DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This communication is in response to the amendment filed on 01/28/2026 for application 18/922,950. Claims 1-2, 14-17 and 20 have been amended. Claims 13 and 18-19 have been canceled. Claims 21-23 have been added as new. Claims 1-12, 14-17 and 20-23 are pending in this application.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. After further search and a through examination of the present application, claims 1 and 21-22 remain rejected.
A double patenting rejection is maintained because terminal disclaimer has not been filed by the applicant.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-12, 14-17 and 20-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12, 14-17, 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,125,040 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of followings.
Present Application 18/922950
US PAT. 12125040 B2
A method for resolving data collisions on a blockchain comprising: providing a blockchain network comprising a blockchain operating in accordance with a set of consensus formation rules; providing a first node of a first firm, said first node being a node of said blockchain network communicably coupled to a first firm database; providing a second node of a second firm, said second node being a node of said blockchain network communicably coupled to a second firm database; providing an audit node of an artificial intelligence (Al) auditor module, said audit node being a node of said blockchain network; said first node posting to said blockchain network a first data representation of a transaction between said first firm and said second firm; said second node posting to said blockchain network a second data representation of said transaction: receiving, at said first node, said second data representation; receiving, at said second node, said first data representation; receiving, at said audit node, said first data representation and said second data representation; and at each of said first node, said second node, and said audit node, selecting one of said first data representation and said second data representation for inclusion on said blockchain, said selecting using said consensus formation rules.
21. (New) The method of claim 1, wherein said first firm database comprises transactional data for said first firm and said second firm database comprises transactional data for said second firm.
22. (New) The method of claim 21, wherein said AI auditor module comprises a plurality of AI models, each AI model in said plurality of AI models trained to audit transactional data for a type of quantification.
23. (New) The method of claim 22, wherein said first data representation comprises: a first value of said transaction selected from said first firm database; a unique identifier of said transaction; a unique identifier of a parent transaction for said transaction; and a data tag for a quantification associated with said transaction; and said second data representation comprises: a second value of said transaction selected from said second firm database; said unique identifier of said transaction; said unique identifier of said parent transaction for said transaction; and said data tag for said quantification associated with said transaction.
1. A method for resolving data collisions on a blockchain comprising: providing a blockchain network comprising a blockchain operating in accordance with a set of consensus formation rules; providing a first node of a first firm, said first node being a node of said blockchain network communicably coupled to a first firm database comprising transactional data for said first firm; providing a second node of a second firm, said second node being a node of said blockchain network communicably coupled to a second firm database comprising transactional data for said second firm; providing an audit node of an artificial intelligence (AI) auditor module, said audit node being a node of said blockchain network and said AI auditor module comprising a plurality of AI models, each AI model in said plurality of AI models trained to audit transactional data for a type of quantification; said first node posting to said blockchain network a first data representation of a transaction between said first firm and said second firm, said first data representation comprising: a first value of said transaction selected from said first firm database; a unique identifier of said transaction; a unique identifier of a parent transaction for said transaction; and a data tag for a quantification associated with said transaction; said second node posting to said blockchain network a second data representation of said transaction, said second data representation comprising: a second value of said transaction selected from said second firm database; said unique identifier of said transaction; said unique identifier of said parent transaction for said transaction; and said data tag for said quantification associated with said transaction; receiving, at said first node, said second data representation; receiving, at said second node, said first data representation; receiving, at said audit node, said first data representation and said second data representation; and at each of said first node, said second node, and said audit note, selecting one of said first data representation and said second data representation for inclusion on said blockchain, said selecting using said consensus formation rules.
It should be noted that the table above distinguishes the equivalent limitations between the instant application and that of '040. In conclusion, claims 1, 21-23 of the instant application is anticipated by claim 1 of '040 in that claim 1 contains all the limitations of claims 1, 21-23 of the instant application. The instant application claims are broader or equivalent in every aspect than claim 1 of '040 and is therefore an obvious variant thereof. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patently distinct from each other because claim 1 is generic to all that is recited in claim 1 of '040. That is, claims 1, 21-23 of instant application is anticipated by claim 1 of '040.
Claim 2 of the instant application corresponds to claim 2 of US Patent '040.
Claim 3 of the instant application corresponds to claim 3 of US Patent '040.
Claim 4 of the instant application corresponds to claim 4 of US Patent '040.
Claim 5 of the instant application corresponds to claim 5 of US Patent '040.
Claim 6 of the instant application corresponds to claim 6 of US Patent '040.
Claim 7 of the instant application corresponds to claim 7 of US Patent '040.
Claim 8 of the instant application corresponds to claim 8 of US Patent '040.
Claim 9 of the instant application corresponds to claim 9 of US Patent '040.
Claim 10 of the instant application corresponds to claim 10 of US Patent '040.
Claim 11 of the instant application corresponds to claim 11 of US Patent '040.
Claim 12 of the instant application corresponds to claim 12 of US Patent '040.
Claim 14 of the instant application corresponds to claim 14 of US Patent '040.
Claim 15 of the instant application corresponds to claim 15 of US Patent '040.
Claim 16 of the instant application corresponds to claim 16 of US Patent '040.
Claim 17 of the instant application corresponds to claim 17 of US Patent '040.
Claim 20 of the instant application corresponds to claim 20 of US Patent '040.
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 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claims as a whole, claim 1 is determined to be directed to an abstract idea and not significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
At Step 1:
Regarding with independent claim 1, it recites providing a blockchain network comprising a blockchain operating in accordance with a set of consensus formation rules; providing a first node of a first firm, said first node being a node of said blockchain network communicably coupled to a first firm database; providing a second node of a second firm, said second node being a node of said blockchain network communicably coupled to a second firm database; providing an audit node of an artificial intelligence (Al) auditor module, said audit node being a node of said blockchain network; said first node posting to said blockchain network a first data representation of a transaction between said first firm and said second firm; said second node posting to said blockchain network a second data representation of said transaction: receiving, at said first node, said second data representation; receiving, at said second node, said first data representation; receiving, at said audit node, said first data representation and said second data representation; and at each of said first node, said second node, and said audit node, selecting one of said first data representation and said second data representation for inclusion on said blockchain, said selecting using said consensus formation rules.
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The limitation of “said first node posting…, a first data representation of a transaction, said second node posting…., a second data representation of said transaction, receiving, at said first node, said data representation, receiving, at second node, said first data representation, receiving, at said audit node, said first data representation and said second data representation and at each of said first node, said second node, and said audit node, selecting one of said first data representation and said second data representation for inclusion on said blockchain, said selecting using said consensus formation rules” recites a mental process because human mind can receive transaction records, evaluating them, and selecting one based on rules by observation, evaluation and judgment.
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claims recite additional elements of " blockchain network", “first node… communicably coupled to a first firm database”, “second node…communicably coupled to a second firm database”, “audit node of an artificial intelligence (AI) auditor module” to perform steps. However, the limitations merely amount to adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f) and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology.
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B: The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
The claim does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The use of a "blockchain network," "nodes," "databases," and an "Al auditor module" amounts to no more than generic computer implementation of the mental process. There is no recited unconventional technical solution, no improvement to consensus mechanisms, and no specific implementation that meaningfully limits how the "selecting ... using said consensus formation rules" is carried out. Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In regards with claims 21-22, wherein said first firm database comprises transactional data for said first firm and said second firm database comprises transactional data for said second firm, and wherein said AI auditor module comprises a plurality of AI models, each AI model in said plurality of AI models trained to audit transactional data for a type of quantification, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers the process of process of mental processes. The claim has not added any additional elements that could integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
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 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thekadath et al (US 2020/0304518 A1) in view of Sanghvi et al (US 2021/0064763 A1).
As per claim 1, Thekadath teaches a method for resolving data collisions on a blockchain comprising:
providing a blockchain network comprising a blockchain ([0024], e.g., discloses wherein each data center can maintain a separate network record in the form of a blockchain ledger);
providing a first node of a first firm, said first node being a node of said blockchain network communicably coupled to a first firm database ([0031]-[0034], e.g., discloses wherein node computers associated with entities participating in transactions and each node interacts with associated systems storing data);
providing a second node of a second firm, said second node being a node of said blockchain network communicably coupled to a second firm database ([0058], e.g., discloses wherein recipient institution computer associated with a recipient node computer communicating with a transaction repository);
said first node posting to said blockchain network a first data representation of a transaction between said first firm and said second firm ([0047], [0087], e.g., discloses wherein each node within an asset transfer network may store their own copy of the ledger of transactions, processing, by a first data center computer, a first digital asset that indicates the transfer of a value from a sender to a recipient);
said second node posting to said blockchain network a second data representation of said transaction ([0047], e.g., discloses wherein each node within an asset transfer network may store their own copy of the ledger of transactions);
receiving, at said first node, said second data representation ([0255], e.g., the processing computer 750A can include instructions for, after creating a new block or otherwise adding a new digital asset to the transaction ledger);
receiving, at said second node, said first data representation ([0247], e.g., the second data center 850 receives a ledger update from the first data center 750, the second data center 850 can validate each new digital asset and/or block before updating its own ledger);
receiving, at said audit node, said first data representation and said second data representation, and at each of said first node, said second node, and said audit node, selecting one of said first data representation and said second data representation for inclusion on said blockchain ([0247], e.g., the second data center 850 receives a ledger update from the first data center 750, the second data center 850 can validate each new digital asset and/or block before updating its own ledger, accordingly, each digital asset and/or block can be validated and approved by each data center),
Thekadath does not explicitly teach providing an audit node of an artificial intelligence (Al) auditor module, said audit node being a node of said blockchain network and operating in accordance with a set of consensus formation rules and said selecting using said consensus formation rules.
However, Sanghvi teaches providing an audit node of an artificial intelligence (Al) auditor module, said audit node being a node of said blockchain network and operating in accordance with a set of consensus formation rules and said selecting using said consensus formation rules ([0013], e.g., discloses wherein a blockchain hybrid consensus platform that uses artificial intelligence (AI) to select one or more consensus protocols from a set of consensus protocols and to select nodes for recording a transaction to a blockchain).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Sanghvi with the teachings of Thekadath in order to efficiently enabling a method and system for selecting a consensus protocol from a set of consensus protocols and record the transactions to the blockchain by the set of consensus nodes (Sanghvi).
As per claim 21, wherein said first firm database comprises transactional data for said first firm and said second firm database comprises transactional data for said second firm (fig.1, and [0083]-[0088], [0154], e.g., user database… transaction repository explicitly teaches storage of transaction data in databases, Thekadath).
As per claim 22, wherein said AI auditor module comprises a plurality of AI models, each AI model in said plurality of AI models trained to audit transactional data for a type of quantification (Fig.3A, e.g., AI system includes multiple evaluation components and Multiple evaluation components correspond to a plurality of AI models, Sanghvi).
It is noted that any citation [[s]] to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any wav. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. [[See, MPEP 2123]].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 23 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 2-12, 14-17, 20 dependent from claim 23 and also objected as allowable subject matter.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure.
Vijayaraghavan discloses US 11861619 B1 Systems and Methods For Payment Transactions, Alerts, Dispute Settlement, And Settlement Payments, Using Multiple Blockchains.
Lokanath discloses US 20210241241 A1 SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND APPARATUSES FOR CONDUCTING TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN BOTS USING DISTRIBUTED LEDGER TECHNOLOGY IN A CLOUD BASED COMPUTING ENVIRONMENT.
Padmanabhan discloses US 20210243193 A1 SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND APPARATUSES FOR IMPLEMENTING CONSENSUS ON READ VIA A CONSENSUS ON WRITE SMART CONTRACT TRIGGER FOR A DISTRIBUTED LEDGER TECHNOLOGY (DLT) PLATFORM.
VIJAYARAGHAVAN discloses US 20230098747 A1 SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PAYMENT TRANSACTIONS, ALERTS, DISPUTE SETTLEMENT, AND SETTLEMENT PAYMENTS, USING MULTIPLE BLOCKCHAINS.
Dalton discloses US 20220318788 A1 USING AN INTERNAL LEDGER WITH BLOCKCHAIN TRANSACTIONS.
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 Mohammad A Sana whose telephone number is (571)270-1753. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached at 5712724098. 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.
/Mohammad A Sana/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166
Prosecution Insights