FODETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Acknowledgements
The amendment filed on 07/02/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1 3, 7-11 are amended.
Claims 1-13 has been examined.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Double Patenting Rejection
Applicant’s remark, “Applicant acknowledges of the provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection of claims 1-13 over claims 1-13 of co-pending, commonly assigned U.S. Patent Application No. 18/170,657 in view of Kucherov et al. (US 2023/0069247). Filing of a Terminal Disclaimer will be considered when the double patenting rejection is the only remaining objection in the application. See, in this regard, MPEP §804(I)(B)(l),” is noted. The provisional nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection(s) are maintained.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b)
Applicant' s amendments and remarks to claims 3, 7 and 8-11 have overcome the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b). Accordingly, the previous rejections are withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101
Applicant' s amendments and remarks to claim 1 have overcome the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101. Accordingly, the previous rejections are withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §102
Applicant's amendments to claim 1 have overcome the previous rejections under 35 USC 102; therefore, the previous rejections are withdrawn.
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 conflicting claims 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); 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 1-14 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of copending Application No. 18/170,657 (“the ‘657 application”) in view of Kucherov et al. (US 2023/0069247 (“Kucherov”)) in further view of Padmanabhan, P. (US 2021/0226774A1 (“Padmanabhan”)) and Kandiraju et al. (US 11,088,826B2 (“Kandiraju”)).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claim 1 of the ‘657 application, filed on 04/02/2026, recites a computing platform facilitating node-based master data asset management incorporating data integrity preservation via trust controls, the computing platform comprising:
one or more virtual machines configured and deployed to execute an operating system to access the computing platform via a virtual network, wherein the computing platform comprises a blockchain computing platform;
a plurality of interconnected data processing nodes each comprising a plurality of functional layers, wherein the plurality of functional layers comprise an asset management service layer that is configured to establish a blockchain computing function comprising:
preserving data integrity by defining a single view of data assets referenced in a transaction from one or more authoritative sources, the preserving comprising applying preprocessor standardization and normalization rules to establish the single view;
executing registration and certification processes, the registration and certification processes incorporating trust controls to enhance the data integrity, wherein the trust controls include two control channels comprising: (i) a business channel configured to flow data from a sender node to a master node to a receiver node, and (ii) a technical channel configured to flow data assets from an initiator node to an arbiter node to a validator node, wherein the arbiter node resolves non-consensus interactions; and
maintaining an application programming interface framework configured to support master data management processing to establish the trust controls.
Claim 1 of the ‘657 application differs since claim 1 of the ‘657 application recites additional clam limitations including “wherein the trust controls include two control channels comprising: (i) a business channel configured to flow data from a sender node to a master node to a receiver node, and (ii) a technical channel configured to flow data assets from an initiator node to an arbiter node to a validator node, wherein the arbiter node resolves non-consensus interactions”. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify claim 1 of the ‘657 application by removing the limitations since the claims of the present application and the claim recited in the ‘657 application actually perform a similar function. It is well settled that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 1 of the ‘657 application differs from claim 1 of the present application because it fails to identification rule in validation smart contracts of an ingestion preprocessor comprised in the preserving, smart contract trust controls, and the limitation to establish node-based core operations and trust data asset management under trust control. Kucherov discloses identification rule in validation smart contracts of an ingestion preprocessor comprised in the preserving (¶¶21-22, 25, 57-58), smart contract trust controls (¶¶21, 25, 57) and the API framework configured to support master data and reference data management enhanced data processing to establish node-based core operations and trust data asset management under trust control (¶¶27, 57, 70). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the time of the invention to modify the system of the '657 application to incorporate the teachings of processing of secure data sharing solution, as disclosed in Kucherov, to guarantee data security (Kucherov: ¶3). Also, claim 1 of the ‘657 application differs from claim 1 of the present application because it fails to a blockchain computing platform configured as a partially decentralized network of federated nodes coordinated around a designated master node, wherein the designated master node contains a master data asset ledger configured to serve as a single authoritative data source of record for trust data assets, the designated master node configured to provide authoritative trust control including governance and oversight for peer node interactions, resolution of non-consensus peer-to-peer interactions, and approval of endorsed transactions in the master data asset ledger;” “wherein each peer node is configured to execute algorithmic trust controls through consensus-based protocols to coordinate processing across the network of federated nodes and to synchronize a distributed ledger copy with the master data asset ledger,” and “wherein a master data asset world state maintains a current state representation of the trust data assets as changes are accepted and applied.” Padmanabhan discloses a blockchain computing platform configured as a partially decentralized network of federated nodes coordinated around a designated master node (Fig. 1A, Fig. 1B; ¶¶72, 92, 100, 126), wherein the designated master node contains a master data asset ledger configured to serve as a single authoritative data source of record for trust data assets (¶¶84, 126-127), the designated master node configured to provide authoritative trust control including governance and oversight for peer node interactions, resolution of non-consensus peer-to-peer interactions, and approval of endorsed transactions in the master data asset ledger (¶¶88, 126, 165). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the time of the invention to modify the system of the '657 application in view of Kucherov to incorporate the teachings of decentralized network with master node and peer nodes, as disclosed in Padmanabhan, for improving upon, modifying, and expanding upon blockchain and related distributed ledger technologies (Padmanabhan: ¶12). Kandiraju discloses wherein a master data asset world state maintains a current state representation of the trust data assets as changes are accepted and applied (Fig. 1A, item 132; 3:45-62, 4:23-346). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of the '657 application in view of Kucherov and Padmanabhan to incorporate the teachings of master data asset world state, as disclosed in Kandiraju, to provide the asset sharing to be secure, immutable, pamper-proof, and distributed for availability among different parties (Kandiraju: 1:39-41)
The limitations of claim 2 of the present application are included in claim 2 of the ‘657 application.
The limitations of claim 3 of the present application are included in claim 3 of the ‘657 application.
The limitations of claim 4 of the present application are included in claim 4 of the ‘657 application.
The limitations of claim 5 of the present application are included in claim 5 of the ‘657 application.
The limitations of claim 6 of the present application are included in claim 6 of the ‘657 application.
The limitations of claim 7 of the present application are included in claim 7 of the ‘657 application.
The limitations of claim 8 of the present application are included in claim 8 of the ‘657 application.
The limitations of claim 9 of the present application are included in claim 9 of the ‘657 application.
The limitations of claim 10 of the present application are included in claim 10 of the ‘657 application.
The limitations of claim 11 of the present application are included in claim 11 of the ‘657 application.
The limitations of claim 12 of the present application are included in claim 12 of the ‘657 application.
The limitations of claim 13 of the present application are included in claim 13 of the ‘657 application.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “blockchain computing platform configured…”, “designated master node contains…configured to provide…”, “master data asset ledger configured to serve…”, “peer node is configured to execute…and to synchronize…”, “a master data asset world state maintains…” in claim 1. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112 (b)
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 1-13 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, claimed limitations, “blockchain computing platform configured…”, “designated master node contains…configured to provide…”, “master data asset ledger configured to serve…”, “peer node…configured to…execute…and to synchronize…”, “a master data asset world state maintains…” are limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The current specification filed on 10/23/2024 is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-13 are also rejected as each depends on claim 1.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112 (a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure of the "blockchain computing platform," “designated master node,” “ledger,” “peer node, ” “a master data asset world state,” recited in claim 1. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Dependent claims are also rejected since they inherit this deficiency.
Claims 2-13 are rejected as each depends upon claim 1.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kucherov et al. (US 2023/0069247A1 (“Kucherov”)) in view of Padmanabhan, P. (US 2021/0226774A1 (“Padmanabhan”)) in further view of Kandiraju et al. (US 11,088,826B2 (“Kandiraju”)).
Regarding claim 1, Kucherov discloses a computing platform facilitating node-based core operations and trust data asset management incorporating data integrity preservation via trust controls, the computing platform comprising: (Fig. 1A, Fig. 3A; ¶17)
one or more virtual machines configured and deployed to execute an operating system to access the computing platform via a virtual network (¶¶17, 20), wherein the computing platform comprises a blockchain computing platform (¶¶24, 37)…
a plurality of interconnected data processing nodes each comprising a plurality of functional layers…wherein the plurality of functional layers comprise an asset management service layer that is configured to establish a blockchain computing function comprising: (Fig. 3A, Fig. 5; ¶¶44, 57, 81)
preserving data integrity by defining a single view of trust data assets referenced in one or more transactions from one or more authoritative sources (¶¶39, 135), the preserving comprising applying identification, standardization, and normalization rules in validation smart contracts of an ingestion preprocessor to establish the single view (¶¶21-22, 39)…
executing registration and certification processes (¶¶21, 61, 115; claim 10), the registration and certification processes incorporating smart contract trust controls to enhance the data integrity; and (¶¶21, 61, 115; claim 10)
maintaining an application programming interface (API) framework configured to support master data and reference data management enhanced data processing to establish node-based core operations and trust data asset management under trust control. (¶¶27, 57, 70, 158)
Kucherov does not explicitly disclose:
a blockchain computing platform configured as a partially decentralized network of federated nodes coordinated around a designated master node, wherein the designated master node contains a master data asset ledger configured to serve as a single authoritative data source of record for trust data assets, the designated master node configured to provide authoritative trust control including governance and oversight for peer node interactions, resolution of non-consensus peer-to-peer interactions, and approval of endorsed transactions in the master data asset ledger;
wherein each peer node is configured to execute algorithmic trust controls through consensus-based protocols to coordinate processing across the network of federated nodes and to synchronize a distributed ledger copy with the master data asset ledger,
Padmanabhan discloses:
a blockchain computing platform configured as a partially decentralized network of federated nodes coordinated around a designated master node (Fig. 1A, Fig. 1B; ¶¶72, 92, 100, 126), wherein the designated master node contains a master data asset ledger configured to serve as a single authoritative data source of record for trust data assets (¶¶84, 126-127), the designated master node configured to provide authoritative trust control including governance and oversight for peer node interactions, resolution of non-consensus peer-to-peer interactions, and approval of endorsed transactions in the master data asset ledger (¶¶88, 126, 165); and;
wherein each peer node is configured to execute algorithmic trust controls through consensus-based protocols to coordinate processing across the network of federated nodes and to synchronize a distributed ledger copy with the master data asset ledger (Fig. 2B; ¶¶220-224)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the time of the invention to modify the method of Kucherov to incorporate the teachings of decentralized network with master node and peer nodes, as disclosed in Padmanabhan, for improving upon, modifying, and expanding upon blockchain and related distributed ledger technologies (Padmanabhan: ¶12).
Kucherov does not explicitly disclose wherein a master data asset world state maintains a current state representation of the trust data assets as changes are accepted and applied.
Kandiraju discloses wherein a master data asset world state maintains a current state representation of the trust data assets as changes are accepted and applied (Fig. 1A, item 132; 3:45-62, 4:23-346).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Kucherov in view of Padmanabhan to incorporate the teachings of master data asset world state, as disclosed in Kandiraju, to provide the asset sharing to be secure, immutable, pamper-proof, and distributed for availability among different parties (Kandiraju: 1:39-41).
Per claim 2, Kucherov in view of Padmanabhan and Kandiraju discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Kucherov discloses:
wherein the single view of the data assets is defined using consensus on identity of the data assets. (¶¶57, 158)
Per claim 3, Kucherov in view of Padmanabhan and Kandiraju discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Kucherov discloses:
wherein the master data and reference data management enhanced data processing includes creating, retrieving, updating and deleting master data. (¶¶39-40, 42, 45)
Per claim 4, Kucherov in view of Padmanabhan and Kandiraju discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Kucherov discloses:
wherein the application programming interface framework comprises a distributed ledger. (¶¶57, 70)
Per claim 5, Kucherov in view of Padmanabhan and Kandiraju discloses all the limitations of claim 4.
Kucherov discloses:
wherein the distributed ledger comprises a distributed and immutable master ledger configured to store data asset records of decentralized applications. (Fig. 3A; abstract; ¶¶33, 53, 57)
Per claim 6, Kucherov in view of Padmanabhan and Kandiraju discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Kucherov discloses:
wherein the application programming interface framework comprises a primary operational world state data server set of services (¶¶57, 70, 73, 81), wherein execution of the services is defined and controlled through smart contracts. (¶¶21, 81)
Per claim 7, Kucherov in view of Padmanabhan and Kandiraju discloses all the limitations of claim 6.
Kucherov discloses:
wherein the validation smart contracts comprise business rules that are collectively programmed to interoperate and support processing of the data assets referenced in the one or more transactions. (¶¶45, 95)
Per claim 8, Kucherov in view of Padmanabhan and Kandiraju discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Kucherov discloses:
wherein at least one of the one or more transactions occurs in response to one or more predetermined events implemented by chain code invoked by a decentralized control system to direct processing of the at least one transaction. (¶¶21, 53, 57, 95)
Per claim 9, Kucherov in view of Padmanabhan and Kandiraju discloses all the limitations of claim 8.
Kucherov discloses:
wherein the at least one transaction is configured to contribute to a programmed system objective, and wherein the chain code is invoked, in part, according to consensus-based algorithmic trust controls configured to coordinate the plurality of interconnected data processing peer nodes. (¶¶21, 57, 158)
Per claim 10, Kucherov in view of Padmanabhan and Kandiraju discloses all the limitations of claim 9.
Kucherov discloses:
wherein the chain code is also invoked, in part, according to authoritative trust controls configured to supervise network interactions among the plurality of interconnected data peer processing nodes, wherein the authoritative trust controls are implemented by a controller of a centralized control system. (¶¶21, 26, 57)
Per claim 11, Kucherov in view of Padmanabhan and Kandiraju discloses all the limitations of claim 10.
Kucherov discloses:
wherein the controller is configured to instruct, either directly or indirectly, components through a hierarchy of entities, wherein the hierarchy of entities is configured to further instruct a next lower-level node in accordance with the authoritative trust controls, the instructing of the components establishing: governance and oversight for peer node interactions of the plurality of interconnected data processing peer nodes; resolution of non-consensus peer-to-peer interactions of the plurality of interconnected data processing peer nodes; and approval of endorsed transactions including the at least one transaction. (¶¶24-25, 57-59, 81)
Per claim 12, Kucherov in view of Padmanabhan and Kandiraju discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Kucherov discloses:
wherein the blockchain computing function further comprises using an enterprise representational state transfer (REST) API engine and blockchain query services to transfer a representation of a requested data asset's state to a requesting distributed application ( dApp). (¶¶70)
Per claim 13, Kucherov in view of Padmanabhan and Kandiraju discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Kucherov discloses:
wherein the transfer of the representation is executed either via batched automation that is enhanced to near-real-time or via online interactive that is enhanced to real-time. (¶¶33)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gaur et al. (US 2021/0328770A1) teaches a trust anchor node may run a component that preserves the atomicity of the blockchain network by establishing
and providing continued trust to a specific trust node (e.g., another trust anchor node) on a corresponding and related blockchain network. This is a bi-lateral relationship with varied permission enforcement such as a read/write/ query, etc. The trust anchor node may execute a chain code/smart contract for inter-network communication.
Watanabe et al. (US 2021/0216662A1) teaches a method for enabling compliance with a data protection policy defined in a data source when a data processing process is performed in cooperation with plural autonomous distributed organizations.
Campana et al. (US 2024/0311822A1) teaches a method of an Integrated Platform make loan servicing more efficient, automated, and scalable. Additionally, with the integration of API technology, encryption capabilities, Interplanetary File System (IPFS) technologies, and Smart Contracts, the Integrated Platform gives users the ability to upload and manage transactions and financial loan data into a private, secured Blockchain.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHENYUH KUO whose telephone number is (571)272-5616. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-4 PM 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, John W Hayes can be reached on (571)272-6708. 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.
/CHENYUH KUO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights