col. 6 lines 28-30), Proof-of-elapsed-time consensus algorithms required specialized hardware to generate a tamper resistant proof of elapsed time in leader election).
Regarding claim 36, the combination of Masini-Niewiadomski does disclose System according to claim 32, wherein comprising an internal sources of entropy or connected to an external sources of entropy, achieving the functionalities of providing true entropy and random numbers, such as : any thermal, optical or quantum entropy generators (for example QRNG), any sensor, optical sensors, thermal sensors, complete IR/visible/UV optical camera, ionizing radiation detectors, charged particle detectors, magnetic field sensors, radio-frequency receivers, device generating node-specific randomness that can be used to generate the secret or private key used to sign the validation messages from some Physical Unclonable Feature (PUF) within a node, such as an electronic chip, an optical generator, a thermal generator, having some intrinsic defects which cannot be reproduced even by the manufacturer of this device, and for which these defects can be read and used as a specific "fingerprint" associated with a single node (Masini, (col. 6 lines 7-21), The consensus protocol disclosed herein is designed to provide trust based on the fact that gaming peers 128 executing the protocol are valid players of the massive multiplayer online game corresponding with the massive multiplayer online gaming network 124. Valid players may be confirmed by checking random elements of a game state, which provides the basis for the election rules 148. Random selection of election rules 148 is performed between all the gaming peers 128 participating in the consensus round (thus the need for the distributed random number generation), to ensure that no gaming peer 128 can tamper the election rules 148 selection (and thereby choose an election rule 148 that benefits a malicious gaming peer 128) and to ensure the leader election cannot be tampered with).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent No. 12,265,953, “when miners on the blockchain receive the transaction request directed to the contract wallet or associated digital asset address, with the request message, miners on the blockchain will confirm the transaction, including verifying that the message was properly signed by Alice. In Step S1004-b, the miners may verify that Alice has sufficient amount of tokens to perform the requested transaction, for example, by comparing Alice's balance against Alice's token balance as indicated on the blockchain”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MORSHED MEHEDI whose telephone number is (571) 270-7640. The examiner can normally be reached on M - F, 8:00 am to 4:00 pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Linglan Edwards can be reach on (571) 270-5440. The fax 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 their 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.
/MORSHED MEHEDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2408