DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The following is a non-final, first office action in response to the application filed 12/18/2024 and preliminary amendment filed 12/18/2024.
Applicant’s amendments to Claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 10. 12, 14, 18 and 21 and cancellation of Claims 2, 3, 15, 16 and 17 have been received and acknowledged.
The applicant's claim for benefit as a 371 of PCT/CB2023/051779 (filed 7/5/2023) and FOR priority for GB 2209881.8, (filed 7/5/22) has been received and acknowledged.
Claims 1, 4-14 and 19-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
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, 4-14 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, (1) it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, (2a) it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so (2b), it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ____ (2014).
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. In the instant case, the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
(1) In the instant case, the claims are directed towards a method and the system of verifying transactions. In the instant case, Claims 1, 4-10, 12-14 and 18, are directed to a process. Claims 19-21 are directed to a system.
(2a) Prong 1: Transaction verification is categorized in/akin to the abstract idea subject matter grouping of: methods of organizing human activity [organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)]. As such, the claims include an abstract idea.
The specific limitations of the invention are (a) identified to encompass the abstract idea include:
1. (original) A method of verifying transactions comprising:
assigning 'trusted status' a subset of users, the subset of trusted users defining a centralised root of trust,
issuing one or more tokens from the centralised root of trust to users,
submitting a transaction involving at least one token for verification by each of the subset of trusted users,
determining whether or not a transaction is centrally verified based on whether or not a predetermined proportion of the trusted users have individually verified the transaction or not, and
wherein if the transaction is centrally verified the transaction is recorded to a centralised …, and wherein if the transaction is not centrally verified, the transaction is not recorded to the centralised ….
19. (original) A system for verifying transactions comprising:
a centralised root of trust defined by a subset of trusted users, the centralised root of trust being operable to issue tokens to users, a number of users operable to receive tokens, and perform transactions with them,
at least one … which contains a centralised … of centrally verified transactions,
wherein the at least one…can only be written to by trusted users and/or by a non-trusted user given the authority to write to the at least one server by a predetermined proportion of the trusted users,
a number of individual verification … equal to the number of trusted users, via which the trusted users can each individually verify a transaction, and
a central verification … operable to centrally verify transactions involving the tokens,
where a transaction is only centrally verified if a predetermined proportion of the trusted users have individually verified that transaction, wherein centrally verified transactions are recorded to the centralised ….
As stated above, this abstract idea falls into the (b) subject matter grouping of: methods of organizing human activity.
Prong 2: When considered individually and in combination, the instant claims are do not integrate the exception into a practical application because the steps of assigning… issuing… submitting…determining… recorded/not recorded… perform… do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception (i.e. the abstract idea).
The instant recited claims including additional elements (i.e. receive… record/not record) do not improve the functioning of the computer or improve another technology or technical field nor do they recite meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations merely recite: “apply it” (or an equivalent) or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05 (f) and (g))
(2b) In the instant case, Claims 1, 4-10, 12-14 and 18, are directed to a process. Claims 19-21 are directed to a system.
Additionally, the claims (independent and dependent) do not include additional elements that individually or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception of abstract idea (i.e. provide an inventive concept). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: (server, centralized ledger, units) merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions. (See MPEP 2106.05 (d), (f) and (g)) (Specification, pg. 6, server… hardened server…ledger … quantum ledger… pg. 8 server contains a ledger…pg. 9 central verification unit…operably connected to the server… ledger…)
The dependent claims have also been examined and do not correct the deficiencies of the independent claims.
It is noted that claim (4-10, 12-14, 18, 20-21) introduces the additional element of wherein clauses further defining elements… ledger..(Claims 4, 5)… predetermined proportion…(Claims 6, 7, 8, 9); …trusted users (Claim 10)… verified data (Claim 12)…certificate of verification…(Claim 13) …certificate… metadata…(Claim 14) …used to verify …(Claim 18)…hardened server… (Claim 20); server operable to self-destruct…(Claim 21)…. These element is not a practical application of the judicial exception because these limitations merely recite: “apply it” (or an equivalent) or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05 (f) and (g)) Further these limitations taken alone or in combination with the abstract do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea alone because, these elements amount to mere use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions. (See MPEP 2106.05 (d), (f) and (g)) (Specification, pg. 6, server… hardened server…ledger … quantum ledger… pg. 8 server contains a ledger…pg. 9 central verification unit…operably connected to the server… ledger…)
Therefore, claims 1, 4-14 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 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 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.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over non-patent literature "What is the Amazon QLDB?" ( https://web.archive.org/web/20201030041330/https://docs.aws.amazon.com/qldb/latest/developerguide/what-is.html ) 10/30/2020 hereinafter referred to as What is Amazon QLDB further in view of non-patent literature "Accessing Amazon QLDB" (https://web.archive.org/web/20201030041330/https://docs.aws.amazon.com/qldb/latest/developerguide/accessing.html) 10/30/2020 hereinafter referred to as Accessing Amazon QLDB further in view of non-patent literature Amazon QLDB concurrency model (https://web.archive.org/web/20201030041330/https://docs.aws.amazon.com/qldb/latest/developerguide/concurrency.html ) 10/30/2020 hereinafter referred to as Amazon QLDB concurrency model.
Claims 1 and 19
Claim 1
What is Amazon QLDB discloses:
1. (original) A method of verifying transactions comprising:
….
the subset of trusted users defining a centralised root of trust, ( See at least, What is Amazon QLDB, owned by a central trusted authority)
issuing one or more tokens from the centralised root of trust to users, ( See at least, What is Amazon QLDB, cryptographically verifiable transaction log)
submitting a transaction involving at least one token for verification by each of the subset of trusted users, ( See at least, What is Amazon QLDB, cryptographically verifiable transaction log)
What is Amazon QLDB does not directly discloses the following; however Accessing Amazon QLDB teaches:
1. (original) A method of verifying transactions comprising:
assigning 'trusted status' a subset of users, ( See at least, Accessing Amazon QLDB, credentials)
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550US___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), that merely applying a known technique to a known method, yield predictable results, render the claimed invention obvious over such combination. In the instant case, What is Amazon QLDB describes the Amazon QLDB. Accessing Amazon QLDB discloses how to access a the Amazon QLDB. One of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize that this combination would lead to a predictable result (i.e.the Amazon QLDB and features thereof). As such the claimed invention is obvious over What is Amazon QLDB/ Accessing Amazon QLDB.
What is Amazon QLDB does not directly discloses the following; however Amazon QLDB concurrency model teaches:
determining whether or not a transaction is centrally verified based on whether or not a predetermined proportion of the trusted users have individually verified the transaction or not, and wherein if the transaction is centrally verified the transaction is recorded to a centralised ledger, and wherein if the transaction is not centrally verified, the transaction is not recorded to the centralised ledger. ( See at least, Amazon QLDB concurrency model, “When a transaction writes to QLDB, the validation checks of the OCC model are implemented by QLDB itself. If a transaction can't be written to the journal due to a failure in the verification phase of OCC, QLDB returns an OccConflictException to the application layer.”)
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550US___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), that merely applying a known technique to a known method, yield predictable results, render the claimed invention obvious over such combination. In the instant case, What is Amazon QLDB describes the Amazon QLDB. Amazon QLDB concurrency model teaches the concurrency model used in Amazon QLDB One of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize that this combination would lead to a predictable result (i.e.the Amazon QLDB and features thereof).). As such the claimed invention is obvious over What is Amazon QLDB/ Amazon QLDB concurrency model.
Claim 19
What is Amazon QLDB discloses:
19. (original) A system for verifying transactions comprising:
a centralised root of trust defined by a subset of trusted users, the centralised root of trust being operable to issue tokens to users, a number of users operable to receive tokens, and perform transactions with them, ( See at least, What is Amazon QLDB, owned by a central trusted authority)
at least one server which contains a centralised ledger of centrally verified transactions, ( See at least, What is Amazon QLDB, owned by a central trusted authority)
What is Amazon QLDB does not directly discloses the following; however Accessing Amazon QLDB teaches:
wherein the at least one server can only be written to by trusted users and/or by a non-trusted user given the authority to write to the at least one server by a predetermined proportion of the trusted users,a number of individual verification units equal to the number of trusted users, via which the trusted users can each individually verify a transaction, and ( See at least, Accessing Amazon QLDB, credentials)
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550US___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), that merely applying a known technique to a known method, yield predictable results, render the claimed invention obvious over such combination. In the instant case, What is Amazon QLDB describes the Amazon QLDB. Accessing Amazon QLDB discloses how to access a the Amazon QLDB. One of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize that this combination would lead to a predictable result (i.e.the Amazon QLDB and features thereof). As such the claimed invention is obvious over What is Amazon QLDB/ Accessing Amazon QLDB.
What is Amazon QLDB does not directly discloses the following; however Amazon QLDB concurrency model teaches:
a central verification unit operable to centrally verify transactions involving the tokens,where a transaction is only centrally verified if a predetermined proportion of the trusted users have individually verified that transaction, wherein centrally verified transactions are recorded to the centralised ledger. ( See at least, Amazon QLDB concurrency model, “When a transaction writes to QLDB, the validation checks of the OCC model are implemented by QLDB itself. If a transaction can't be written to the journal due to a failure in the verification phase of OCC, QLDB returns an OccConflictException to the application layer.”)
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550US___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), that merely applying a known technique to a known method, yield predictable results, render the claimed invention obvious over such combination. In the instant case, What is Amazon QLDB describes the Amazon QLDB. Amazon QLDB concurrency model teaches the concurrency model used in Amazon QLDB. One of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize that this combination would lead to a predictable result (i.e.the Amazon QLDB and features thereof).). As such the claimed invention is obvious over What is Amazon QLDB/ Amazon QLDB concurrency model.
Claim 4
What is Amazon QLDB/ Accessing Amazon QLDB/Amazon QLDB concurrency model disclose the invention as Claimed above in Claim 1.
What is Amazon QLDB does not directly discloses the following; however Accessing Amazon QLDB teaches:
wherein the ledger can only be written to by any of the trusted users. ( See at least, Accessing Amazon QLDB, credentials)
Claim 5
What is Amazon QLDB/ Accessing Amazon QLDB/Amazon QLDB concurrency model disclose the invention as Claimed above in Claim 1.
What is Amazon QLDB does not directly discloses the following; however Accessing Amazon QLDB teaches:
wherein the ledger can be written to by any of the trusted users and/or non-trusted users who have been authorised to write to the ledger by the trusted users. ( See at least, Accessing Amazon QLDB, credentials, permission group)
Claim 6
What is Amazon QLDB/ Accessing Amazon QLDB/Amazon QLDB concurrency model disclose the invention as Claimed above in Claim 5.
What is Amazon QLDB does not directly discloses the following; however Accessing Amazon QLDB teaches:
wherein a predetermined proportion of the trusted users is required to grant authorisation to the non-trusted user to write to the ledger. ( See at least, Accessing Amazon QLDB, credentials, permission group)
Claims 7, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amazon QLDB in view of Accessing Amazon QLDB further in view of Amazon QLDB further in view of WO 2021016546 A1, Tobkin et al hereinafter referred to as Tobkin.
Claim 7
What is Amazon QLDB/ Accessing Amazon QLDB/Amazon QLDB concurrency model disclose the invention as Claimed above in Claim 1.
What is Amazon QLDB does not directly discloses the following; Tobkin teaches:
wherein the predetermined proportion of trusted users is a simple majority. (See at least, Tobkin [43] sentiment analysis… transaction’s validity …. Majority all vote the same way, with a very high probability that the transaction is valid)…threshold number…)
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550US___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), that merely applying a known technique to a known method, yield predictable results, render the claimed invention obvious over such combination. In the instant case, What is Amazon QLDB describes the Amazon QLDB. Tobkin teaches a sample consensus protocol including a majority for transaction validity. One of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize that this combination would lead to a predictable result (i.e. the Amazon QLDB including a consensus protocol including a majority for transaction validity).). As such the claimed invention is obvious over What is Amazon QLDB/ Tobkin.
Claim 8
What is Amazon QLDB/ Accessing Amazon QLDB/Amazon QLDB concurrency model disclose the invention as Claimed above in Claim 1.
What is Amazon QLDB does not directly discloses the following; Tobkin teaches:
wherein the predetermined proportion of trusted users is variable. (See at least, Tobkin [43] sentiment analysis… transaction’s validity …. Threshold number of sampled….sampling …a subset…)
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550US___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), that merely applying a known technique to a known method, yield predictable results, render the claimed invention obvious over such combination. In the instant case, What is Amazon QLDB describes the Amazon QLDB. Tobkin teaches a sample consensus protocol including a sampling of a subset . One of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize that this combination would lead to a predictable result (i.e. the Amazon QLDB including a consensus protocol including a sample/sampling for transaction validity).). As such the claimed invention is obvious over What is Amazon QLDB/ Tobkin.
Claim 9
What is Amazon QLDB/ Accessing Amazon QLDB/Amazon QLDB concurrency model disclose the invention as Claimed above in Claim 8.
What is Amazon QLDB does not directly discloses the following;Tobkin teaches:
wherein the predetermined proportion is variable in line with the number of trusted users, number of total users, or number of transactions requiring verification. (See at least, Tobkin [43] sentiment analysis… transaction’s validity …. Threshold number of sampled….sampling …a subset…)
Claims 10, 12, 13, 14, 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amazon QLDB in view of Accessing Amazon QLDB further in view of Amazon QLDB further in view of US 20160098723 A1, Feeney hereinafter referred to as Feeney.
Claim 10
What is Amazon QLDB/ Accessing Amazon QLDB/Amazon QLDB concurrency model disclose the invention as Claimed above in Claim 1.
What is Amazon QLDB does not directly disclose the following; however, Feeney teaches:
wherein the trusted users are each assigned a partial, private key. (See at least Feeney, [32-33] generate a public and private key )
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550US___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), that merely applying a known technique to a known method, yield predictable results, render the claimed invention obvious over such combination. In the instant case, What is Amazon QLDB describes the Amazon QLDB. Feeney teaches a system and method of data verification (specifically blockchain) including various features such as public/private key, certificates, QR code and self-destruct feature. One of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize that this combination would lead to a predictable result (i.e. Amazon QLDB and features thereof including as public/private key, certificates, QR code and self-destruct feature). As such the claimed invention is obvious over Amazon QLDB/Feeney.
Claim 12
What is Amazon QLDB/ Accessing Amazon QLDB/Amazon QLDB concurrency model disclose the invention as Claimed above in Claim 10.
What is Amazon QLDB does not directly disclose the following; however, Feeney teaches:
wherein any verified data is issued a certificate of verification. (See at least Feeney, [32-33] authenticate the server or vice-versa digital certificates)
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550US___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), that merely applying a known technique to a known method, yield predictable results, render the claimed invention obvious over such combination. In the instant case, What is Amazon QLDB describes the Amazon QLDB. Feeney teaches a system and method of data verification (specifically blockchain) including various features such as public/private key, certificates, QR code and self-destruct feature. One of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize that this combination would lead to a predictable result (i.e. Amazon QLDB and features thereof including as public/private key, certificates, QR code and self-destruct feature). As such the claimed invention is obvious over Amazon QLDB/Feeney.
Claim 13
What is Amazon QLDB/ Accessing Amazon QLDB/Amazon QLDB concurrency model disclose the invention as Claimed above in Claim 12.
What is Amazon QLDB does not directly disclose the following; however, Feeney teaches:
wherein there is a certificate of verification is issued by each trusted user. (See at least Feeney, [33] authenticate the server or vice-versa digital certificates)
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550US___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), that merely applying a known technique to a known method, yield predictable results, render the claimed invention obvious over such combination. In the instant case, What is Amazon QLDB describes the Amazon QLDB. Feeney teaches a system and method of data verification (specifically blockchain) including various features such as public/private key, certificates, QR code and self-destruct feature. One of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize that this combination would lead to a predictable result (i.e. Amazon QLDB and features thereof including as public/private key, certificates, QR code and self-destruct feature). As such the claimed invention is obvious over Amazon QLDB/Feeney.
Claim 14
What is Amazon QLDB/ Accessing Amazon QLDB/Amazon QLDB concurrency model disclose the invention as Claimed above in Claim 12.
What is Amazon QLDB does not directly disclose the following; however, Feeney teaches:
wherein the certificate/s and/or any metadata relating to the certificate/s are recorded to the centralised ledger alongside the transaction to which the certificate/s relates. (See at least Feeney, [67-68] QR code….)
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550US___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), that merely applying a known technique to a known method, yield predictable results, render the claimed invention obvious over such combination. In the instant case, What is Amazon QLDB describes the Amazon QLDB. Feeney teaches a system and method of data verification (specifically blockchain) including various features such as public/private key, certificates, QR code and self-destruct feature. One of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize that this combination would lead to a predictable result (i.e. Amazon QLDB and features thereof including as public/private key, certificates, QR code and self-destruct feature). As such the claimed invention is obvious over Amazon QLDB/Feeney.
Claim 18
What is Amazon QLDB/ Accessing Amazon QLDB/Amazon QLDB concurrency model disclose the invention as Claimed above in Claim 1.
What is Amazon QLDB does not directly disclose the following; however, Feeney teaches:
wherein the method is used to verify encoded data in the form of two-dimensional barcodes. (See at least Feeney, [67-68] QR code….)
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550US___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), that merely applying a known technique to a known method, yield predictable results, render the claimed invention obvious over such combination. In the instant case, What is Amazon QLDB describes the Amazon QLDB. Feeney teaches a system and method of data verification (specifically blockchain) including various features such as public/private key, certificates, QR code and self-destruct feature. One of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize that this combination would lead to a predictable result (i.e. Amazon QLDB and features thereof including as public/private key, certificates, QR code and self-destruct feature). As such the claimed invention is obvious over Amazon QLDB/Feeney.
Claim 21
What is Amazon QLDB/ Accessing Amazon QLDB/Amazon QLDB concurrency model disclose the invention as Claimed above in Claim 19.
What is Amazon QLDB does not directly disclose the following; however, Feeney teaches:
wherein the at least one server is operable to self-destruct when an unauthorised attempt to access the at least one server is made. (See at least Feeney, [67-68] Self-destruct device)
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550US___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), that merely applying a known technique to a known method, yield predictable results, render the claimed invention obvious over such combination. In the instant case, What is Amazon QLDB describes the Amazon QLDB. Feeney teaches a system and method of data verification (specifically blockchain) including various features such as public/private key, certificates, QR code and self-destruct feature. One of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize that this combination would lead to a predictable result (i.e. Amazon QLDB and features thereof including as public/private key, certificates, QR code and self-destruct feature). As such the claimed invention is obvious over Amazon QLDB/Feeney.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amazon QLDB in view of Accessing Amazon QLDB further in view of Amazon QLDB further in view of US20190007216 A1, Meriac hereinafter referred to as Meriac .
Claim 20
What is Amazon QLDB/ Accessing Amazon QLDB/Amazon QLDB concurrency model disclose the invention as Claimed above in Claim 19.
What is Amazon QLDB does not directly disclose the following; however, Feeney teaches:
wherein the at least one server is a hardened server. (See at least Meriac, [12] ….(hardened) … server nodes… )
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550US___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), that merely applying a known technique to a known method, yield predictable results, render the claimed invention obvious over such combination. In the instant case, What is Amazon QLDB describes the Amazon QLDB. Meriac teaches a system and method of using a hardened server to hide/secure information. One of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize that this combination would lead to a predictable result (i.e. Amazon QLDB and features thereof including as hardened server in order to hide/secure information). As such the claimed invention is obvious over Amazon QLDB/ Meriac.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHA PUTTAIA H whose telephone number is (571)270-1352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am to 5:30 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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on 571-270-1836. 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.
/ASHA PUTTAIA H/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691