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
This office action is in response to the application filed on or reply to the remarks of 12/23/2024. The instant application has claims 1 pending. The method for consensus protocol for voting in an message. There a total of 1 claims.
Drawings
The drawing filed on 12/23/2024 has been accepted and in compliance of 37 CFR 1.83 & 37 CFR 1.84.
Specification
The disclosure filed on 12/23/2024 is accepted.
Priority
The instant application makes reference to provisional application 63/654272 for claim to priority, which is un-related to current applicants/assignee. The filing receipt of 5/27/2026 mentions this provisional application which is incorrect. The appropriate correction needs to be done to fix this issue.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The steps can be performed by an human on an generic computer. The claim recites votes being included in message for an consensus protocol is merely an generic computer implementation of an human activity.
The limitation of “generating a prepare message including a vote on the first proposed block during the second phase of the consensus protocol” , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by a processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by a processor” language, “generating a prepare message including a vote on the first proposed block during the second phase of the consensus protocol” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually entering votes into message using first phase. Similarly, the limitation of “generating a prepare message including a second vote on the second proposed block during the third phase of the consensus protocol”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation done in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“2019 PEG”) Federal Register January 7, 2019. For example, but for the “by a processor” language, “generating a prepare message including a second vote on the second proposed block during the third phase of the consensus protocol” in the context of this claim encompasses the user thinking that phases of voting being included in message. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” & “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a processor to perform both the” generating a prepare message including a vote on the first proposed block during the second phase of the consensus protocol“ and ““generating a prepare message including a second vote on the second proposed block during the third phase of the consensus protocol“ steps. The processor in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of using message to enter votes during phases such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform using message to enter votes during phases steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Strengthened Fault Tolerance in Byzantine Fault Tolerant Replication to Xiang.
Regarding claim 1, Xiang discloses A method comprising: receiving a first proposed block in a first phase of a consensus protocol; receiving a second proposed block in a second phase of the consensus protocol(Fig. 1 & Fig. 2 rounds with votes & A, Chain-based BFT SMR); generating a prepare message including a vote on the first proposed block during the second phase of the consensus protocol(Fig. 1 & Fig. 2 rounds with votes & A, Chain-based BFT SMR & § B. Overview of DiemBFT); receiving a third proposed block in a third phase of the consensus protocol(Fig. 1 & Fig. 2 rounds with votes & A, Chain-based BFT SMR & § B. Overview of DiemBFT; generating a prepare message including a second vote on the second proposed block during the third phase of the consensus protocol(Fig. 1 & Fig. 2 rounds with votes & A, Chain-based BFT SMR); and committing the first proposed block during the third phase of the consensus protocol(Fig. 1 & Fig. 2 rounds with votes & A, Chain-based BFT SMR& § B. Overview of DiemBFT).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fast, Dynamic and Robust Byzantine Fault Tolerance Protocol for Consortium Blockchain to Song, which discloses the blockchain for fault tolerance.
From Byzantine Fault-Tolerance to Fault-Avoidance: An Architectural
Transformation to Attack and Failure Resiliency to Ahmed, which discloses BFA in BFT systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Venkat Perungavoor whose telephone number is (571)272-7213. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Rupal Dharia can be reached at 571-272-3880. 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.
/VENKAT PERUNGAVOOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492 Email: venkatanarayan.perungavoor@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights