Remarks
Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14-19 are pending.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the 101 arguments, Applicant is directed to the below rejection that has been updated for the amended claims. Briefly, with respect to Applicant’s allegations on page 9, a decentralized computer network may simply be a network of humans around the globe, since humans compute things and there have been networks of such computers for many centuries (e.g., networks of spies, or networks of fine arts/collectibles dealers). They are decentralized since they are spaced out around a city, state, country, continent, or the globe, for example. With respect to Applicant’s allegations at the bottom of page 9, Applicant is directed to the below rejection which fully details the abstract idea(s) in the claims.
With respect to Applicant’s allegations at the top of page 10, the claims are certainly directed to methods of managing interactions between people and/or organizing human activity, since the entirety thereof can be performed by humans. With respect to the next few paragraphs, as shown below, humans can perform these steps.
With respect to Applicant’s allegations at the top of page 11, to the contrary, all of this is not additional elements, as noted below. Please see the updated 101 rejections below. With respect to Applicant’s allegations at the bottom of page 11, this subject matter from the specification is not part of the claims.
With respect to Applicant’s allegations on pages 12-13, as noted below, besides the abstract idea, this claim recites “One or more non-transitory computer readable media having stored thereon instructions for verifying query results to improve security in decentralized computer networks, the instructions comprising executable code that, when executed by one or more processors of a verifier, causes the one or more processors to:”.
However, this/these additional element(s) is/are recited so generically (no details are provided other than that there is one or more media having instructions stored thereon that may be executed by one or more processors – these could be any medium and any processor(s), including generic computer media and processor(s)) that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer system in order to perform the abstract idea. The additional element(s) described above is/are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. This limitation can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the nature of these components being physical or tangible does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
Even when viewed in combination, any additional elements in this claim do no more than automate the abstract ideas that the human can perform, using computer components as a tool. There is no improvement to any computers or other technology achieved by the claim by automating the abstract ideas, and thus this claim cannot improve computer functionality or other technology. See, e.g., Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, Inc., 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (using a computer to provide a trader with more information to facilitate market trades improved the business process of market trading, but not the computer) and the cases discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), particularly FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data is not an improvement when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer) and Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017)(using a generic computer to automate a process of applying to finance a purchase is not an improvement to the computer’s functionality). Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
With respect to step 2B, this part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. MPEP 2106.05. As explained with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) described above is/are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception (please see the above). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception, which cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
On page 15, Applicant alleges “the data owner generates first commitments and the user generates second commitments. Neither of these commitments is an updated version of any other commitments or generated based on updating any other commitments. Further, the Merkle tree root hash and data owner’s new signature recited by the Office on page 6 of the Office action are not commitments.” To the contrary, as the instant application states, for example, in paragraph 46 of the specification, “The commitment in this example is a relatively small ‘digest’ of the data, which holds sufficient information to subsequently ensure that the data is not tampered with”. This is precisely what a hash is, and a signature goes one step further and additionally secures the hash more. Furthermore, Thompson certainly updates the commitments when the data is modified (e.g., addition or deletion), since the hashes are recreated and the hash tree is recreated as well, possibly with some values being the same as before (those without modifications) and updated values (those for changed data and/or above those changed hashes in the tree).
With respect to the next allegation (“the user generates the second commitments long after a query result is generated, and the user’s actions are therefore irrelevant to the above-identified claim limitations”), to the contrary, the database is updated with the Merkle tree hashes when the data is updated. While the data may be verified later by generating the hashes anew and comparing against the previously generated hashes, this is of no detriment to the claims.
The final 2 paragraphs on page 15 of the response do not appear relevant to the claims at hand, as no claim limitation is even mentioned here.
With respect to Applicant’s allegations at the top of page 16, this has already been responded to above.
With respect to Applicant’s allegations at the bottom of page 16, Thompson certainly discloses verifying the results, such as in the verify step. Thompson also discloses returning the results, but does not explicitly disclose that the result is returned after verifying. Sion disclose this in Sion’s disclosure of the wrapper verifying results before returning to data client, for example.
It is unclear what Applicant is attempting to argue at the top of page 17. Assuming Applicant means to argue that the first and second commitments must be different in the claims, this is not the case. In fact, the second commitment may just be the updated first commitment: “update a stored first commitment … to generate a second commitment”. Thus, the updated first commitment is the second commitment. This corresponds to Thompson’s updating of hashes and signatures in response to additions and deletions in the database.
With respect to Applicant’s allegations regarding an intermediary device (e.g., in the middle of page 17: “There is simply no intermediary device (e.g., a verifier) in Thompson…” and the following paragraph(s)), the claims do not necessarily include a single verifier device. Rather, claim 1, for example, is written so broadly as to include “One or more non-transitory computer readable media having stored thereon instructions for verifying query results to improve security in decentralized computer networks, the instructions comprising executable code that, when executed by one or more processors of a verifier, causes the one or more processors to:”. Thus, claim 1’s media could include very media in every device taking part in the decentralized computer network and the verifier mentioned could be the network as a whole. No single device need perform the entirety of claim 1.
On page 18, Applicant merely reiterates above arguments that have already been fully responded to, such as in the above discussions of how the second commitments are updated hashes/signatures created upon modifications to the database.
Applicant then appears to provide reference to the specification, while explicitly noting that this is “By way of example only” and is, thus, non-limiting on the claims at hand. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., specification, paragraphs 56-57) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
The specification refers to a number of references, including at least in paragraphs 51, 54, and 63. None of these appear to have been mentioned in any IDS and, thus, have not necessarily been considered.
The information disclosure statement filed 8/29/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.97(d) because it lacks a timing statement as specified in 37 CFR 1.97(e). It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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 1-5, 7-12, 14-18, and 20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the request new data" in the update limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 7 and 14 have the same issue and are rejected for the same reasons. All dependent claims are rejected at least based on their dependencies.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the second third one or more communication networks" in the final limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 7 and 14 have the same issue and are rejected for the same reasons. All dependent claims are rejected at least based on their dependencies.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the query from a second client and via second one or more communication networks" in the obtain limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that above the query is received “via third one or more communication networks”. Claims 7 and 14 have the same issue and are rejected for the same reasons. All dependent claims are rejected at least based on their dependencies.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, with respect to step 1, this part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites one or more non-transitory computer readable media having stored thereon instructions for verifying query results to improve security in decentralized computer networks, the instructions comprising executable code that, when executed by one or more processors of a verifier, causes the one or more processors to: receive via first one or more communication networks a request from a first client to insert new data into a portion of a database hosted by one or more provers; update a stored first commitment to the portion of the database, based on the new data, without accessing the database, and before a query is received or a query result is generated hosted by one or more provers to generate a second commitment in response to the request new data originating from a first client, received via first one or more communication networks, and to be inserted into the portion of the database; send the new data via second one or more communication networks to the one or more provers for insertion into the portion of the database; receive via third one or more communication networks the query from a second client, wherein the query is associated with the new data; obtain the second commitment and, from the one or more provers via the second one or more communication networks, the query result and a proof associated with the portion of the database, after receipt of the query from a second client and via second one or more communication networks; verify the query result obtained from the one or more provers, against the proof obtained from the one or more provers and based on the obtained second commitment, before the query result is provided to the second client device; and return the query result, to the second client and via the second third one or more communication networks, in response to the query after the query result is verified, based on the second commitment, against the proof obtained from the one or more provers.
Therefore, this claim appears to be a manufacture, which is a statutory category of invention. Please see MPEP 2106.3.I:
A process defines "actions", i.e., an invention that is claimed as an act or step, or a series of acts or steps. As explained by the Supreme Court, a "process" is "a mode of treatment of certain materials to produce a given result. It is an act, or a series of acts, performed upon the subject-matter to be transformed and reduced to a different state or thing." Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972) (italics added) (quoting Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 788, 24 L. Ed. 139, 141 (1876)). See also Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1355, 84 USPQ2d at 1501 ("The Supreme Court and this court have consistently interpreted the statutory term ‘process’ to require action"); NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1763, 1791 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("[A] process is a series of acts.") (quoting Minton v. Natl. Ass’n. of Securities Dealers, 336 F.3d 1373, 1378, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1681 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). As defined in 35 U.S.C. 100(b), the term "process" is synonymous with "method."
The other three categories (machines, manufactures and compositions of matter) define the types of physical or tangible "things" or "products" that Congress deemed appropriate to patent. Digitech Image Techs. v. Electronics for Imaging, 758 F.3d 1344, 1348, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1719 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("For all categories except process claims, the eligible subject matter must exist in some physical or tangible form."). Thus, when determining whether a claimed invention falls within one of these three categories, examiners should verify that the invention is to at least one of the following categories and is claimed in a physical or tangible form.
• A machine is a "concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices." Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348-49, 111 USPQ2d at 1719 (quoting Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650, 657 (1863)). This category "includes every mechanical device or combination of mechanical powers and devices to perform some function and produce a certain effect or result." Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1355, 84 USPQ2d at 1501 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267, 14 L. Ed. 683, 690 (1854)).
• A manufacture is "a tangible article that is given a new form, quality, property, or combination through man-made or artificial means." Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1349, 111 USPQ2d at 1719-20 (citing Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 308, 206 USPQ 193, 197 (1980)). As the courts have explained, manufactures are articles that result from the process of manufacturing, i.e., they were produced "from raw or prepared materials by giving to these materials new forms, qualities, properties, or combinations, whether by hand-labor or by machinery." Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc., 137 S. Ct. 429, 120 USPQ2d 1749, 1752-3 (2016) (quoting Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U. S. 303, 308, 206 USPQ 193, 196-97 (1980)); Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1356-57, 84 USPQ2d at 1502. Manufactures also include "the parts of a machine considered separately from the machine itself." Samsung Electronics, 137 S. Ct. at 435, 120 USPQ2d at 1753 (quoting 1 W. Robinson, The Law of Patents for Useful Inventions §183, p. 270 (1890)).
• A composition of matter is a "combination of two or more substances and includes all composite articles." Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348-49, 111 USPQ2d at 1719 (citation omitted). This category includes all compositions of two or more substances and all composite articles, "'whether they be the results of chemical union or of mechanical mixture, or whether they be gases, fluids, powders or solids.'" Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 308, 206 USPQ at 197 (quoting Shell Dev. Co. v. Watson, 149 F. Supp. 279, 280 (D.D.C. 1957); id. at 310 holding genetically modified microorganism to be a manufacture or composition of matter).
With respect to step 2A, prong one, this part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04(II) and the October 2019 Update, a claim ‘recites’ a judicial exception when the judicial exception is ‘set forth’ or ‘described’ in the claim. There are no nature-based product limitations in the claim, and thus the markedly different characteristics analysis is not performed. However, the claim still must be reviewed to determine if it recites any other type of judicial exception.
Claim 1 contains the following limitations that are directed to abstract ideas:
Receive via first one or more communication networks a request from a first client to insert new data into a portion of a database hosted by one or more provers (mental process and/or certain methods of organizing human activity, e.g., receive request to update a certificate of authenticity/ownership document/contract by signing/initialing when changes are made, such as a change in ownership is recorded or a contract term is modified, such certificate/document/contract being part of a database by being in a stack of papers on a desk, or on a bookshelf, or in a filing cabinet, as examples);
Update a stored first commitment to the portion of the database, based on the new data, without accessing the database, and before a query is received or a query result is generated hosted by one or more provers to generate a second commitment in response to the request new data originating from a first client, received via first one or more communication networks, and to be inserted into the portion of the database (mental process and/or certain methods of organizing human activity, e.g., updating a certificate of authenticity/ownership document/contract by signing/initialing when changes are made, such as a change in ownership is recorded or a contract term is modified, such certificate/document/contract being part of a database by being in a stack of papers on a desk, or on a bookshelf, or in a filing cabinet, as examples);
Send the new data via second one or more communication networks to the one or more provers for insertion into the portion of the database (mental process and/or certain methods of organizing human activity, e.g., sending the updated data to a network of collectibles dealers);
Receive via third one or more communication networks the query from a second client, wherein the query is associated with the new data (mental process and/or certain methods of organizing human activity, e.g., receiving query, for example, from a collectibles dealer, client, potential purchaser, etc., as examples);
Obtain the second commitment and, from the one or more provers via the second one or more communication networks, the query result and a proof associated with the portion of the database, after receipt of the query from a second client and via second one or more communication networks (mental process and/or certain methods of organizing human activity, e.g., signature/initials from above, query result which may be the document itself or any information regarding it (e.g., a document with data regarding all prior owners of a particular collectible (perhaps a signed first edition of a rare book), or a page including information regarding what the collectible looks like, or the like), as well as a proof that the collectible is, itself, the real thing (e.g., the certificate of authenticity, that attests to the fact that the collectible has changed hands and is now owned by someone new, signed by a collectibles dealer));
Verify the query result obtained from the one or more provers, against the proof obtained from the one or more provers and based on the obtained second commitment, before the query result is provided to the second client device (mental process and/or certain methods of organizing human activity, e.g., verifying the previous owners); and
Return the query result, to the second client and via the second third one or more communication networks, in response to the query after the query result is verified, based on the second commitment, against the proof obtained from the one or more provers (mental process and/or certain methods of organizing human activity, e.g., provide the book once ownership or a new sale is verified including verifying the previous owners).
As noted, these can be performed by a human either completely mentally or by using certain methods of organizing human activity, such as a human writing and reading via documentation or filing systems.
As explained in the MPEP and the October 2019 Update, situations like this where a series of steps recite judicial exceptions, examiners should combine all recited judicial exceptions and treat the claim as containing a single abstract idea for purposes of further eligibility. See MPEP 2106.04 and 2106.05(ii). Thus, for purposes of further discussion, this rejection may consider all limitations as a single abstract idea.
With respect to step 2A, prong two, this part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55. Besides the abstract idea, this claim recites “One or more non-transitory computer readable media having stored thereon instructions for verifying query results to improve security in decentralized computer networks, the instructions comprising executable code that, when executed by one or more processors of a verifier, causes the one or more processors to:”.
However, this/these additional element(s) is/are recited so generically (no details are provided other than that there is one or more media having instructions stored thereon that may be executed by one or more processors – these could be any medium and any processor(s), including generic computer media and processor(s)) that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer system in order to perform the abstract idea. The additional element(s) described above is/are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. This limitation can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the nature of these components being physical or tangible does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
Even when viewed in combination, any additional elements in this claim do no more than automate the abstract ideas that the human can perform, using computer components as a tool. There is no improvement to any computers or other technology achieved by the claim by automating the abstract ideas, and thus this claim cannot improve computer functionality or other technology. See, e.g., Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, Inc., 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (using a computer to provide a trader with more information to facilitate market trades improved the business process of market trading, but not the computer) and the cases discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), particularly FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data is not an improvement when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer) and Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017)(using a generic computer to automate a process of applying to finance a purchase is not an improvement to the computer’s functionality). Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
With respect to step 2B, this part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. MPEP 2106.05. As explained with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) described above is/are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception (please see the above). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception, which cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
The other independent claims, 7 (system claim) and 14 (method claim), include a similar analysis as above and are rejected for the same reasons. It is noted that claim 14’s “one or more computing devices” have the same analysis as the processors and memory, for example, noted above.
With respect to claim 2, the following is directed to the abstract idea: obtain one or more of the query result or the proof from one or more of a plurality of provers of a decentralized network (e.g., obtaining the book and/or information described above from a collectible dealer/authenticator that is part of a network of such dealers/authenticators). The “node” and “computer” network are each an additional element, that has the same analysis as the memory and processor(s) above, since it is simply a generic computer component.
Claims 8 and 15 include a similar analysis as above and are rejected for the same reasons.
With respect to claim 3, the following is directed to the abstract idea:
Store the first commitment in a local memory (e.g., storing the original commitment as described above in a stack of papers, bookshelf, or filing cabinet, as examples); and
Retrieve the first commitment form the local memory before the first commitment is updated (e.g., retrieving it from the above).
Claims 9 and 16 include a similar analysis as above and are rejected for the same reasons.
With respect to claim 4, the following is directed to the abstract idea: update the first commitment without accessing the original data from the database (e.g., the book may have been modified by being written in or by a page being ripped out).
Claims 10 and 17 include a similar analysis as above and are rejected for the same reasons.
With respect to claim 5, the following is directed to the abstract idea: wherein the database comprises a distributed ledger database hosted by one or more members of the distributed ledger network (e.g., the above information is distributed and stored by multiple dealers/authenticators in the network noted above). The distributed ledger being a blockchain and one or more processors are additional elements. Processors have already been fully analyzed above. A blockchain is also simply a generic computer construct that is ubiquitously used and has the same analysis as the computer components described and analyzed above.
Claims 11 and 18 include a similar analysis as above and are rejected for the same reasons.
With respect to claim 12, the following is directed to the abstract idea: one or more verifiers, hosted by one of the verifiers and the portion of the database is hosted by the one or more provers (e.g., owners, collectors may be verifiers, and collectible dealers/authenticators may be provers, where the provers store the papers or the like discussed above). The memory and one or more processors are additional elements that have been fully analyzed above.
Claim 19 includes a similar analysis as above and is rejected for the same reasons.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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, 7-10, 12, 14-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson (Thompson, Brian et al., “Privacy-Preserving Computation and Verification of Aggregate Queries on Outsourced Databases”, 8/5/2009, pp. 1-17) in view of Sion (Sion, Radu, “Query Execution Assurance for Outsourced Databases”, 2005, pp. 601-612).
Regarding Claim 1,
Thompson discloses one or more non-transitory computer readable media having stored thereon instructions for verifying query results to improve security in decentralized computer networks, the instructions comprising executable code that, when executed by one or more processors of a verifier, causes the one or more processors to:
Receive via first one or more communication networks a request from a first client to insert new data into a portion of a database hosted by one or more provers (Exemplary Citations: for example, Sections 3 and 6, a request for new data to be stored, such as the user entering new data to be added, and/or in the commit step in section 3, which inputs the data set, for example);
Update a stored first commitment to the portion of the database, based on the new data, without accessing the database, and before a query is received or a query result is generated hosted by one or more provers to generate a second commitment in response to the request new data originating from a first client, received via first one or more communication networks, and to be inserted into the portion of the database (Exemplary Citations: for example, Sections 4 and 6; aggregate commitments for chunks of data being requested and/or Merkle tree root hash with respect to dynamic databases, where data can be added by an owner, a commitment added to the owner’s portion of the database, and Merkle tree updated to include the owner’s new signature for example);
Send the new data via second one or more communication networks to the one or more provers for insertion into the portion of the database (Exemplary Citations: for example, Sections 3 and 6, distributing the new data/shares to service providers, for example);
Receive via third one or more communication networks the query from a second client, wherein the query is associated with the new data (Exemplary Citations: for example, Sections 4 and 6; query, for example);
Obtain the second commitment and, from the one or more provers via the second one or more communication networks, the query result and a proof associated with the portion of the database, after receipt of the query from a second client and via second one or more communication networks (Exemplary Citations: for example, Sections 4; e.g., RESPOND step disclosing queries that result in responses that include commitments (e.g., commitments), results (e.g., query result/aggregate result), and proof (e.g., proof with sibling hashes, signature on Merkle root), for example. Section 6 also relevant to show that the database was added to, for example, thus changing the set of commitments, aggregate commitments, Merkle tree, root hash, etc.);
Verify the query result obtained from the one or more provers, against the proof obtained from the one or more provers and based on the obtained second commitment, before the query result is provided to the second client device (Exemplary Citations: for example, Sections 4 and 6; verify step, for example); and
Return the query result, to the second client and via the second third one or more communication networks, in response to the query based on the second commitment, against the proof obtained from the one or more provers (Exemplary Citations: for example, Section 4 (e.g., VERIFY step) disclosing verifying results using the above, for example. Section 6 also relevant to show that the database was added to, for example, thus changing the set of commitments, aggregate commitments, Merkle tree, root hash, etc.);
But does not explicitly disclose that the query result is returned after being verified.
Sion, however, discloses returning the query result, to the second client and via the second third one or more communication networks, in response to the query after the query result is verified, based on the second commitment against the proof obtained from the one or more provers (Exemplary Citations: for example, Sections 3, 3.3, and 5; client wrapper (e.g., sqi.client.QueryClient in section 5, which implements the client steps in section 3) verifies results before returning to data client, for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention, which is before any effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the query execution assurance techniques of Sion into the aggregate query verification system of Thompson in order to provide ease of deployability and backwards compatibility with current and legacy systems, allow for verification without needing to update traditional database client interfaces to implement the verifications, and/or to increase security in the system.
Regarding Claim 7,
Claim 7 is a system claim that corresponds to medium claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 14,
Claim 14 is a method claim that corresponds to medium claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 2,
Thompson as modified by Sion discloses the medium of claim 1, in addition, Thompson discloses that the executable code, when executed by the one or more processors, further causes the one or more processors to obtain one or more of the query result or the proof from one or more of a plurality of prover nodes of a decentralized computer network (Exemplary Citations: for example, Sections 1, 3, 8; database as a service at multiple service providers, decentralized solution, distributed architecture, etc., as examples); and
Sion discloses that the executable code, when executed by the one or more processors, further causes the one or more processors to obtain one or more of the query result or the proof from one or more of a plurality of prover nodes of a decentralized computer network (Exemplary Citations: for example, Sections 1 and 6; database as a service and splitting data among multiple service providers, for example).
Regarding Claim 8,
Claim 8 is a system claim that corresponds to medium claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 15,
Claim 15 is a method claim that corresponds to medium claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 3,
Thompson as modified by Sion discloses the medium of claim 1, in addition, Thompson discloses that the executable code, when executed by the one or more processors, further causes the one or more processors to:
Store the first commitment in a local memory (Exemplary Citations: for example, Section 4; all data is stored in a local memory as it is being worked on, such as in verifying data that has not yet been added to, for example); and
Retrieve the first commitment from the local memory before the first commitment is updated (Exemplary Citations: for example, Section 4; verifying response by using data stored in whatever memory stores the data in the computer currently verifying the data/response, for example); and
Sion discloses that the executable code, when executed by the one or more processors, further causes the one or more processors to:
Store the first commitment in a local memory (Exemplary Citations: for example, Sections 3 and 4.0.1, storing data prior to verifying data (e.g., via identity queries that are then verified by current identity hashes) prior to data update, for example. This could be explicit storing of the identity hash, for example, (e.g., as in the start of section 3), and/or , as noted above, all data is stored in local memory while being worked on at whatever computer is working on the data, such as in verifying the data, for example); and
Retrieve the first commitment from the local memory before the first commitment is updated (Exemplary Citations: for example, Sections 3 and 4.0.1, verifying data (e.g., via identity queries that are then verified by current identity hashes) prior to data update, for example. This could be explicit later use of a stored identity hash (e.g., as in the start of section 3), and/or, as noted above, all data is stored in local memory while being worked on at whatever computer is working on the data, such as in verifying the data, for example).
Regarding Claim 9,
Claim 9 is a system claim that corresponds to medium claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 16,
Claim 16 is a method claim that corresponds to medium claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 4,
Thompson as modified by Sion discloses the medium of claim 3, in addition, Thompson discloses that the executable code, when executed by the one or more processors, further causes the one or more processors to update the first commitment without accessing the original data from the database (Exemplary Citations: for example, Section 6; new random polynomial for new data and shares for new data are distributed and updating of Merkle tree, while the shares for other database entries are not affected, for example); and
Sion discloses that the executable code, when executed by the one or more processors, further causes the one or more processors to update the first commitment without accessing the original data from the database (Exemplary Citations: for example, Section 4.0.1, updating data then recomputing hash from updated data, for example).
Regarding Claim 10,
Claim 10 is a system claim that corresponds to medium claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 17,
Claim 17 is a method claim that corresponds to medium claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 12,
Thompson as modified by Sion discloses the system of claim 7, in addition, Thompson discloses one or more verifiers, wherein the memory and the one or more processors are hosted by one of the verifiers and the portion of the database is hosted by the one or more provers (Exemplary Citations: for example, Sections 3 and 4; clients may be verifiers and service providers may be provers, for example); and
Sion discloses one or more verifiers, wherein the memory and the one or more processors are hosted by one of the verifiers and the portion of the database is hosted by the one or more provers (Exemplary Citations: for example, Sections 3 and 5; clients/owners may be verifiers and service providers may be provers, for example).
Regarding Claim 19,
Thompson as modified by Sion discloses the method of claim 14, in addition, Thompson discloses that the one or more computing devices comprise one or more verifiers and the portion of the database is hosted by the one or more provers (Exemplary Citations: for example, Sections 3 and 4; clients may be verifiers and service providers may be provers, for example); and
Sion discloses that the one or more computing devices comprise one or more verifiers and the portion of the database is hosted by the one or more provers (Exemplary Citations: for example, Sections 3 and 5; clients/owners may be verifiers and service providers may be provers, for example).
Claims 5, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson in view of Sion and Sung (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0216999).
Regarding Claim 5,
Thompson as modified by Sion discloses the medium of claim 1, in addition, Thompson discloses that the database comprises a database and the one or more processors are hosted by one or more members of a network (Exemplary Citations: for example, Sections 1, 3, 8; multiple service providers, decentralized solution, distributed architecture, etc., as examples); and
Sion discloses that the database comprises a database and the one or more processors are hosted by one or more members of a network (Exemplary Citations: for example, Sections 1 and 6; multiple service providers, for example);
But does not explicitly disclose that the database is a blockchain database and the network is a blockchain network.
Sung, however, discloses that the database comprises a blockchain database and the one or more processors are hosted by one or more members of a blockchain network (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 7, 9, 11, 13, 33, and many more; blockchain system with database and network, for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention, which is before any effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the blockchain of Sung into the aggregate query verification system of Thompson as modified by Sion in order to allow the system to take advantage of blockchain technology and benefits thereof, to allow an owner to change and/or erase data as required, but no one else, and/or to increase security in the system.
Regarding Claim 11,
Claim 11 is a system claim that corresponds to medium claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 18,
Claim 18 is a method claim that corresponds to medium claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey D Popham whose telephone number is (571)272-7215. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00-5:30.
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, Jeffrey Nickerson can be reached at (469) 295-9235. 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.
/Jeffrey D. Popham/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432
Prosecution Insights