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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the application 18/946,166 in response to the Remarks filed on 06/22/2026. Claims 1 and 9 have been amended, Claims 1-16 have been examined. This application is being reopened and this Action is count as a Non-FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments in the instant Amendment, filed on 06/22/2026 have been considered. The Examiner agrees with the Applicant. In light of this clarification, prosecution is reopened and the application is being returned to non-final status. A new rejection under 35 USC § 103 is present bellowed based on new considered prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-2, 8-10 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 2020/0201846 A1) in view of Ciet (US 2010/0098255 A1), and further in view of Bortnikov (US 2021/0176038 A1).
Regarding Claim 1
Yang discloses:
A method for generating a block for a blockchain utilizing an all-or-nothing transform (Yang ¶[0026]-[0027]: a consensus blockchain node obtains transaction data from a transaction data pool, constructs data blocks based on the obtained transaction data, and assembles the constructed data blocks onto the blockchain as new data blocks), comprising:
generating a plurality of pseudomessage blocks by applying, by a processor of a blockchain node, an all-or-nothing transform (AONT) to a plurality of blockchain transactions, for inclusion in a new block (Yang ¶[0029]: a blockchain node obtains a plurality of pieces of transaction data, where the plurality of pieces of transaction data have a same group identifier; ¶[0032]-[0033]: the target blockchain node obtains N pieces of transaction data, where N is a natural number greater than or equal to 2, from a transaction data pool; ¶[0036]: the target blockchain node encrypts the plurality of pieces of transaction data as a whole to obtain a packaging result; ¶[0039]: the packaging result is stored as transaction data and assembled into new data blocks on the blockchain, thereby teaching applying a transform to a plurality of blockchain transactions for inclusion in a new block),
generating, by the processor of the blockchain node, a new block header including at least a timestamp and a hash value associated with a most recent block included in a blockchain (Yang ¶[0022]: the blockchain is a distributed ledger that organizes a plurality of data blocks in a chain structure in chronological order and ensures security, traceability and tamper-resistance by using a cryptographic algorithm); and
generating, by the processor of the blockchain node, a new block including at least the generated new block header and the plurality of pseudomessage blocks, wherein the new block header and new block are generated without the generation of a Merkle tree and without inclusion of a Merkel root in the new block header or new block (Yang: ¶[0036]: in some implementations, the target blockchain node encrypts the plurality of pieces of transaction data as a whole to obtain the packaging result, and ¶[0039]: the packaging result is submitted to the blockchain for storage and assembled into a new data block; ¶[0037]: in other, separately disclosed implementations, the target blockchain node instead constructs a Merkle Tree based on the plurality of pieces of transaction data, and the packaging result includes a root of the Merkle Tree, thereby teaching that a new block may be generated from a plurality of transactions without generation of a Merkle tree or inclusion of a Merkle root when the encryption-based packaging embodiment of ¶[0036] is employed instead of the Merkle-tree-based packaging embodiment of ¶[0037]).
Yang discloses that the transform applied to the plurality of transaction data is an encryption of the transaction data as a whole, but does not expressly disclose that the transform is specifically an all-or-nothing transform generating a pseudomessage. However, Ciet discloses applying an all-or-nothing transform to a plurality of plaintext blocks, wherein each plaintext block is encrypted with a random key to form a pseudomessage, each block is hashed using a shared master key, and the hashes are XOR'd together to generate an additional output block, such that the resulting package cannot be partially decoded and is hard to invert unless all of the output is known (Ciet: ¶[0007]: the system encrypts each plaintext block with a random key to form a pseudomessage, and hashes each block using a shared master key; ¶[0008]: the package created cannot be partially decoded, and AONTs are hard to invert unless all of the output is known; ¶[0009]: partial messages cannot be decrypted, the entire package must be decrypted at the same time).
It would have been obvious to a POSTIA to modify Yang's encryption packaging step to use the AONT/package transform technique taught by Ciet, because AONT was a well known cryptographic primitive suited to exactly the purpose Yang's packaging step calls for obscuring a plurality of grouped data blocks such that content is unrecoverable absent the complete output. The motivation to combine would be to hide transaction content and quantity from blockchain nodes outside the node group using a well-established cryptographic technique, yielding the predictable result of a transaction derived pseudomessage suitable for direct block inclusion.
Yang/Ciet does not expressly disclose that the new block header includes at least a timestamp and a hash value associated with a most recent block. However, Bortnikov discloses generating blockchain data structures in which a block header includes a hash of a previous block's header to maintain a hash-linked chain of blocks, and further discloses that a block header may include a timestamp as one of its initial parameters (Bortnikov: ¶[0036]: the block header includes a hash of the block's transactions as well as a hash of the prior block's header; ¶[0092]-[0093]: the linking of blocks is generated by adding a hash of a prior block's header within the header of a current block; ¶[0110]: the header of a block may include one or more initial parameters, which may include a version number, timestamp, nonce, root information, difficulty level, consensus protocol, and/or other information associated with the block; ¶[0119]: each header of the other blocks in the blockchain also includes other information such as a timestamp, and includes the hash value of an immediately preceding block).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA to modify the block header generation of the modified Yang system to incorporate Bortnikov's timestamp and prior block header hash teaching because hash linking a new block header to its predecessor via a timestamp and prior block hash is a well-known technique for establishing a verifiably chain of blocks order at the time of the invention. The motivation to combine would be to provide chain integrity and consistent block ordering across the blockchain network using a well-established blockchain construction technique, yielding the predictable result of a new block header that reliably links to the most recent block while remaining compatible with the AONT pseudomessage packaging of the modified Yang system.
Regarding Claim 2
Yang, as modified by Ciet and Bortnikov, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Bortnikov further discloses wherein each blockchain transaction of the plurality of blockchain transactions is validated by the processor of the blockchain node prior to applying the AONT (Bortnikov: ¶[0032]-[0033]: blockchain transactions are endorsed before being committed to the blockchain, and after a client sends the transaction to peers specified in an endorsement policy, the transaction is executed to validate the transaction, after which validated transactions enter an ordering phase in which a consensus protocol produces an ordered sequence of endorsed transactions grouped into blocks; ¶[0059]: endorsing peer nodes verify that the transaction proposal is well formed, has not been previously submitted, has a valid signature, and that the submitter is properly authorized to perform the proposed operation; ¶[0098]-[0099]: transactions are written to the distributed ledger in a consistent order, and each committing peer validates the transaction within a new data block by checking that the read set and write set match the current world state).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to validate each blockchain transaction prior to applying the AONT transform in the combined Yang/Ciet/Bortnikov system, consistent with Bortnikov's teaching of endorsing and validating transactions before they are grouped into a block, in order to ensure that only authorized and non-duplicative transactions are subjected to the AONT transform and packaged into the resulting pseudomessage blocks for inclusion in the new block.
Regarding Claim 8
Yang discloses the limitations of claim 1, including wherein the new block header does not include a Merkle root, for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1 (Yang: ¶[0036]-[0039]: the target blockchain node encrypts the plurality of transaction data as a whole to obtain a packaging result assembled into a new block without generation of a Merkle tree, in contrast to a separately disclosed implementation using a Merkle Tree, thereby teaching a new block header generated without inclusion of a Merkle root).
Regarding Claim 9
Claim 9 is directed to a system corresponding to the method in claim 1. Claim 9 is similar in scope to claim 1 and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding Claim 10
Claim 10 is directed to a system corresponding to the method in claim 2. Claim 10 is similar in scope to claim 2 and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding Claim 16
Claim 16 is directed to a system corresponding to the method in claim 8. Claim 16 is similar in scope to claim 8 and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 3 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 2020/0201846 A1), in view of Ciet (US 2010/0098255 A1), in view of Bortnikov (US 2021/0176038 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of PENG (CN 114095214 B).
Regarding Claim 3
Yang/Ciet/Bortnikov teaches applying an all-or-nothing type cryptographic transformation to data prior to storage or distribution to ensure the data is unusable unless fully reconstructed. However, Yang/Ciet/Bortnikov are silent in explicitly teaching serializing the plurality of blockchain transactions into a byte array prior to applying the AONT. On the other hand, Peng teaches serializing blockchain data objects into a byte array, including serializing a plurality of NFTs into a byte array (e.g., using RLP encoding), where multiple blockchain data units are converted into a single byte array representation for use as input to subsequent cryptographic processing (Peng, claim 3; claim 5). Peng further teaches that a serialization submodule converts multiple blockchain data units into a byte array prior to performing cryptographic operations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the teachings of Yang/Ciet/Bortnikov to include serializing blockchain transactions into a byte array as taught by Peng prior to applying the AONT transformation, in order to provide a standardized and efficient input format for cryptographic processing. Serializing transaction data into a byte array facilitates efficient transformation, hashing, and encoding operations, and would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding Claim 11
Claim 11 is directed to a system corresponding to the method in claim 3. Claim 11 is similar in scope to claim 3 and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 2020/0201846 A1), in view of Ciet (US 2010/0098255 A1), in view of Bortnikov (US 2021/0176038 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Esmailzadeh (US 20230043589 A1).
Regarding Claim 4
Yang/Ciet/Bortnikov teaches applying an all-or-nothing type cryptographic transformation to data prior to storage or distribution to ensure the data is unusable unless fully reconstructed. However, Yang/Ciet/Bortnikov does not explicitly teach that the AONT uses the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES). On the other hand, Esmailzadeh teaches applying an all-or-nothing transform (AONT) using AES. Specifically, Esmailzadeh discloses that “an AES all-or-nothing transform… based on AES-CTR-256 with SHA-256 accumulator” is applied to a ciphertext payload prior to dispersal (¶0066). Esmailzadeh further teaches encrypting data using AES-based techniques prior to transformation to enhance security (¶0065).
Yang/Ciet/Bortnikov already teaches applying an all-or-nothing type transformation to data prior to storage or distribution. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the teachings of Yang/Ciet/Bortnikov to utilize AES as taught by Esmailzadeh because AES is a well-known standardized and efficient encryption technique widely used in cryptographic systems. The claim is obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art can substitute one known cryptographic primitive for another to achieve predictable results. Using AES within the AONT would result in a predictable improvement in security, efficiency, and interoperability of the system.
Regarding Claim 12
Claim 12 is directed to a system corresponding to the method in claim 4. Claim 12 is similar in scope to claim 4 and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 2020/0201846 A1), in view of Ciet (US 2010/0098255 A1), in view of Bortnikov (US 2021/0176038 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Karame (US 20160087790 A1).
Regarding Claim 5
Yang/Ciet/Bortnikov teaches applying an all-or-nothing type cryptographic transformation to data prior to storage or distribution to ensure the data is unusable unless fully reconstructed. However, Yang/Ciet/Bortnikov does not explicitly teach that the all-or-nothing transform (AONT) uses a counter mode of operation. On the other hand, Karame teaches implementing an all-or-nothing encryption scheme using block cipher modes of operation, including counter mode. Specifically, Karame discloses that a semantically secure encryption scheme used in the AONT may be “counter mode encryption” (¶0048). Karame further teaches an embodiment in which the encryption process combines counter mode with cipher block chaining, thereby demonstrating the use of counter mode within the AONT process (¶0052).
Yang/Ciet/Bortnikov already teaches applying an all-or-nothing type transformation to data prior to storage or distribution. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Bortnikov in view of Taylor to utilize a counter mode of operation as taught by Karame because counter mode is a well-known and efficient block cipher mode that enables parallel processing and improved performance in cryptographic systems. The claim is obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art can apply a known encryption mode within an existing AONT framework to achieve predictable results. Using counter mode within the AONT would result in a predictable improvement in efficiency and scalability of the system.
Regarding Claim 13
Claim 13 is directed to a system corresponding to the method in claim 5. Claim 13 is similar in scope to claim 5 and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 2020/0201846 A1), in view of Ciet (US 2010/0098255 A1), in view of Bortnikov (US 2021/0176038 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Karame2 (US 2020/0058007 A1).
Regarding Claim 6
Yang/Ciet/Bortnikov teaches applying an all-or-nothing type cryptographic transformation to data prior to storage or distribution to ensure the data is unusable unless fully reconstructed. However, Yang/Ciet/Bortnikov is silent in explicitly teaching that each blockchain transaction comprises a plaintext block used in the AONT. On the other hand, Karame2 teaches applying an all-or-nothing transform (AONT) to input data that is divided into a plurality of plaintext blocks, where each plaintext block (e.g., x[1], …, x[m]) is directly used as an input to the AONT transformation, such that each block is processed via cryptographic operations (e.g., XOR with AES-derived values) to generate corresponding output blocks (¶0046). Karame2 further teaches that data is segmented into fixed-size blocks (e.g., 128-bit blocks) prior to encryption, and that these blocks form the fundamental units processed by the AONT (¶0057), thereby teaching that individual data units used in the transformation correspond to plaintext blocks used as AONT inputs.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the teachings of Yang/Ciet/Bortnikov to incorporate the block based AONT processing taught by Karame2, such that each blockchain transaction, as a discrete unit of data included in a block, is treated as a plaintext block input to the AONT. A POSITA would have recognized that representing transactions as plaintext blocks prior to cryptographic transformation enables efficient and uniform processing, improves compatibility with block-based encryption schemes, and yields predictable results when applying known AONT techniques. Accordingly, the combination renders obvious the limitation that each blockchain transaction comprises a plaintext block used in the AONT.
Regarding Claim 14
Claim 14 is directed to a system corresponding to the method in claim 6. Claim 14 is similar in scope to claim 6 and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 7 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 2020/0201846 A1), in view of Ciet (US 2010/0098255 A1), in view of Bortnikov (US 2021/0176038 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Liu (US 20220271960 A1).
Regarding Claim 7
Bortnikov in view of Taylor teaches applying an all-or-nothing type cryptographic transformation to data prior to storage or distribution to ensure the data is unusable unless fully reconstructed. However, Bortnikov in view of Taylor is silent in explicitly teaching hashing each blockchain transaction of a plurality of blockchain transactions and applying the AONT to each hashed blockchain transaction, as required by the claim. On the other hand, Liu teaches hashing each blockchain transaction individually, including generating a hash value corresponding to each transaction and storing and processing a plurality of such hash values for block generation and validation (¶¶0075–0077). Liu further teaches maintaining sequences of hashed transaction data and incorporating those hash values into block construction and validation processes (¶¶0078–0079).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the teachings of Bortnikov in view of Taylor to apply the AONT to the hashed blockchain transactions, as taught by Liu, in order to operate on integrity-verified and standardized transaction representations prior to transformation. Applying an AONT to hashed transaction data would have provided predictable benefits such as improved data integrity, uniform input formatting, and enhanced resistance to partial disclosure of transaction data. A POSITA would have recognized that hashing is a well-known preprocessing step in blockchain systems, and combining such preprocessing with known AONT transformations would have yielded predictable results. Accordingly, the claimed limitation is obvious because it represents the predictable combination of known hashing techniques applied to blockchain transactions with known AONT transformation techniques applied to data in blockchain systems.
Regarding Claim 15
Claim 15 is directed to a system corresponding to the method in claim 7. Claim 15 is similar in scope to claim 7 and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAAD ABDULLAH whose telephone number is 571-272-1531. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-5pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, LYNN FIELD can be reached on 571-272-2092.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SAAD AHMAD ABDULLAH/ Examiner, Art Unit 2431
/SHIN-HON (ERIC) CHEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2431
Prosecution Insights