DETAILED 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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendments filed on 01/14/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-6 are cancelled per applicant’s filing of 01/14/2025.
Claims 7-13 are pending. Claims 7-13 has been examined.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7-13 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.
Lack of Antecedent Basis
Claim 7 recites “identifying that the first UTXO is in the UTXO held by the second node for the first shard.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term, “the UTXO.” Claims 12 and 13 are also rejected on the same basis since each recites “…to perform the computer-implemented method of claim 7.”
Claim 7 recites “…adding the first transaction to a mempool associated with the node...” The claim recites ‘first node’ and ‘second node.’ It is unclear which node (‘first node or second node) provides antecedent basis for the term, “the node.” Claims 12 and 13 are also rejected on the same basis since each recites “…to perform the computer-implemented method of claim 7.”
Claims 8-11 are also rejected as each depends on claim 7.
Unclear Scope
Claim 7 recites “A computer-implement method…the method comprising the steps of, at a first node of said plurality of nodes: creating…identifying…transmitting…; and at the second node: identifying…performing…adding…and propagating…” The claim describes the claimed steps of creating, identifying, and transmitting at the first node, and the claimed steps of identifying, performing, adding and propagating at the second node. However, it is unclear whether the claimed steps (i.e. creating, identifying, transmitting) are performed by the first node or performed by other entities at the first node. Nor is it clear whether the claimed steps (i.e. identifying, performing, adding, propagating) are performed by the second node or performed by other entities at the second node. (MPEP 2173.02 I)
Claim 12 recites “A system…the system comprises: a processor; and memory including executable instructions that, as a result of execution by the processor, causes the system to implement one of said plurality of nodes and perform the computer-implemented method of claim 7.” Claim 7 recites “ A computer-implemented method…the method comprising the steps of, at a first node of said plurality of nodes: creating…identifying…transmitting…at the second node: identifying…performing…adding…and propagating…” Therefore, it is unclear the one of the plurality of nodes in the claimed system, recited in claim 12, is capable of performing both the claimed steps of the first node and the second node in claim 7. (MPEP 2173.02 I)
Claim 13 recites “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium… the computer-readable medium has stored thereon executable instructions that, as a result of being executed by a processor of a computer system, cause the computer system to implement one of said plurality of nodes and perform the computer-implemented method of claim 7.” Claim 7 recites “ A computer-implemented method…the method comprising the steps of, at a first node of said plurality of nodes: creating…identifying…transmitting…at the second node: identifying…performing…adding…and propagating…” Therefore, it is unclear that one of the plurality of nodes implemented by the computer system, recited in claim 13, is capable of performing both the claimed steps of the first node and the second node in claim 7. (MPEP 2173.02 I)
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries 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 7, 9-10, 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moir et al. (US 2018/0341930A1 (“Moir”)) in view of Carver et al. (US 10,250,708B1 (“Carver”)).
Per Claims 7, 12 and 13: Moir discloses a computer-implemented method for allocating and validating a blockchain transaction associated with a blockchain network comprising a plurality of nodes (Moir: Fig. 1; abstract), wherein:
the blockchain network is partitioned into a plurality of shards, each shard comprising at least one of said nodes (Carver: Fig. 3; 7:11-19, 7:54-56) (Moir: Fig. 1, Fig. 2; ¶¶2, 13, 31, 38),
each of said nodes is a member of least one of said shards, (Moir: Fig. 2, Fig. 6; ¶¶38, 99)
each transaction in the blockchain network is allocated to at least one of said shards (Moir: ¶¶26, 37-38, 58-78), and
for each shard of which it is a member (Moir: ¶¶38, 99), each node maintains [data] related to the transactions allocated to said shard, such that each shard is considered to contain [transaction data] (Moir: ¶¶38, 41); the method comprising the steps of,
at a first node of said plurality of nodes: (Moir: Fig. 1, item ‘client’)
creating a first transaction; (Moir: ¶¶37 )
identifying a first shard that contains [data] that corresponds to a first input of the first transaction; and (Moir: ¶¶35, 37, 54, 58-78)
transmitting the first transaction to a second node in the first shard; and (Moir: Fig. 1; ¶¶37, 49, 48, 42) (Moir: Fig. 2, items ‘shard 265B;, node 220, node 230; 14:42-58).
at the second node (Moir: Fig. 1, item ‘node’; Fig. 2, item ‘node’)
identifying that [data] held by the second node for the first shard; (Moir: Fig. 4; ¶¶37, 54 )
performing a validation check on the first input using validity data of the [data]; (Moir: Fig. 3; ¶¶37, 48-49, 54, 79 )
based on a determination that the first input is valid, adding the first transaction to… the node (Moir: ¶¶49, 53), and propagating the transaction to other member nodes of the first shard. (Moir: ¶¶49)
Additionally, per claim 12, Moir discloses a system, comprising: a processor; and memory including executable instructions that, as a result of execution by the processor, causes the system to perform (Moir: Fig. 7; ¶¶140) …
Additionally, per claim 13, Carver discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon executable instructions that, as a result of being executed by a processor of a computer system, cause the computer system to at least perform (Moir: Fig. 7; ¶¶140)…
Moir discloses transactions allocated and maintained by a shard (Moir: ¶¶38, 41, 99). However, Moir does not explicitly disclose a UTXO set as part of transactions allocated and maintained by a shard. Furthermore, Moir discloses adding the first transaction to the node (Moir: ¶¶49, 53). Moir does not explicitly disclose the transaction being added a mempool associated with the node.
Carver discloses a UTXO set of transactions being allocated and maintained by a shard (Carver: Fig. 3, Fig. 6A/6B; 7:11-19, 7:33-36, 7:54-56, 9:4-16, 9:67-10:14, 10:26-40, 16:3-15, 16:56-17:12), identifying that the first UTXO being in the UTXO held by the node and validating UTXOs referenced in inputs of the transaction (Carver: 9:43-49, 9:52-10:14, 11:14-27, 14:17-40, 16:3-37, 16:56-17:12). Furthermore, Carver discloses adding the transaction to a mempool associated with the node (Carver: 10:15-10:40, 11:14-27, 14:17-40, 15:39-44).
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 a method of Moir to incorporate the teachings of UTXO handling in sharded blockchain and additional of transactions to a mempool of a node, as disclosed in Carver, to improve the performance of the blockchain operation (Carver: 6:46-47)
Additionally, the language, “…such that each shard is considered to contain a UTXO set..” recites the intended use of a shard. The recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention does not serve to differentiate the claim from the prior art. MPEP §2103 I C states that language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. An example of such language includes statements of intended use or field of use (MPEP §2103 IC).
Per Claim 9: Moir in view of Carver discloses all the limitations of claim 7.
Moir discloses the method further comprising the step of
communicating a request for shard membership information of a node to another node. (Moir: Fig. 6; ¶¶57, 99)
Per Claim 10: Moir in view of Carver discloses all the limitations of claim 7.
Moir discloses the method further comprising the step of
communicating shard membership information of a node to another node. (Moir: Fig. 6; ¶¶57, 64)
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moir in view of Carver as applied to claim 10 and further in view of Kaddoura, M. (US 10,616,324B1 (“Kaddoura”)).
Per Claim 11: Moir in view of Carver discloses all the limitations of claim 7.
Moir discloses:
wherein the communication is performed... (Moir: ¶¶56)
Moir does not teach a modified addr message is used for communicating. However, Kaddoura teaches:
communicating is performed using a modified addr message (Kaddoura: 16:31-39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Moir in view of Carver to incorporate the teachings of use of getaddr message for communication, as disclosed in Kaddoura, to ensure transaction security (Kaddoura: 3:46-47).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 would be allowable (1) if amended to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections above, and (2) claim 8 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bhagat (US 2016/0292171A1) teaches shard aware near real time index.
Brady (US 10,396,997B2) teaches sharding process used in a blockchain.
Kokoris-Kogias et al, (OmniLedger: A Secure, Scale-Out, Decentralized Ledger via Sharding”, 2017) teaches an efficient cross-shard commit protocol that atomically handles transactions affecting multiple shards.
Pedro Franco (Understanding Bitcoin, 2015, published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.) teaches UTXO transaction processing.
Andreas M. Antonopoulos (Mastering Bitcoin, 2014, published by O’Reilly Media, Inc.) teaches bitcoin transaction processing.
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