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 . In communications filed on 04/09/2025. Claims 1-30 are cancelled. Claims 31-51 newly added. Claims 31-51 are pending in this examination.
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. This examination is in response to US Patent Application No. 18/902,277.
Examiner Note
Claims 31, and 45-51 recites that “a computer-readable storage medium”. The computer- storage readable medium has been described on paragraph 329 of the specification as: In the example shown in FIG. 10, the computer 1000 includes a processing unit 1001 having one or more processors and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium 1002 that may include, for example, volatile and/or non-volatile memory… The computer 1000 may also include other types of non-transitory computer-readable medium, such as storage 1005 (e.g., one or more disk drives) in addition to the system memory 1002] , and in paragraph 335 as: The techniques disclosed herein may be embodied as a non-transitory computer-readable medium (or multiple computer-readable media) (e.g., a computer memory, one or more floppy discs, compact discs, optical discs, magnetic tapes, flash memories, circuit configurations in Field Programmable Gate Arrays or other semiconductor devices, or other non-transitory, tangible computer storage medium).
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 31-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. (US20170222814) issued to Oberhauser, and in view of US Patent No. (US2017/0301033) issued to Brown.
Regarding claims 31, 38, and 45, Oberhauser discloses A system comprising: at least one computer processor; and at least one computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon instructions which, when executed, program the at least one computer processor to [¶8, In accordance with some embodiments, a system is provided, comprising at least one processor and at least one computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon instructions which, when executed, program the at least one processor to perform any of the above methods. In accordance with some embodiments, at least one computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon instructions which, when executed, program at least one processor to perform any of the methods]; and
receive a proposed transaction for a distributed ledger, wherein: the distributed ledger stores at least one data structure associated with an entity [ ¶59, In some embodiments, a change of the DIR 300 from a first state to a second state may occur via a transaction in the distributed ledger. Once the transaction is confirmed by a majority of stakeholders maintaining the distributed ledger, the DIR 300 may remain in the second state until another transaction is confirmed. In some embodiments, all state changes of the DIR 300 may be recorded in the distributed ledger and may be visible to all stakeholders, resulting in a transparent audit trail]; and
the at least one data structure stored on the distributed ledger comprises a reference to a first version of an attribute of the entity [ ¶59, In some embodiments, a change of the DIR 300 from a first state to a second state may occur via a transaction in the distributed ledger. Once the transaction is confirmed by a majority of stakeholders maintaining the distributed ledger, the DIR 300 may remain in the second state until another transaction is confirmed. In some embodiments, all state changes of the DIR 300 may be recorded in the distributed ledger and may be visible to all stakeholders, resulting in a transparent audit trail]; and
the proposed transaction comprises a reference to a second version of the attribute of the entity [ ¶59, In some embodiments, a change of the DIR 300 from a first state to a second state may occur via a transaction in the distributed ledger. Once the transaction is confirmed by a majority of stakeholders maintaining the distributed ledger, the DIR 300 may remain in the second state until another transaction is confirmed. In some embodiments, all state changes of the DIR 300 may be recorded in the distributed ledger and may be visible to all stakeholders, resulting in a transparent audit trail]; and
and the proposed transaction further comprises at least one cryptographic proof associated with the second version of the attribute of the entity [¶61, In some embodiments, only one or more authorized entities may be allowed to create transactions and thereby cause state changes of the DIR 300. Each transaction may be signed by an entity creating the transaction. In this way, state changes of the DIR 300 may be auditable. In some embodiments, multiple entities may be involved in causing a state change. All, or least a threshold number of the entities, may be required to sign within a selected time interval, or the state change may not be confirmed]; and
determine whether the proposed transaction is to be accepted, at least in part by checking the at least one cryptographic proof associated with the second version of the attribute of the entity [¶61, In some embodiments, only one or more authorized entities may be allowed to create transactions and thereby cause state changes of the DIR 300. Each transaction may be signed by an entity creating the transaction. In this way, state changes of the DIR 300 may be auditable. In some embodiments, multiple entities may be involved in causing a state change. All, or least a threshold number of the entities, may be required to sign within a selected time interval, or the state change may not be confirmed]; and
and in response to determining that the proposed transaction is to be accepted, effectuate a state change of the distributed ledger, wherein the state change comprises replacing the reference to the first version of the attribute of the entity with the reference to the second version of the attribute of the entity.
While Oberhauser discloses this limitation as: [¶39, In some embodiments, the distributed ledger 102 may include digital records replicated among a plurality of nodes in a peer-to-peer network. The nodes may carry out a synchronization protocol, whereby a change made at a node to a local copy of a digital record may be propagated through the network, and other nodes may update their respective copies of the same digital record accordingly].
Oberhauser does not explicitly disclose, however, Brown discloses [Abstract, System and methods for managing dynamic electronic documents on a private distributed ledger comprise establishing a dynamic electronic document comprising a first state object, wherein the state object references a prior approved first transaction; proposing a second transaction comprising as an input the first state object and as an output a transaction command to alter the state object as well as what parameters are required to validate the second transaction; validating the proposed second transaction; and updating the state object on a private distributed ledger to reference the second transaction], and [¶16, In one aspect of the present invention, a method for managing states of a dynamic electronic document, comprises the steps of: recording a dynamic electronic document establishing a first content state; proposing changes to the electronic document altering the first content state; verifying the proposed changes as valid; receiving the proposed changes; accepting the proposed changes; updating the dynamic electronic document having a second content state; and inputting the dynamic electronic document to a private distributed ledger], and [see FIG. 3 and corresponding text for more detail paragraphs].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Oberhauser by incorporating “a method for managing states of a dynamic electronic document”, as taught by Brown. One could have been motivated to do so in order for proposing changes to the electronic document altering the first content state; verifying the proposed changes as valid; receiving the proposed changes; accepting the proposed changes; updating the dynamic electronic document having a second content state; and inputting the dynamic electronic document to a private distributed ledger [ Brown, ¶16].
Regarding claims 32, 39, and 46, Oberhauser discloses wherein the state change of the distributed ledger further comprises storing the at least one cryptographic proof associated with the second version of the attribute of the entity on the distributed ledger [¶61, In some embodiments, only one or more authorized entities may be allowed to create transactions and thereby cause state changes of the DIR 300. Each transaction may be signed by an entity creating the transaction. In this way, state changes of the DIR 300 may be auditable. In some embodiments, multiple entities may be involved in causing a state change. All, or least a threshold number of the entities, may be required to sign within a selected time interval, or the state change may not be confirmed]; and [¶132, In some embodiments, the DIR of the user A may use the information received from the user B to look up an attribute attestation from the distributed ledger and perform one or more checks. For instance, the DIR of the user A may check that an entity that verified the attribute attestation is trustworthy, the attribute attestation is in a VERIFIED state, a cryptographic proof in the attribute attestation is generated, using an algorithm specified in a badge containing the attribute attestation, from a corresponding attribute value received from the user B, and/or the attribute attestation is signed by the verifying entity. The DIR of the user B may perform similar checks].
Regarding claims 33, 40, and 47, Oberhauser discloses, wherein the second version of the attribute of the entity is not stored on the distributed ledger [¶¶23-24].
Regarding claims 34, 41, and 48, Oberhauser discloses, wherein: the entity comprises a first entity; the proposed transaction comprises a signature generated by a second entity; the at least one computer processor is further programmed to determine whether the second entity is authorized to update the at least one data structure; and the at least one computer processor is programmed to reject the proposed transaction in response to determining that the second entity is not authorized to update the at least one data structure [¶61, In some embodiments, only one or more authorized entities may be allowed to create transactions and thereby cause state changes of the DIR 300. Each transaction may be signed by an entity creating the transaction. In this way, state changes of the DIR 300 may be auditable. In some embodiments, multiple entities may be involved in causing a state change. All, or least a threshold number of the entities, may be required to sign within a selected time interval, or the state change may not be confirmed],
Regarding claims 35, 42, and 49, Oberhauser discloses, wherein the second entity is different from the first entity [¶29, The inventors have recognized and appreciated that a distributed ledger, such as a blockchain, may be used in applications other than digital currency. For instance, a distributed ledger may be used to implement a trust structure to allow attestations (e.g., identity attestations) to be relied upon across multiple entities. In some embodiments, a distributed ledger may be used to record attestations by trusted entities], and [¶61, In some embodiments, only one or more authorized entities may be allowed to create transactions and thereby cause state changes of the DIR 300. Each transaction may be signed by an entity creating the transaction. In this way, state changes of the DIR 300 may be auditable. In some embodiments, multiple entities may be involved in causing a state change. All, or least a threshold number of the entities, may be required to sign within a selected time interval, or the state change may not be confirmed], and [¶132, In some embodiments, the DIR of the user A may use the information received from the user B to look up an attribute attestation from the distributed ledger and perform one or more checks. For instance, the DIR of the user A may check that an entity that verified the attribute attestation is trustworthy, the attribute attestation is in a VERIFIED state, a cryptographic proof in the attribute attestation is generated, using an algorithm specified in a badge containing the attribute attestation, from a corresponding attribute value received from the user B, and/or the attribute attestation is signed by the verifying entity. The DIR of the user B may perform similar checks]
Regarding claims 36, 43, and 50, Oberhauser discloses, wherein the at least one computer processor is programmed to determine whether the second entity is authorized to update the at least one data structure at least in part by: using an authorization structure associated with the first entity to determine a public key; and using the public key to verify the signature generated by the second entity [¶61, In some embodiments, only one or more authorized entities may be allowed to create transactions and thereby cause state changes of the DIR 300. Each transaction may be signed by an entity creating the transaction. In this way, state changes of the DIR 300 may be auditable. In some embodiments, multiple entities may be involved in causing a state change. All, or least a threshold number of the entities, may be required to sign within a selected time interval, or the state change may not be confirmed].
Regarding claims 37, 44, and 51, Oberhauser discloses, wherein the at least one computer processor is programmed to determine whether the second entity is authorized to update the at least one data structure further by: using the authorization structure associated with the first entity to determine whether the second entity is authorized to update the at least one data structure with the reference to the second version of the attribute of the first entity [¶61, In some embodiments, only one or more authorized entities may be allowed to create transactions and thereby cause state changes of the DIR 300. Each transaction may be signed by an entity creating the transaction. In this way, state changes of the DIR 300 may be auditable. In some embodiments, multiple entities may be involved in causing a state change. All, or least a threshold number of the entities, may be required to sign within a selected time interval, or the state change may not be confirmed].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See submitted 892 for more relevant references.
Oberhauser (US2017/0111175) [0060, In some embodiments, a change of the DIR 300 from a first state to a second state may occur via a transaction in the distributed ledger. Once the transaction is confirmed by a majority of stakeholders maintaining the distributed ledger, the DIR 300 may remain in the second state until another transaction is confirmed. In some embodiments, all state changes of the DIR 300 may be recorded in the distributed ledger and may be visible to all stakeholders, resulting in a transparent audit trail].
LI (US2018/0260909) [ Abstract. The present disclosure describes techniques for using a consensus network for handling requests. In one implementation, a first block chain node sends, to a consensus network, a business request generated according to business information sent by a user. A second block chain node in the consensus network verifies the legality of a business result obtained by a third block chain node according to the business request. The first block chain node executes a first designated operation by triggering a first smart contract in the business request. The first block chain node utilizes the smart contract executed automatically. The first block chain node automatically accomplishes the first designated operation by using the first smart contract once the business result passes the verification carried out by the second block chain node. The second block chain node verifies the business result obtained by the third block chain node].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAHRIAR ZARRINEH whose telephone number is (571)272-1207. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:30pm.
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, Jorge Ortiz-Criado can be reached at 571-272-7624. 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.
/SHAHRIAR ZARRINEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2496