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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 28 May 2026 has been entered.
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 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2019/0180276) in view of Jalali et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2003/0033285), and further in view of Patterson et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2020/0005264).
As to claim 2, Lee teaches a computer system for efficient search of a blockchain structure, the system comprising:
a computer memory system (see paragraph [0156]) storing a hybrid database comprising:
a blockchain structure comprising a plurality of linked blockchains (see Lee paragraphs [0098]-[0099] and Figure 2. Notably, Figure 2 of Lee shows a blockchain network that may contain multiple blockchains. As noted in Figure 2, the Nodes are linked, wherein one blockchain may be stored per node); and
a graph data structure (see Lee paragraphs [0109] and [0137]. The system is capable of receiving a query to find a transaction. When multiple blockchains exist, identity information for a user may lookup a corresponding blockchain identifier, which is used to select a particular blockchain, such as a user side chain, to search for the transaction) …
one or more processors configured to:
receive a search query for information stored in a block of the blockchain structure (see Lee paragraph [0137]. The system of Lee is capable of searching for a particular chain or sidechain to search for a transaction);
in response to receiving the search query, search the graph data structure to locate [an identifier] based on the information (see Lee paragraph [0137]. The system of Lee receives a search query, then searches a graph data structure to locate a corresponding blockchain);
in response to locating [the identifier], access a blockchain in the plurality of linked blockchains at a [location] of the blockchain stored in a [record] and traverse the blockchain to find the block storing the information (see Lee paragraph [0137]); and
retrieve the information from the block (see Lee paragraph [0137]); and
Lee does not explicitly teach:
a graph data structure, wherein links in the plurality of linked blockchains are stored as edges in the graph data structure
each edge being recorded only after writing a relationship corresponding to a link into a blockchain in the plurality of linked blockchains, and
blockchains in the plurality of linked blockchains are stored as nodes in the graph data structure,
each node containing a respective address of each blockchain; and
in response to receiving the search query, search the graph data structure to locate an edge representing a link based on the information
a blockchain in the plurality of linked blockchains at an address of the blockchain stored in a node connected to the edge
a display configured to display the information on a user interface.
Jalali teaches:
a graph data structure, wherein each link in the plurality of linked [nodes] is stored as an edge in the graph data structure (see Jalali Figures 3-4 and paragraphs [0042] and [0047]-[0048]. Jalali shows a graph data structure, as in Figures 3 and 4, that stores edges between nodes. It is noted that Jalali does not show storing blockchain data. Lee, cited above, stores blockchain data on nodes);
each edge being recorded only after writing a relationship corresponding to a link into a [node] in the plurality of linked [nodes] (see Jalali Figures 3-4 and paragraphs [0042] and [0047]-[0048]. Edges between nodes are stored as relationships identifying children of a node in a row. It would be obvious to store this relationship information only after the relationship information exists. It is noted that Patterson, cited below, stores an index of distributed ledgers wherein one distributed ledger stores relationship information for another distributed ledger. Because Patterson stores linked blockchain (see Patterson paragraphs [0030]-[0031]) and Jalali stores node relationships as edges in a graph data structure, wherein each edge in Jalali only represents relationships that have been created in the graph data structure, the references combined teach the claimed subject matter), and
in response to receiving the search query, search the graph data structure to locate an edge representing a link based on the information (see Jalali paragraph [0052]. The graph structures may be queried to identify the correct edges linking to the nodes)
…
a display configured to display the information on a user interface (see Jalali paragraphs [0023] and [0052]. The information is retrieved. Also see paragraph [0078], in which Jalali shows a display. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to display retrieved information on a generic user interface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the invention to have modified Lee by the teachings of Jalali because both references are directed towards searching hierarchical data structures. Jalali provides to Lee querying techniques that improve efficiency and mitigate complexity of querying and returning hierarchical data (see Jalali paragraph [0029]).
Patterson teaches:
each edge being recorded only after writing a relationship corresponding to a link into a blockchain in the plurality of linked blockchains (see Patterson paragraphs [0030]-[0031]. A distributed ledger may store a link to node with another distributed ledger. Recording a link to a node is writing a link into a blockchain in a plurality of blocks),
blockchains in the plurality of linked blockchains are stored as nodes in the graph data structure (see paragraph [0030]. Patterson shows an index of blockchains stored on a ledger),
each node containing a respective address of each blockchain (see paragraph [0031]. The ledger, comprised of at least one node, stores an address of a broker node, which in turn stores a distributed ledger, or blockchain, of its own); and
access a blockchain in the plurality of linked blockchains at an address of the blockchain stored in a node connected to the edge (see Patterson paragraphs [0030]-[0031]. The appropriate blockchain may be accessed via the address stored in the index).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the invention to have modified Lee by the teachings of Patterson because both references are directed towards storing data in blockchains. Patterson provides to Lee a blockchain index that improves efficiency by allowing one to more easily find an appropriate blockchain for a transaction.
As to claim 12, see the rejection of claim 2.
Claims 3-6, 8-10, 13-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2019/0180276) in view of Jalali et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2003/0033285), in view of Patterson et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2020/0005264), and further in view of Johnson (US Pre-Grant Publication 2019/0363890).
As to claim 3, Lee teaches the computer system of claim 2.
Lee does not teach the one or more processors further configured to:
receive a transaction indicating second information; and
allocate a second blockchain linked to a particular blockchain in the plurality of linked blockchains, the second blockchain configured to record the transaction.
Johnson teaches the one or more processors further configured to:
receive a transaction indicating second information (see Johnson paragraph [0032]); and
allocate a second blockchain linked to a particular blockchain in the plurality of linked blockchains, the second blockchain configured to record the transaction (see Johnson paragraph [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the invention to have modified Lee by the teachings of Johnson because both references are directed towards managing blockchain data. Johnson provides to Lee a nested blockchain system that can more easily manage multiple related blockchains and sub-blockchains.
As to claim 4, Lee as modified by Jalali teaches the computer system of claim 3, the one or more processors further configured to:
record a second node in the graph data structure representing the second blockchain and a third node in the graph data structure representing the particular blockchain (see Lee paragraph [0137] for a graph data structure representing blockchains. See Jalali Figures 3-4 and paragraphs [0042] and [0047]-[0048] for a graph data structure that records links between nodes); and
record a second link between the second blockchain and the particular blockchain as a second edge between the third node and the second node (see Lee paragraph [0137] for a graph data structure representing blockchains. See Jalali Figures 3-4 and paragraphs [0042] and [0047]-[0048] for a graph data structure that records links between nodes).
As to claim 5, Lee as modified by Johnson teaches the computer system of claim 4, the one or more processors further configured to:
generate a header block immediately following a genesis block in the second blockchain, the header block linked to a linking block in the particular blockchain (see Johnson paragraphs [0017] and [0082]. A genesis block is generated in a subblockchain. The genesis block may link back to a master blockchain. A block immediately following the genesis block may contain a header and links back to the genesis block, which is also a linking block).
As to claim 6, Lee teaches the computer system of claim 5, wherein the header block comprises metadata indicating a block type, a value token, and a transaction cost (see Lee paragraph [0060]. It is additionally noted that recording specific types of metadata, but not claiming any functional use of the values of the metadata, is merely storing non-functional descriptive material. Non-functional descriptive material receives no patentable weight).
As to claim 8, Lee as modified by Johnson teaches the computer system of claim 3, the one or more processors further configured to:
receive a transaction indicating third information (see Johnson paragraph [0080]); and
record the transaction on the second blockchain (see Johnson paragraph [0080]).
As to claim 9, Lee as modified teaches the computer system of claim 3, wherein the second information indicates a first actor and a second actor and the second blockchain stores transactions between the first actor and the second actor (see Lee paragraphs [0136]-[0137] for transactions containing parties and searching a blockchain or side chain).
As to claim 10, Lee as modified teaches the computer system of claim 3, wherein the second information indicates a first actor, a second actor, and a third actor and the second blockchain stores transactions among the first actor, the second actor, and the third actor (see paragraphs [0136]-[0137]. Multiple parties may be involved in a transaction. It is noted that the third party does not have any functional effect on the claim beyond being recorded as data. It is noted that simply adding a third party as a piece of metadata is non-functional descriptive material and would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art).
As to claim 13, see the rejection of claim 3.
As to claim 14, see the rejection of claim 4.
As to claim 15, see the rejection of claim 5.
As to claim 16, see the rejection of claim 6.
As to claim 18, see the rejection of claim 8.
As to claim 19, see the rejection of claim 9.
As to claim 20, see the rejection of claim 10.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2019/0180276) in view of Jalali et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2003/0033285), in view of Patterson et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2020/0005264), in view of Johnson (US Pre-Grant Publication 2019/0363890), and further in view of Moir et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2018/0341930)
As to claim 7, Lee teaches the computer system of claim 5, wherein the linking block comprises metadata indicating a blockchain identifier and an owning entity (see Johnson paragraphs [0017] and [0082]).
Lee as modified does not teach metadata indicating a sharding implementation.
Moir teaches metadata indicating a sharding implementation (see paragraph [0056]).
It is additionally noted that recording specific types of metadata, but not claiming any functional use of the values of the metadata, is merely storing non-functional descriptive material. Non-functional descriptive material receives no patentable weight.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the invention to have modified Lee by the teachings of Moir because both references are directed towards managing distributed ledger data. Moir provides to Lee the ability to track additional data that may be stored in the graph database of Jalali that may be able to be used for querying information. This will increase the ability of users to make use of the data of Lee.
As to claim 17, see the rejection of claim 7.
Claims 11 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2019/0180276) in view of Jalali et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2003/0033285), in view of Patterson et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2020/0005264), and further in view of Vouk et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2020/0007581).
As to claim 11, Lee as modified teaches the computer system of claim 2
Lee does not teach the blockchain structure further comprising a governance blockchain linked to the plurality of linked blockchains, the governance blockchain comprising governance rules that govern behaviors of the plurality of linked blockchains.
Vouk teaches the blockchain structure further comprising a governance blockchain linked to the plurality of linked blockchains, the governance blockchain comprising governance rules that govern behaviors of the plurality of linked blockchains (see paragraph [0034]. Governance rules are written onto a data block and stored on a blockchain).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the invention to have modified Lee by the teachings of Vouk because both references are directed towards managing blockchains. Vouk provides to Lee the ability to change governance rules dynamically as needed on a chain (see paragraph [0035]). This will benefit users who require changing rules on a blockchain as needed.
As to claim 21, see the rejection of claim 11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 28 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Lee in view of Jalali and Patterson does not teach or suggest at least “each edge being recorded only after writing a relationship corresponding to a link into a blockchain in the plurality of linked blockchains.”
Applicant elaborates on each individual reference, stating that “Because Lee contains no graph data structure at all, Lee likewise does not teach any sequencing between blockchain write operations and graph edge recording … However, Jalali operates entirely within the domain of relational database and contains no blockchain and no blockchain write operations. As such, Jalali is also silent with respect to temporal sequencing between blockchain writes and graph edge recording … However, Patterson’s master node index serves as an administrative routing record and is not temporally coupled to or gated by blockchain write events – Patterson nowhere discloses or suggests recording an index entry only after a relationship has been written into a blockchain.”
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
It is noted that the amendment requires “each edge being recorded only after writing a relationship corresponding to a link into a blockchain in the plurality of linked blockchains.” The “temporal sequencing” referenced in Applicant’s argument amounts to – “only record a relationship after a relationship exists in the blockchain.”
Applicant concludes, arguing that “The combination of Lee, Jalali, and Patterson thus suffers a prima facie deficiency with respect to this missing limitation. None of the references explores any interaction between blockchain write operations and graph data structure updates. Each treats its respective data structures as independent components operating according to their own logic. Combining the references does not produce, or suggest producing, a mechanism by which each edge is recorded only after writing a relationship corresponding to a link into a blockchain in the plurality of linked blockchains.”
In response to Applicant’s arguments, it is noted that the combination of references would render the claimed step obvious.
Notably, Jalali teaches to record links between nodes in a tree in a graph data structure. These links in Jalali only exist after the nodes exist and the relationship between nodes is established. Patterson teaches a linked series of blockchains, wherein a primary distributed ledger, or blockchain, may establish a link with a child distributed ledger and record that link in the primary blockchain. Thus, Patterson shows “writing a relationship corresponding to a link into a blockchain in the plurality of blockchains,” and Jalali teaches “recording [each edge] only after writing a relationship [between nodes].” The blockchains of Patterson are stored in “nodes.” In view of Jalali, which teaches storing a relationship between nodes after the relationship exists, it would be obvious in view of the cited references to teach the claimed subject matter.
Applicant argues that Johnson, Moir, and Vouk due not teach the subject matter of the independent claims.
In response to this argument, Examiner notes that neither Johnson, Moir, nor Vouk are relied upon to teach the subject matter of the independent claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES D ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-3938. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5:30 EST.
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, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached at 5712701760. 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.
/CHARLES D ADAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165
Prosecution Insights