Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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 [trees] 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); 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:
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 first 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 14 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “First, the Office Action's combination impermissibly relies on hindsight knowledge of the claimed invention. It is impermissible to use the claimed invention as an instruction manual or 'template' to piece together the teachings of the prior art so that the claimed invention is rendered obvious. Further, one cannot use hindsight reconstruction to pick and choose among isolated disclosures in the prior art to deprecate the claimed invention. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992).”
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant argues that “In the Office Action, the Examiner appears to be picking and choosing select portions of various disclosures using hindsight knowledge in an attempt to reconstruct the claimed invention. As evidence of this, the Examiner has not provided a plausible explanation as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would modify Lee in the manner claimed. For example, the Examiner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Lee in the manner suggested with Jalali "because both references are directed towards searching hierarchical data structures" and that "Jalali provides to Lee querying techniques that improve efficiency and mitigate complexity of querying and returning hierarchical data." See Office Action, 12 citing Jalali 29. However, neither Lee nor Jalali is concerned with enabling efficient search of a hierarchical blockchain structure.”
In response to this argument, it is noted that Lee explicitly discusses the ability of searching multiple blockchains, including sidechains (see paragraph [0137]). Jalali similarly shows the ability to execute a query against nodes identified by a path (see paragraph [0052]). Thus, both references are concerned with enabling efficient search of a hierarchical blockchain structure.
Applicant continues, arguing that “In particular, Lee isn't even concerned with multi-level hierarchical structures and is instead directed to solving a completely separate problem of verifying non-hierarchical blockchain data. See Lee, Abstract, 2, 37, FIG. 2. Jalali does not concern blockchains at all (the technology was not yet a recognized technological field) and is directed to a more efficient way to emulate hierarchical systems using relational databases. See Jalali, 29.”
Examiner notes that Lee shows searching blockchains, including sidechains (see paragraph [0137]). This is searching multi-level hierarchical structured. Jalali is directed towards storing data structures to support querying hierarchical structures (see paragraph [0052]). Combined, the references teach the claimed subject matter.
In response to this argument, “One of ordinary skill in the art would have no apparent reason to modify a teaching about blockchain data verification with a teaching of emulating hierarchical systems using relational databases. Furthermore, "hierarchical data structures" are ubiquitous in computer science-file systems, XML documents, organizational charts, website navigation, memory management structures, and countless other contexts all involve hierarchies. The mere fact that two references allegedly involve hierarchies (which Lee doesn't even actually concern), without more, provides insufficient motivation to combine them.”
In response to this argument, both references do not merely involve hierarchies but also involve searching them. 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]).
Applicant argues that “Using an applicant's disclosure as a blueprint to reconstruct the claimed invention from isolated pieces of the prior art contravenes the statutory mandate of § 103, which requires judging obviousness at the point in time when the invention was made. See Grain Processing Corp. v. American Maize-Prods. Co., 840 F.2d 902, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The Office Action's combination, lacking any articulated reasoning beyond superficial similarities and apparent knowledge of Applicant's solution, constitutes such impermissible reconstruction.”
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant argues that “Second, the proposed combination of Lee and Jalali is improper because Jalali is non- analogous art. It is well established that two separate tests define the scope of analogous art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor and (2) if the reference is not within the same field of the inventor's endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Applicant argues that “Jalali is not in the field of blockchain technology, and is not reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by the present invention (e.g., blockchain scalability and searching efficiency issues). Instead, Jalali is in the field of relational database systems. See Jalali, 13 (Field of the Invention). Jalali also cannot be reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by the present invention. The problem with which the invention is involved is the scaling difficulty and searching inefficiency of blockchains, which are conventionally non-hierarchical (e.g., linear) … As such, Jalali's teachings directed towards efficiently indexing hierarchical data would not be reasonably pertinent to the problem of scaling difficulties and searching inefficiencies of a conventionally non-hierarchical system.”
In response to applicant's argument that Jalali is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both Lee and Jalali are directed towards methods of searching hierarchical structures.
Applicant argues that “Furthermore, Applicant notes that the interlinked, hierarchical blockchain structure contemplated in the specification is Applicant's solution to the problem, not the problem itself. In determining whether Jalali is analogous art, the relevant inquiry is whether Jalali is reasonably pertinent to the problem as it existed before Applicant's solution i.e., scaling and searching inefficiency of conventionally linear blockchains-and not whether Jalali relates to Applicant's hierarchy-based solution. For at least these reasons, Jalali is not analogous art and thus cannot be used to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the grounds of rejection be hereby withdrawn.”
As noted above, Jalali is related to the development of data structures to support the querying of hierarchical data, much as Applicant’s disclosure and claimed invention is. In view of this, Jalali is not non-analogous art.
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.
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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, Neveen Abel-Jalil can be reached at 571-270-0474. 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 2152