Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-11 and 16-24 are pending.
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/30/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-11 and 16-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites, “the first pre-election message is sent by the first node device when the first node device determines that the master node device is not in a working state…maintaining a waiting state of the first pre-election message in the cache when determining that the master node device is still in the working state.” Firstly, “maintaining a waiting state of the first pre-election message in the cache when determining that the master node is still in the working state” contradicts the previous recitation of “the first pre-election message is sent by the first node device when the first node device determines that the master node device is not in a working state.”
In other words, the claim establishes the first message is sent by the first node when that node determines the master node device is not working, but then recites, a waiting state is maintained for the first message when determining the master device is still in a working state. That is, how can the master device still be in a working state when the claim has only established that it was determined not to be in a working state?
Claims 16 and 17 recite similar subject matter to that of claim 1 and are similarly rejected.
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, 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.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 16, 17, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naeimi et al (US Pat. 6,363,416) in view of Han et al (US Pub. No. 2020/0052954), hereafter, “Han.”
As to claim 1, Naeimi discloses a node election voting method based on a consensus system, wherein the consensus system comprises a plurality of node devices, the plurality of node devices comprise a master node device playing a master node role (Abstract) and the method is performed by any second node device and comprises:
receiving a first pre-election message sent by a first node device, wherein the first pre-election message is used to prepare for election of the master node role, and the first pre-election message is sent by the first node device when the first node device determines that the master node device is not in a working state (Fig. 2, label 250; Figs. 5 and 6; column 9, lines 54-67 particularly, “In step 610, the initiating node broadcasts a master negotiation request (MNR) message over the network to commence negotiation for master status.”; note the process proceeds from Fig. 2, label 250 to the election of Fig. 5 which includes the negotiation of Fig. 6);
storing the first pre-election message (column 9, lines 54-67 particularly, “In step 620, the initiating node monitors the network traffic for any MC message or MNR message from a competing node. After waiting a specific period of time ("negotiation timeout") for such messages, process 600 proceeds to step 630.”; any initiating node stores the MNRs from a “competing node”)
maintaining a waiting state of the first pre-election message when determining that the master node device is still in the working state (column 9, lines 54-67 particularly, “In step 620, the initiating node monitors the network traffic for any MC message or MNR message from a competing node. After waiting a specific period of time ("negotiation timeout") for such messages, process 600 proceeds to step 630.”; any initiating node stores the MNRs a “competing node”; that is a competing node reads on “the first node”) and
sending a pre-voting message to the corresponding first node device based on the first pre-election message in the cache when determining that the master node device is not in the working state so that the first node device sends a first election message to another node device when receiving more than a first quantity of pre-voting messages (column 10, lines 10-34, particularly, “in the present embodiment, an MC message indicates that a competing node is declaring itself to be the new master, while an MNR message indicates a competing node has also begun negotiation in an attempt to become the master, just as the initiating node has. Therefore, when the initiating node receives either an MC message or an MNR message from a competing node within the negotiation timeout, the resources of the initiating node and the competing node are compared in an arbitration.”; arbitration reading on “first election message” and only occurs if there is a competing node, i.e. “receiving more than a first quantity of pre-voting messages”).
However, Naeimi does not explicitly disclose storing the pre-election messages in a cache.
But, Han discloses storing pre-election messages in a cache (Abstract, discloses Raft consensus protocol used in election and utilizing a cache for storage, [0045] and [0051])
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Naeimi and Han in order to utilize a known and reliable means of storage and improve the speed and efficiency of the system.
As to claims 16 and 17, they are rejected by a similar rationale by that set forth in claim 1’s rejection.
As to claims 5 and 21, the teachings of Naeimi and Han as combined for the same reasons set forth in claim 1’s rejection further disclose the step of maintaining a waiting state of the first pre-election message in the cache comprises: maintaining the waiting state of the first pre-election message in the cache within first duration, wherein the first duration is greater than preset experience duration; and the method further comprises: discarding the first pre-election message when still determining that the master node device is in the working state until the first duration ends (Naeimi, column 9, line 54-column 10, line 34 with Han disclosing the use of a cache in [0045]).
As to claim 6, the teachings of Naeimi and Han as combined for the same reasons set forth in claim 1’s rejection further disclose determining whether an election timer of the second node device expires, upon determining that the election timer of the second node device expires, determining that the master node device is not in the working state, wherein the election timer is reset when a message is received from the master node device (Naeimi, column 9, line 54-column 10, line 34).
As to claims 8 and 22, the teachings of Naeimi and Han as combined for the same reasons set forth in claim 1’s rejection further disclose generating a second pre-election message when determining that the master node device is not in the working state; and sending the second pre-election message to another node device in the consensus system (Naeimi, column 9, line 54-column 10, line 34).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naeimi and Han in view of what was well known in the art prior to the filing date of the application.
As to claim 11, Naeimi and Han disclose the parent claim but do not disclose the consensus system is a block chain network. However, Official Notice is taken (see MPEP 2144.03) that using consensus systems in block chain networks was a well known and common practice at the time of the application’s filing date and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine with Naeimi and Han in order to extend them to a larger variety of system types.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4,7, 9-10, 18-20, and 23-24 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS J DAILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1246. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Umar Cheema can be reached on 571-270-3037. 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.
/THOMAS J DAILEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458