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 .
This is a Non-Final Office Action in response to the communication filed on November 26, 2024.
Claims 1-12, and 14-15 have been examined.
Cancelled claim 13.
Drawings
The drawings filed on November 26, 2024 are acceptable for examination proceedings.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 18/869562, filed on November 26, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 13, 2025 was filed after the mailing date of the application 18/869562, filed on November 26, 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 8 is a depend claim but such dependency is omitted. 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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because of claim 14 is being directed to a "computer readable storage media". There is not found within the Applicant's Specification support for said “computer readable storage media” being limited to a statutory embodiment (see, Applicant provided specification, Pages 32-33). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media (or non-transitory media) and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent (or absent of a controlling definition in the specification). See MPEP §2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (EP3849133A1/ or “Li” hereinafter [provided by the applicant]).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses “A method comprising, under the control of a computing system” (Para 0004: method of storing and retrieving data of a node to be verified by a blockchain network; and Fig. 1: Computing Devices 106, 108, and Network 110):
“allowing a first node and a second node of the computing system to participate to a private ledger adapted to take a plurality of versions over time each resulting from appending one or more blocks thereto” (Fig.3: Nodes 304a-e i.e., a plurality of nodes; and Para 0052),
“appending a first one of the blocks to the private ledger by the first node, the first block comprising data to be shared with the second node and being authenticated by the first node” (Para 0047: a transaction message is generated by a participant; and 0053: a consortium of blockchain nodes receives transaction data from the transaction message and verification system verifies the transaction);
“appending a second one of the blocks to the private ledger by the second node, the second block comprising an acknowledgement being indicative of an acceptance of the data of the first block by the second node according to one or more policies and being authenticated by the second node” (Para 0047, and 0053: lines7-11, “…verification system can monitor the consortium blockchain network 302 and determine that the data has been stored once a consensus is reached by the nodes 304a-e on a chain including the data”);
“storing corresponding digests for the versions of the private ledger into a persistent storage, the digest of each of the versions being representative of the appending of the corresponding blocks of the version” (Para 0054: lines 14-17, “…verification node then attempts to store its signed data digest in the public blockchain 356. In some implementations, all signed data digests produced by the verification nodes 330 are stored in the public blockchain 356”),
“and disclosing verification information and the policies to an auditing node not participating to the private ledger in response to a verification request, the verification information comprising” (Para 0054: lines 14-17, “…verification node then attempts to store its signed data digest in the public blockchain 356. In some implementations, all signed data digests produced by the verification nodes 330 are stored in the public blockchain 356”; and Fig. 3: Verification Nodes 330):
“a last one of the versions of the ledger, or a ledger portion comprising the data and the acknowledgement, and corresponding inclusion proofs of the ledger portion in the versions of the private ledger, whereby the auditing node is allowed to verify the acceptance of the data by the second node according to the verification information, the policies and the digests retrieved from the persistent storage by” (Para 0054: lines 12-14: “The verification nodes 330, upon receiving the data digest, cryptographically sign the data digest using their private key”; Para 0090: lines 16-19:“ … determine that the signed first data digests from the public blockchain match the signed second data digests received from the verification nodes…”; and Fig. 5: Step 535, and Fig. 6: Step 620):
“verifying a consistency of the last version of the ledger or of the ledger portion and the inclusion proofs with the stored digests” (Para 0090: lines 16-19:“ … determine that the signed first data digests from the public blockchain match the signed second data digests received from the verification nodes…”; and Fig. 5: Step 535, and Fig. 6: Step 620; and Para 0063);
“verifying that the data and the acknowledgment are included in the last version of the ledger or that the ledger portion satisfies the inclusion proofs” Para 0090: lines 16-19:“ … determine that the signed first data digests from the public blockchain match the signed second data digests received from the verification nodes…”; and Fig. 5: Step 535, and Fig. 6: Step 620; and Para 0063);
“verifying a compliance [i.e., semantic defined in the policies (see, applicant’s specification, Page 30: line 20)] of the data and of the acknowledgment with the policies” (Para 0090: lines 16-19:“ … determine that the signed first data digests from the public blockchain match the signed second data digests received from the verification nodes…”; and Fig. 5: Step 535, and Fig. 6: Step 620; and Para 0063).
Regarding claim 4, in view of claim 1, Li discloses “wherein said storing corresponding digests is performed by a certification node of the computing system other than the first and second nodes” (Para 0069: verification node cryptographically signs the digest).
Regarding claim 5, in view of claim 4, Li discloses “wherein the digests are signed by cryptographic signatures of the certification node” (Para 0069: verification node cryptographically signs the digest).
Regarding claim 6, in view of claim 1, Li discloses “wherein the first and second blocks are authenticated by cryptographic signatures of the first and second nodes, respectively” (Para 0050, 0049: encrypts and decrypts and signs).
Regarding claim 7, in view of claim 1, Li discloses “wherein the policies are contained in the private ledger” (Para 0050, 0049: encrypts and decrypts and signs).
(Based on claim objection) Regarding claim 8, in view of claim 1, Li discloses “wherein at least one among the data, the acknowledgement, the first block, the second block, and the policies is an encrypted content” (Para 0050, 0049: encrypts and decrypts).
Regarding claim 9, in view of claim 8, Li discloses “wherein the verification information further comprises one or more decryption keys for allowing the auditing node to decrypt each respective encrypted content” (Para 0050, 0049: encrypts and decrypts).
Regarding claim 10, in view of claim 1, Li discloses “wherein the verification information further comprises an agreement between the first and second nodes concerning the policies” (Para 0050, 0049: encrypts and decrypts and signs and verifies).
Regarding claim 11, in view of claim 10, Li discloses “wherein the agreement is contained in the private ledger” (Para 0050, 0049: encrypts and decrypts and signs and verifies).
Regarding claim 12, in view of claim 1, Li discloses “wherein the persistent storage comprises a public blockchain” (Para 0054: public blockchain).
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is directed to a computer program product corresponding to the method recited in claim 1. Claim 14 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is directed to a computing system corresponding to the method recited in claim 1. Claim 15 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Padmanabhan et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: US 2020/0374105 A1 / or “Padmanabhan” hereinafter [provided by the applicant]).
Regarding claim 2, in view of claim 1, Li discloses blockchain network with plurality of nodes participating in the ledger (Li, Abstract).
But Li fails to specially disclose verifying data format compliance with policies.
However, Padmanabhan discloses “wherein said verifying a compliance of the data and of the acknowledgment with the policies comprises: determining a formal correctness of the data and of the acknowledgment by verifying that the data and the acknowledgment comply with a data format and a corresponding acknowledgment format, respectively, defined in the policies” (Padmanabhan, Para 0234-0235; and Para 0330-0331: performs validation of assets for various marks such as “…data structures, data types, data format, or other requirements prior to such data being written to the blockchain…” and Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teachings of verifying data format compliance with policies of Padmanabhan to the System of Li to create a system where “…smart contract enforces rules which are applied to the data as part of the validation procedure…” and the ordinary person skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine to “…data to be written to the blockchain is not compliant with the requirements set forth by the executed smart contract, then the transaction is rejected…” (Padmanabhan, Para 0331).
Regarding claim 3, in view of claim 1, Li in view of Padmanabhan disclose “wherein said verifying a compliance of the data and of the acknowledgment with the policies comprises: assigning a meaning of the acknowledgment according to a semantic defined in the policies(Padmanabhan, Fig. 7; and Para 0234-0235; and Para 0330-0331: defines data format [see claim 2 for motivation]).
Relevant Prior Arts
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Novotny et al. (US 11501315 B2) discloses “By using blockchain, the state of the asset may be analyzed over time (as it evolves) which is a natural element of the blockchain's immutable ledger. Thus, the life of the asset can be analyzed rather than just a current value of the asset. Thus, the compliance engine may be a blockchain specific mechanism of policy driven data compliance verification. The engine can leverage blockchain metadata and features of the blockchain ledger to establish compliance of recorded data. This is not possible with other data storage mechanisms lacking historical states and non-verifiable data structures” (Col 8: lines 11-21).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDULLAH ALMAMUN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3392. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, Lynn Feild can be reached on (571) 272-2092. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDULLAH ALMAMUN/Examiner, Art Unit 2431
/LYNN D FEILD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2431