DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgments
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the application and the subsequent preliminary amendment each filed on 12/31/2024.
Claims 3, 5-12, 14, 16, 18, 37 have been amended.
Claims 9-28 and 30-36 have been canceled.
Claims 1-18, 29, and 37 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 01/27/2025 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
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, 29, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patent eligible subject matter because 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.
Step 1:
The claims recite a process, system, apparatus, article of manufacture, and/or a nontransitory storage medium with instructions, each of which are proper statutory categories.
Step 2A (prong 1):
Claim 1 (representative of claims 29 and 37):
The claim limitations are grouped as shown immediately following:
A method of performing a blockchain transaction in a transaction network comprising a plurality of transaction network shards, each shard maintaining a respective blockchain for recording blockchain transactions, the method comprising: (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - fundamental economic principles or practices including financial transaction)
receiving a transaction request for transferring asset value represented by one or more tokens,
determining an input token for use in the transaction; (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - fundamental economic principles or practices including financial transaction)
identifying a given one of the plurality of shards associated with the input token; (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - fundamental economic principles or practices including financial transaction)
forwarding transaction information for the transaction to a shard controller associated with the identified shard to initiate performance of the transaction by the shard controller. (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - fundamental economic principles or practices including financial transaction)
Additional dependent claims 2-18 do not appear remedy the deficiency.
Step 2A (prong 2):
Claim 1 (representative of claims 29 and 37):
…a transaction system
…a network of nodes
…a non-transitory computer readable medium
… a processor
These remaining claim limitations are delineated as shown immediately preceding. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. There are no improvements to the functioning of a computer, other technology or technical field, a particular machine is not cited, nothing is transformed to a different state or thing, the abstract idea is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. The claim merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is generally linked to a particular field of use, in this case, marketing and advertising. Thus, these limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor and memory performing a generic computer function of processing and storing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component – MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, receiving data, evaluating data and distributing data are data gathering and data outputting, which has no effect on technology and does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B:
The claim limitations do not provide an Inventive Concept. The claim limitations do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the abstract idea because the additional elements of the system comprising a computer processor, computer readable storage medium with instructions, and a memory configured to store information, each recited at a high level of generality in a computer network which only perform the universal computer functions of accessing, receiving, storing, and processing data, transmitting and presenting information. Taking the elements both individually and as an ordered combination, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely orthodox. Using a computer to obtain and display data are some of the most basic functions of a computer. As shown, the individual limitations claimed are some of the most rudimentary functions of a computer. The technical solution described in this invention does not alter hardware structure or its routine, does not transform the character of the information being processed, does not identify a novel source or type of data, does not advance the functionality of a computer as a tool, and does not incorporate specific rules enabling the computer to accomplish innovative utilities. In summary, the individual step and/or component does no more than require a general computer to perform standard computer functions. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computer devices amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component - requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
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.
Claims 1-18, 29, and 37 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douglas et al. (USPGP 2020/0042635 A1) hereinafter DOUGLAS.
Claims 1, 29, 37:
DOUGLAS as shown below discloses the following limitations:
A method of performing a blockchain transaction in a transaction network comprising (see at least paragraph 0017)
a plurality of transaction network shards, each shard maintaining a respective blockchain for recording blockchain transactions, the method comprising: (see at least paragraph 0022)
receiving a transaction request for transferring asset value represented by one or more tokens, (see at least paragraphs 0021, 0028)
determining an input token for use in the transaction; (see at least paragraph 0021)
identifying a given one of the plurality of shards associated with the input token; (see at least paragraph 0017)
forwarding transaction information for the transaction to a shard controller associated with the identified shard to initiate performance of the transaction by the shard controller. (see at least Figure 1 as well as associated and related text)
DOUGLAS does not specifically disclose each of the above limitations within a single embodiment. In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the blockchain network sharding method of DOUGLAS because, “Cryptographic coinage and blockchains are growing in usage. As usage grows, however, scalability has become a problem. The number of blockchain transactions has greatly increased, so improved techniques are needed.” (DOUGLAS: paragraph 0002). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
Claims 2-5:
DOUGLAS discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. DOUGLAS further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the identifying step comprises accessing a data structure providing a mapping between tokens and the shards hosting the tokens.
wherein the data structure comprises a token map which maps, for each of a plurality of tokens, identifying information of the token to shard information that identifies the shard hosting the token.
wherein the token map identifies for each token, a corresponding shard identifier of the shard hosting the token and/or an identifier of a shard controller for that shard.
wherein the identifying step comprises looking up the shard information for the input token in the data structure or token map based on identifying information of the token.
See at least paragraphs 0017, 0029, 0043 and 0055.
Claim 6:
DOUGLAS discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. DOUGLAS further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the data structure comprises a table, optionally a hash map.
See at least paragraphs 0018 and 0055.
Claim 7:
DOUGLAS discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. DOUGLAS further discloses the following limitations:
wherein token identifying information for a given token comprises a transaction identifier of a transaction that generated the token and optionally further comprises an output index identifying a particular output of that transaction.
See at least Figure 3 as well as associated and related text.
Claim 8:
DOUGLAS discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. DOUGLAS further discloses the following limitations:
wherein tokens comprise Unspent Transaction Outputs (UTXO).
See at least paragraph 0021.
Claim 9:
DOUGLAS discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. DOUGLAS further discloses the following limitations:
performed at a service provider processing device.
See at least paragraph 0027.
Claim 10:
DOUGLAS discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. DOUGLAS further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the shard controller associated with the identified shard is a given one of a plurality of shard controllers associated with respective ones of the shards which is configured for controlling and/or recording transactions involving the input token.
See at least Figure 1 as well as associated and related text.
Claim 11-13:
DOUGLAS discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. DOUGLAS further discloses the following limitations:
wherein each shard is arranged to maintain a respective blockchain for recording transactions, wherein each blockchain is optionally a permissioned blockchain.
wherein each shard comprises a subnetwork of the transaction network, optionally comprising a private network.
wherein each shard comprises one or more network nodes of a blockchain network for the blockchain maintained by the shard, the network nodes preferably including the shard controller for the shard.
See at least paragraph 0068; Figure 1 as well as associated and related text.
Claims 14, 15:
DOUGLAS discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. DOUGLAS further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the transaction network is arranged for processing transactions involving a plurality of tokens, and wherein each network shard and blockchain is arranged to process and/or record transactions for a respective subset of the plurality of tokens.
wherein each token is stored in a respective one of the blockchains and/or associated with a particular one of the plurality of shards.
See at least paragraphs 0021 and 0022.
Claims 16, 17:
DOUGLAS discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. DOUGLAS further discloses the following limitations:
at the shard controller, processing the transaction involving the input token, the processing comprising recording the transaction in a blockchain associated with the shard controller.
initiating by the shard controller a consensus process involving one or more other nodes of its shard prior to recording the transaction.
See at least paragraphs 0021, 0046, and 0068; Figure 1 as well as associated and related text.
Claim 18:
DOUGLAS discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. DOUGLAS further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the transaction consumes the input token and generates one or more output tokens, the one or more output tokens associated with the same shard as the input token.
See Figure 3 as well as associated and related text.
CONCLUSION
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Non-Patent Literature:
Loïc Lesavre et al. “Blockchain Networks: Token Design and Management Overview.” (February 2021). Retrieved online 01/20/2026. https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ir/2021/NIST.IR.8301.pdf
Mahdi Zamani et al. “RapidChain: Scaling Blockchain via Full Sharding.” (2018). Retrieved online 01/20/2026. https://eprint.iacr.org/2018/460.pdf
Loi Luu et al. “A Secure Sharding Protocol For Open Blockchains.” (2016). Retrieved online 01/20/2026. https://people.cs.georgetown.edu/~cnewport/teaching/cosc841-spring19/papers/new/sharding.pdf
Foreign Art:
KOL et al. “System For Scaling And Accelerating Decentralized Execution Of Transactions In Network, Has Processing Device For Receiving Validation Of Results Of Set Of Transactions, Where Validation Of Results Is Computed Within Decentralized Network.” (WO 2020/033216 A2)
AMMAR et al. “Method For Partitioning E.g. Bitcoin Blockchain Network Into Shards By Secure Distributed Computing System, Involves Identifying Parent Blockchain Transaction, And Allocating Parent Transaction And Child Transaction To Same Shard.” (WO 2019/207501 A1)
ZHU. “Blockchain Full Sharding Method Based On Peer To Peer (P2P) Storage Network And Multi-layer Architecture, Involves Reading Set Of D Primitives To Be Executed By Current Sharding Chain In P2P Storage Network And Obtaining D Primitive.” (CN 111127017 A)
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to James A. Reagan (james.reagan@uspto.gov) whose telephone number is 571.272.6710. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9 AM to 5 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, John Hayes, can be reached at 571.272.6708.
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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair . Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
PO Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/JAMES A REAGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
james.reagan@uspto.gov
571.272.6710 (Office)
571.273.6710 (Desktop Fax)