DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This office action is in response to the claims filed 12/26/2026.
Claims 14 and 16 are amended.
Claims 1-18 are pending.
Claims 1-18 have been examined.
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 .
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, 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 (101 Analysis: Step 1). Even if the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea) (101 Analysis: Step 2a(Prong 1), and if so, Identify whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and evaluate those additional elements to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. (101 Analysis: Step 2a (Prong 2). If additional elements does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception, claim still requires an evaluation of whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. If the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the exception itself (there is an inventive concept in the claim), the claim is eligible. If the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more (there is no inventive concept in the claim), the claim is ineligible. (101 Analysis: Step 2b).
The 2019 PEG explains that the abstract idea exception includes the following groupings of subject matter: a) Mathematical concepts b) Certain methods of organizing human activity and c) Mental processes
Analysis
In the instant case, claims 1 and 17 are directed to an article of manufacture, and claim 18 is directed to a ‘program’.
Step 2a.1– Identifying an Abstract Idea
The claims recite the steps of “manage… ledger… perform…locking to not update…ledger… and update… ledger….” The recited limitations fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas, specifically, fundamental economic principles, for example, managing updating a ledger. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea.
See MPEP 2106.
Step 2a.2 – Identifying a Practical Application
The claim does not currently recite any additional elements or combination of additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The use of a distributed ledger or blockchain does not preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea as the blockchain recites functions of a generic computer component, such as storing records.
Accordingly, even in combination, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and limitations to a particular field of use or technological environment do not amount to practical applications. The claim in directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2b
The claim limitations recite “manage… ledger… perform…locking to not update…ledger… and update… ledger” are not additional elements and they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. This is also determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs, court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicates that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here. Therefore, when considering the additional elements alone, and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible.
Viewed as a whole, instructions/method claims recite the concept of a fundamental economic practice as performed by a generic computer. The claims do not currently recite any additional elements or combination of additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The elements used to perform the claimed judicial exception amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea in a network, and/or merely uses a network as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-13 and 16discuss functions in more descriptive detail of the steps geared toward the abstract idea. As such, these elements do not provide the significantly more to the underlying abstract idea necessary to render the invention patentable.
Claims 10, 14 and 15 provide descriptive language surrounding the abstract idea. As such, these elements do not provide the significantly more to the underlying abstract idea necessary to render the invention patentable.
The claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Therefore, based on case law precedent, the claims are claiming subject matter similar to concepts already identified by the courts as dealing with abstract ideas. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 573 U.S. 208 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561, U.S. 593, 611 (2010)).
The claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using some unspecified, generic computer. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 573 U.S. 208. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and limitations to a particular field of use or technological environment cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The claim as a whole, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claim does not affect an improvement to another technology or technical filed; the claim does not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself; and the claim does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Dependent claims do not resolve the deficiency of independent claims and accordingly stand rejected under 35 USC 101 based on the same rationale.
Dependent claims 2-16 are also rejected.
Claim 18 recites “A program causing a node…" and are directed to software per se. Software is defined as "Microsoft Press Dictionary Definition" or "IEEE Definition". There are four categories of invention: process, machine, article of manufacture or composition of matter. Therefore, as "software" is neither a category of invention nor a subset of one of the categories it does not represent patent eligible subject matter, In re Nuijten, 84 U.S.P.Q.2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
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 1-18 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “perform ledger locking to not update the first ledger during a lock period … if a second ledger managed by a second group in a second layer lower than the first layer has been updated within the lock period when the lock period ends, update the first ledger to include…” The claims are unclear and indefinite. The claim is unclear whether the limitations are supposed to mean the second ledger has been updated within the lock period, but specifically, when the lock period ends, which would not be within the lock period, or if the limitation is supposed to mean to update the first ledger, when the lock period ends. The claims are unclear and indefinite. Dependent claims 2-16 are also rejected.
Claims 17 and 18 recite “processing for, if a second ledger managed by a second group in a second layer lower than the first layer has been updated within the lock period when the lock period ends, updating the first ledger to include, in the first ledger, information related to the updated second ledger”. The claims are unclear and indefinite. First, it is unclear what “processing for” means or is referring to, it is unclear whether the limitations are claiming the process to update the ledger, updating the ledger or a background processing function, based on a conditional and optional statement in order to update the ledger, as written. Secondly, the claim is unclear whether the limitations are supposed to mean the second ledger has been updated within the lock period, but specifically, when the lock period ends, which would not be within the lock period, or if the limitation is supposed to mean to update the first ledger, when the lock period ends. The claims are unclear and indefinite.
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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 20190188711) (“Wu”), and further in view of Back et al. (US 20160330034) (“Back”).
Regarding claims 1, 17 and 18, Wu discloses a blockchain system in which a network with a hierarchical structure is formed by a plurality of nodes, wherein a node belonging to a first group in a first layer different from a lowest layer is configured to manage a first ledger comprising transaction data related to a transaction in the first group (Abstract; Figure 6; ¶ 44-48, 52-53, 60-64, 86-102, 144, 145),
Wu – The nodes 102 generally each contain a complete and up-to-date copy of the data of the distributed ledger and so may be referred to as full nodes… PV node-stack for a distributed ledger includes a reduced set of software routines or programs at a client communicating with the distributed ledger network. …A first exemplary system architecture embeds foreign payment verification (PV) nodes into distributed ledger networks. A second exemplary system architecture utilizes a set of shared full nodes while not having every node be a shared node… Thus, by dividing nodes into regions (or groups) such that cross-ledger transactions are relatively rare, the added throughput from adding a co-ledger will be a substantial fraction of the full throughput of just that chain running alone... at least some of the nodes 102 in each distributed ledger network may be configured to run both a “local” full node-stack for its own distributed ledger and a “foreign” PV node-stack for the co-ledgers with which it is to interact. (¶ 44, 63, 86, 90, 91)
perform ledger locking to not update the first ledger during a lock period after the first ledger is updated, and (¶ 79-85, 103-135, 148-150, 169-174, 209, 228-29, ; claim 17)
Wu – Per step 8, N_A constructs the locking transaction T_L which references T_I and locks U_1. … Because the output of the locking transaction 406 cannot be spent, the existence of the locking transaction 406 in the source distributed ledger 200S provides a guarantee that the identified UTXO has been, in effect, extinguished in the source distributed ledger 200S…if the output being spent by the completing transaction 408 is not the output of the initiating transaction 404 referenced by the locking transaction 406, then the completing transaction 408 is invalid and so is prevented from being committed to the target distributed ledger 200T. (¶ 82, 83, 120)
Wu does not disclose if a second ledger managed by a second group in a second layer lower than the first layer has been updated within the lock period when the lock period ends, update the first ledger to include, in the first ledger, ledger information related to the updated second ledger.
Back teaches if a second ledger managed by a second group in a second layer lower than the first layer has been updated within the lock period when the lock period ends, update the first ledger to include, in the first ledger, ledger information related to the updated second ledger (Abstract; ¶ 33, 42-68, 80-85),
Claim Interpretation – “if a second ledger managed…” recites optional and conditional language and therefore does not have patentable weight. See MPEP 2103(I)(c).
Back – Once the sidechain asset is released, the side chain asset corresponding to the parent chain asset may be transferred within the sidechain one or more times, as indicated at step 135. While locked on the parent chain, the coin can be freely transferred within the sidechain without further interaction with the parent chain. However, a sidechain asset retains its identity as a parent chain coin, and may, in some embodiments, only be transferred back to the same chain from which the sidechain asset originated… In order to transfer coins from a sidechain back to Bitcoin, embedded proofs (e.g., the SPVs described above) showing that sidechain coins were locked in the Bitcoin blockchain are utilized. These proofs may contain (a) a record that an output was created in the sidechain, and (b) a DMMS proving sufficient work on top of this output. (¶ 45, 84)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wu and Back(¶ 42-54) which teaches “A SPV proof associated with the sidechain asset may be generated. A parent chain validator server may validate the SPV proof associated with the sidechain asset at step 145.” in order to secure the transaction records from attacks (Back ¶ 53).
Regarding claim 2, Wu discloses wherein the node belonging to the first group is configured to include, in the first ledger as the ledger information, at least one selected from the group consisting of a chain ID indicating the second ledger, a hash value calculated from a new block of the second ledger, and a block height indicating a block number of the new block (¶ 44-48, 52-54, 60-64, 86-102, 144, 145).
Regarding claim 3, Wu discloses hold transaction data related to the transaction if the node has a margin of memory capacity for holding the transaction data, and cause another node having the margin to hold the transaction data if the node does not have the margin (¶ 96-101). Back teaches wherein the node belonging to the first group is configured to, when a transaction in the node occurs within the lock period, (¶ 33, 42-68, 80-85).
Regarding claim 4, Wu discloses cause another node belonging to a group in a layer higher than the first layer to hold the transaction data if the node does not have the margin and no other node in the first group has the margin (¶ 96-101). Back teaches wherein the node belonging to the first group is configured to, when a transaction in the node occurs within the lock period, (¶ 33, 42-68, 80-85).
Regarding claim 5, Wu discloses wherein the plurality of nodes comprises a proposer that is a node configured to generate a new block for updating the first ledger, and when the node belonging to the first group is not the proposer, the node is configured to transmit the transaction data held by the node to the proposer when the lock period ends (¶ 96-101).
Regarding claim 6, Wu discloses wherein the first ledger comprises memory margin information related to a memory capacity of each node belonging to the first group, and when a transaction in the node belonging to the first group occurs within the lock period, the node is configured to determine the other node to hold the transaction data from the first group, based on the memory margin information comprised in the first ledger if the node does not have the margin (¶ 94-112).
Regarding claim 7, Wu discloses wherein in response to a new node participating in the first group, the node belonging to the first group is configured to update the first ledger to include, in the memory margin information, information related to a memory capacity of the new node (¶ 100-102, 120-126, 153-155).
Regarding claim 8, Wu discloses the node is configured to transmit, to the other node, flag information indicating that the node does not have the margin, together with the transaction data when the node does not have the margin, and the flag information is managed in the first group as a part of the memory margin information. Back teaches wherein when a transaction in the node belonging to the first group occurs within the lock period, (¶ 33, 42-68, 80-85).
Regarding claim 9, Back teaches wherein a node belonging to the second group is configured to perform ledger locking to not update the second ledger during a lock period after the second ledger is updated, and when the lock period ends, update the second ledger to include, in the second ledger, information related to the updated ledger when a ledger managed by a group in a layer lower than the second layer has been updated within the lock period, and the lock period used in the first group is shorter than the lock period used in the second group (¶ 33, 42-68, 80-85).
Regarding claim 10, Back teaches discloses wherein the lock period used in the first group is longer than a ledger update processing time required for update processing for the second ledger (¶ 33-38, 42-68, 80-85).
Regarding claim 11, Wu discloses wherein upon detecting that the first ledger has been updated during the update processing for the second ledger, a node belonging to the second group is configured to consider that update of the second ledger has failed, and perform the update processing for the second ledger again (¶ 92-101, 150-158).
Regarding claim 12, Back teaches wherein the node belonging to the first group is configured to extend the lock period used in the first group when a failure in update of the second ledger continuously occurs a predetermined number of times (¶ 33, 42-68, 80-85).
Regarding claim 13, Back teaches wherein the second layer comprises the second group and a third group, and if a second ledger managed by the second group and a third ledger managed by the third group have been updated within the lock period when the lock period ends, the node belonging to the first group is configured to update the first ledger to include, in the first ledger, information related to the updated second ledger and information related to the updated third ledger (¶ 33, 42-68, 80-85).
Regarding claim 14, Wu discloses wherein each of the plurality of nodes is located, based on performance of the node, in a layer corresponding to the performance among a plurality of layers in the hierarchical structure (Abstract; Figure; 6-11; ¶ 44-48, 52-53, 60-64, 86-102, 144, 145).
Regarding claim 15, Wu discloses wherein the node belonging to the first group is configured to have higher performance than a node belonging to the second group (¶ 44-48, 52-53, 60-64, 86-102, 144, 145).
Regarding claim 16, Wu discloses wherein the node belonging to the first group is configured to update the first ledger in accordance with each of a transaction in the first group and a transaction in the second group, and the node belonging to the second group is configured to not update the second ledger in accordance with a transaction in the first group but update the second ledger in accordance with a transaction in the second group (¶ 44-48, 52-53, 60-64, 86-102, 144, 145).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yang et al., (US 20200201560) teaches higher and lower levels of blockchains.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ILSE I IMMANUEL whose telephone number is (469)295-9094. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am to 5:00pm.
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, NEHA PATEL can be reached on 571-270-1492. 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.
/ILSE I IMMANUEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights