DETAILED ACTION
1. This is a Final Office Action Correspondence in response to U.S. Application No. 18/992766 filed on July 07, 2026.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The Information Disclosure Statement filed on September 16, 2026 was reviewed and accepted by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicants arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
On Pg. 10-12 of remarks in regards to 35 U.S.C. 101, relating to claim 1, Applicant argues the limitations of the claim are not abstract and recite a specific technological process.
Examiner replies that the claim contains an abstract idea and the additional elements do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to an inter-shard transaction system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one independent claim, 29, specifically claim 29 recites "generate the first transaction”, in the context of this claim encompasses the user using a pen and paper to generate a transaction, “record and manage first transaction information in a transaction transmission list” in the context of this claim encompasses the user using a pen and paper to write a record the transaction information, “calculate first transaction verification information for verifying the first transaction in a world round state chain including the first transaction information” in the context of this claim encompasses the user using a pen and paper to calculate the correct information included in the transaction. These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can record information that are part of transactions. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The independent claim of 29 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example, obtain home shard information of the first reception account by applying an address of the first reception account and a total number of shards to a predetermined function is seen as insignificant activities such as MPEP 2106.05 (f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
For example, obtain working shard information of the first reception account from a node belonging to the home shard of the first reception account is seen as insignificant activities such as MPEP 2106.05 (f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
For example, request the first transaction from a reception node configured to manage the first reception account based on the working shard information of the first reception account is seen as insignificant activities such as MPEP 2106.05 (f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
For example “transmit the first transaction verification information to nodes belonging to a reception shard of the first transaction” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “obtain home shard information of the first reception account by applying an address of the first reception account and a total number of shards to a predetermined function”, “obtain working shard information of the first reception account from a node belonging to the home shard of the first reception account”, “request the first transaction from a reception node configured to manage the first reception account based on the working shard information of the first reception account”, “transmit the first transaction verification information to a node belonging to a reception shard of the first transaction”.
For example, “obtain home shard information of the first reception account by applying an address of the first reception account and a total number of shards to a predetermined function”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
For example, “obtain working shard information of the first reception account from a node belonging to the home shard of the first reception account”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
For example, “request the first transaction from a reception node configured to manage the first reception account based on the working shard information of the first reception account”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
For example, “transmit the first transaction verification information to a node belonging to a reception shard of the first transaction”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
On Pg. 12 of remarks in regards to 35 U.S.C. 103, relating to claim 1, Applicant argues the amended limitations.
Examiner replies that a new reference was presented to teach the amended limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. §101
5. 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 29-48 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to an inter-shard transaction system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one independent claim, 29, specifically claim 29 recites "generate the first transaction”, in the context of this claim encompasses the user using a pen and paper to generate a transaction, “record and manage first transaction information in a transaction transmission list” in the context of this claim encompasses the user using a pen and paper to write a record the transaction information, “calculate first transaction verification information for verifying the first transaction in a world round state chain including the first transaction information” in the context of this claim encompasses the user using a pen and paper to calculate the correct information included in the transaction. These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can record information that are part of transactions. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The independent claim of 29 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example, obtain home shard information of the first reception account by applying an address of the first reception account and a total number of shards to a predetermined function is seen as insignificant activities such as MPEP 2106.05 (f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
For example, obtain working shard information of the first reception account from a node belonging to the home shard of the first reception account is seen as insignificant activities such as MPEP 2106.05 (f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
For example, request the first transaction from a reception node configured to manage the first reception account based on the working shard information of the first reception account is seen as insignificant activities such as MPEP 2106.05 (f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
For example “transmit the first transaction verification information to nodes belonging to a reception shard of the first transaction” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “obtain home shard information of the first reception account by applying an address of the first reception account and a total number of shards to a predetermined function”, “obtain working shard information of the first reception account from a node belonging to the home shard of the first reception account”, “request the first transaction from a reception node configured to manage the first reception account based on the working shard information of the first reception account”, “transmit the first transaction verification information to a node belonging to a reception shard of the first transaction”.
For example, “obtain home shard information of the first reception account by applying an address of the first reception account and a total number of shards to a predetermined function”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
For example, “obtain working shard information of the first reception account from a node belonging to the home shard of the first reception account”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
For example, “request the first transaction from a reception node configured to manage the first reception account based on the working shard information of the first reception account”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
For example, “transmit the first transaction verification information to a node belonging to a reception shard of the first transaction”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to an inter-shard transaction system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 30, specifically claim 30 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 30 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example “wherein the one or more instructions further comprise instructions to receive a transaction completion message for the first transaction” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the one or more instructions further comprise instructions to receive a transaction completion message for the first transaction”.
For example, “wherein the one or more instructions further comprise instructions to receive a transaction completion message for the first transaction”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to an inter-shard transaction system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 31, specifically claim 31 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 31 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example “wherein the one or more instructions further comprise instructions to complete the first transaction in the transaction transmission list based on the transaction completion message for the first transaction” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the one or more instructions further comprise instructions to complete the first transaction in the transaction transmission list based on the transaction completion message for the first transaction”.
For example, “wherein the one or more instructions further comprise instructions to complete the first transaction in the transaction transmission list based on the transaction completion message for the first transaction”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to an inter-shard transaction system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one independent claim, 33, specifically claim 33 recites “wherein the node is a verification confirmation node of a second transaction between a second transmission account and a second reception account, and the one or more instructions further comprise instructions to record and manage the second transaction information in the transaction transmission list” in the context of this claim encompasses the user using a pen and paper to write a record the transaction information, “receive a verification request for the second transaction from the node belonging to the reception shard of the second transaction, calculate second transaction verification information for verifying the second transaction in the world round state chain including information for the second transaction”, in the context of this claim encompasses the user using a pen and paper to calculate the correct information included in the transaction.
These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can record information that are part of transactions. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 33 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example “transmit the second transaction verification information to the node belonging to the reception shard of the second transaction” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “transmit the second transaction verification information to the node belonging to the reception shard of the second transaction”.
For example, “transmit the second transaction verification information to the node belonging to the reception shard of the second transaction”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to an inter-shard transaction system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one independent claim, 34, specifically claim 34 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 34 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example “wherein the one or more instructions further comprise instructions to transmit the second transaction” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) ) iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the one or more instructions further comprise instructions to transmit the second transaction”.
For example, “wherein the one or more instructions further comprise instructions to transmit the second transaction”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to an inter-shard transaction system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one independent claim, 35, specifically claim 35 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The independent claim of 35 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example “wherein the one or more instructions further comprise instructions to receive a transaction completion message for the second transaction” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) ) iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the one or more instructions further comprise instructions to receive a transaction completion message for the second transaction”.
For example, “wherein the one or more instructions further comprise instructions to receive a transaction completion message for the second transaction”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to an inter-shard transaction system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one independent claim, 36, specifically claim 36 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 36 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example “wherein the one or more instructions further comprise instructions to complete the second transaction in the transaction transmission list based on the transaction completion message for the second transaction” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the one or more instructions further comprise instructions to complete the second transaction in the transaction transmission list based on the transaction completion message for the second transaction”.
For example, “wherein the one or more instructions further comprise instructions to complete the second transaction in the transaction transmission list based on the transaction completion message for the second transaction”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to an inter-shard transaction system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 37, specifically claim 37 recites “record and manage the third transaction information in a transaction reception list” in the context of this claim encompasses the user using a pen and paper to write a record the transaction information. These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can record information that are part of transactions. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 37 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example, “wherein the node is a reception node configured to manage a third reception account for performing a third transaction between a third transmission account and the third reception account, and the one or more instructions further comprise instructions to receive the third transaction request from a transmission node configured to manage the third transmission account” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
For example, “receive verification information for the third transaction from a node belonging to the transmission shard of the third transaction”, is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
For example, “apply the verification information for the third transaction to the world round state chain to verify the third transaction”, is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
For example, “register the verified third transaction in a transaction chain of the third reception account” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
For example, “transmit a third transaction completion message for the third transaction registered in the transaction chain to the node belonging to the transmission shard of the third transaction” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the node is a reception node configured to manage a third reception account for performing a third transaction between a third transmission account and the third reception account, and the one or more instructions further comprise instructions to receive the third transaction request from a transmission node configured to manage the third transmission account”, “receive verification information for the third transaction from a node belonging to the transmission shard of the third transaction”, “apply the verification information for the third transaction to the world round state chain to verify the third transaction”, “register the verified third transaction in a transaction chain of the third reception account”, “transmit a third transaction completion message for the third transaction registered in the transaction chain to the node belonging to the transmission shard of the third transaction”
For example, “wherein the node is a reception node configured to manage a third reception account for performing a third transaction between a third transmission account and the third reception account, and the one or more instructions further comprise instructions to receive the third transaction request from a transmission node configured to manage the third transmission account”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
For example, “receive verification information for the third transaction from a node belonging to the transmission shard of the third transaction”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
For example, “apply the verification information for the third transaction to the world round state chain to verify the third transaction”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
For example, “register the verified third transaction in a transaction chain of the third reception account”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
For example, “transmit a third transaction completion message for the third transaction registered in the transaction chain to the node belonging to the transmission shard of the third transaction”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to an inter-shard transaction system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one independent claim, 38, specifically claim 38 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 38 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example “wherein the one or more instructions further comprise instructions to change status information of the third transaction recorded in the transaction reception list” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754;
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the one or more instructions further comprise instructions to change status information of the third transaction recorded in the transaction reception list”.
For example, “wherein the one or more instructions further comprise instructions to change status information of the third transaction recorded in the transaction reception list”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to an inter-shard transaction system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 39, specifically claim 39 recites “wherein the node is a verification request node of a fourth transaction between a fourth transmission account and a fourth reception account, and the one or more instructions further comprise instructions record and manage the fourth transaction information in the transaction reception list”, in the context of this claim encompasses the user using a pen and paper to write a record the transaction information,
For example, “request the node belonging to the transmission shard of the fourth transaction to verify the fourth transaction”, in the context of this claim encompasses the user using a pen and paper to write a request for more information. These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can record information that are part of transactions. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 39 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example, “receive verification information for the fourth transaction from the node belonging to the transmission shard of the fourth transaction”, is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
For example, “apply the verification information for the fourth transaction to the world round state chain to verify the fourth transaction”, is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “to receive verification information for the fourth transaction from the node belonging to the transmission shard of the fourth transaction”, “apply the verification information for the fourth transaction to the world round state chain to verify the fourth transaction”,
For example, “receive verification information for the fourth transaction from the node belonging to the transmission shard of the fourth transaction”, “apply the verification information for the fourth transaction to the world round state chain to verify the fourth transaction”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
For example, “apply the verification information for the fourth transaction to the world round state chain to verify the fourth transaction”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to an inter-shard transaction system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 40, specifically claim 40 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 40 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example, “wherein the one or more instructions further comprise instructions to transfer the fourth transaction”, is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price, OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the one or more instructions further comprise instructions to transfer the fourth transaction”,
For example, “wherein the one or more instructions further comprise instructions to transfer the fourth transaction”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to an inter-shard transaction system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 41, specifically claim 41 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 41 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example, “to receive a fourth transaction completion message from the reception node of the fourth transaction and transmit the fourth transaction completion message to the node belonging to the transmission shard of the fourth transaction”, is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price, OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “to receive a fourth transaction completion message from the reception node of the fourth transaction and transmit the fourth transaction completion message to the node belonging to the transmission shard of the fourth transaction”,
For example, “to receive a fourth transaction completion message from the reception node of the fourth transaction and transmit the fourth transaction completion message to the node belonging to the transmission shard of the fourth transaction”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to an inter-shard transaction system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 42, specifically claim 42 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 42 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example, “wherein the one or more instructions further comprise instructions to change status information of the fourth transaction recorded in the transaction reception list”, is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the one or more instructions further comprise instructions to change status information of the fourth transaction recorded in the transaction reception list”,
For example, “wherein the one or more instructions further comprise instructions to change status information of the fourth transaction recorded in the transaction reception list”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to an inter-shard transaction method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one independent claim, 43, specifically claim 43 recites " generating, by the one or more processors, a first transaction”, in the context of this claim encompasses the user using a pen and paper to generate a transaction, “recording and managing, by the one or more processors, first transaction information in a transaction transmission list” in the context of this claim encompasses the user using a pen and paper to write a record the transaction information, “calculating, by the one or more processors, first transaction verification information for verifying the first transaction in a world round state chain including the first transaction information” in the context of this claim encompasses the user using a pen and paper to calculate the correct information included in the transaction. These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can record information that are part of transactions. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The independent claim of 43 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example, “obtaining, by the one or more processors, home shard information of the first reception account by applying an address of the first reception account and a total number of shards to a predetermined function” is seen as insignificant activities such as MPEP 2106.05 (f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
For example, “obtaining, by the one or more processors, working shard information of the first reception account from a node belonging to the home shard of the first reception account” is seen as insignificant activities such as MPEP 2106.05 (f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
For example, “requesting, by the one or more processors, the first transaction from a reception node configured to manage the first reception account based on the working shard information of the first reception account” is seen as insignificant activities such as MPEP 2106.05 (f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
For example “and transmitting, by the one or more processors, the first transaction verification information to nodes belonging to a reception shard of the first transaction” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “and transmitting, by the one or more processors, the first transaction verification information to nodes belonging to a reception shard of the first transaction”.
For example, “and transmitting, by the one or more processors, the first transaction verification information to nodes belonging to a reception shard of the first transaction”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to an inter-shard transaction method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 44, specifically claim 44 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 44 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example “receiving, by the one or more processors, a transaction completion message for the first transaction; and completing, by the one or more processors, the first transaction in the transaction transmission list based on the transaction completion message for the first transaction.” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “receiving, by the one or more processors, a transaction completion message for the first transaction; and completing, by the one or more processors, the first transaction in the transaction transmission list based on the transaction completion message for the first transaction.”.
For example, “receiving, by the one or more processors, a transaction completion message for the first transaction; and completing, by the one or more processors, the first transaction in the transaction transmission list based on the transaction completion message for the first transaction.”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to an inter-shard transaction system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one independent claim, 45, specifically claim 45 recites “recording and managing, by the one or more processors, the second transaction information in the transaction transmission list” in the context of this claim encompasses the user using a pen and paper to write a record the transaction information, calculating, by the one or more processors, second transaction verification information for verifying the second transaction in the world round state chain including information for the second transaction”, in the context of this claim encompasses the user using a pen and paper to calculate the correct information included in the transaction.
These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can record information that are part of transactions. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 45 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example, “wherein the node is a verification confirmation node of a second transaction between a second transmission account and a second reception account”
For example, “receive by the one or more processors a verification request for the second transaction from the node belonging to the reception shard of the second transaction” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
For example “and transmitting, by the one or more processors, the second transaction verification information to the nodes belonging to the reception shard of the second transaction” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the node is a verification confirmation node of a second transaction between a second transmission account and a second reception account”, “receive by the one or more processors a verification request for the second transaction from the node belonging to the reception shard of the second transaction”, “and transmitting, by the one or more processors, the second transaction verification information to the nodes belonging to the reception shard of the second transaction”.
For example, “wherein the node is a verification confirmation node of a second transaction between a second transmission account and a second reception account”
For example “receive by the one or more processors a verification request for the second transaction from the node belonging to the reception shard of the second transaction” do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
For example, “and transmitting, by the one or more processors, the second transaction verification information to the nodes belonging to the reception shard of the second transaction”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to an inter-shard transaction system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one independent claim, 46, specifically claim 46 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The independent claim of 46 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example “receiving, by the one or more processors, a transaction completion message for the second transaction” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) ) iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “receiving, by the one or more processors, a transaction completion message for the second transaction”, “and completing, by the node, the second transaction in the transaction transmission list based on the transaction completion message for the second transaction”.
For example, “receiving, by the one or more processors, a transaction completion message for the second transaction” do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
For example, “wherein the one or more processors further includes a transaction completion reception unit configured to receive a transaction completion message for the second transaction”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to an inter-shard transaction system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 47, specifically claim 47 recites “recording and managing, by the one or more processors, the third transaction information in the transaction reception list” in the context of this claim encompasses the user using a pen and paper to write a record the transaction information. These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can record information that are part of transactions. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 47 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example, “wherein the one or more processors is a reception node configured to manage a third reception account for performing a third transaction between a third transmission account and the third reception account, and the one or more processors further includes a transaction request reception unit configured to receive the third transaction request from a transmission node configured to manage the third transmission account” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
For example, “receiving, by the one or more processors, the third transaction request from a transmission node configured to manage the third transmission account”, is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
For example, “applying, by the one or more processors, the verification information for the third transaction to the world round state chain to verify the third transaction”, is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
For example, “registering, by the one or more processors, the verified third transaction, in a transaction chain of the third reception account” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
For example, “and transmitting, by the one or more processors, a third transaction completion message for the third transaction registered in the transaction chain to the node belonging to the transmission shard of the third transaction” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the node is a reception node configured to manage a third reception account for performing a third transaction between a third transmission account and the third reception account, and the node further includes a transaction request reception unit configured to receive the third transaction request from a transmission node configured to manage the third transmission account”, “receiving, by the one or more processors, the third transaction request from a transmission node configured to manage the third transmission account”, “applying, by the one or more processors, the verification information for the third transaction to the world round state chain to verify the third transaction”, “registering, by the one or more processors, the verified third transaction, in a transaction chain of the third reception account”, “and transmitting, by the one or more processors, a third transaction completion message for the third transaction registered in the transaction chain to the node belonging to the transmission shard of the third transaction”
For example, “wherein the node is a reception node configured to manage a third reception account for performing a third transaction between a third transmission account and the third reception account, and the node further includes a transaction request reception unit configured to receive the third transaction request from a transmission node configured to manage the third transmission account”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
For example, “applying, by the one or more processors, the verification information for the third transaction to the world round state chain to verify the third transaction”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
For example, “registering, by the one or more processors, the verified third transaction, in a transaction chain of the third reception account”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
For example, “and transmitting, by the one or more processors, a third transaction completion message for the third transaction registered in the transaction chain to the node belonging to the transmission shard of the third transaction”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to an inter-shard transaction method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 48, specifically claim 48 recites “recording and managing, by the node, the fourth transaction information in the transaction reception list”, in the context of this claim encompasses the user using a pen and paper to write a record the transaction information,
For example, “requesting, by the one or more processors, the node belonging to the transmission shard of the fourth transaction to verify the fourth transaction”, in the context of this claim encompasses the user using a pen and paper to write a request for more information. These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can record information that are part of transactions. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 48 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example, “receiving, by the one or more processors, verification information for the fourth transaction from the node belonging to the transmission shard of the fourth transaction”, is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
For example, “and applying, by the one or more processors, the verification information for the fourth transaction to the world round state chain to verify the fourth transaction”, is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “receiving, by the one or more processors, verification information for the fourth transaction from the node belonging to the transmission shard of the fourth transaction”, “and applying, by the one or more processors, the verification information for the fourth transaction to the world round state chain to verify the fourth transaction””,
For example, “receiving, by the one or more processors, verification information for the fourth transaction from the node belonging to the transmission shard of the fourth transaction”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
For example, “and applying, by the one or more processors, the verification information for the fourth transaction to the world round state chain to verify the fourth transaction”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claim(s) 29-48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL CN111680050 (herein as ‘CN’) and further in view of Rago et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0349427 (herein as ‘Rago’).
As to claim 29 CN teaches an inter-shard transaction system capable of performing verification in a node configured to manage a first transmission account performing a first transaction between the first transmission account and a first reception account in a blockchain network employing a dynamic sharding technique, wherein the node includes: (Par. 0037-0039 and Fig. 1 CN discloses a blockchain network);
A memory configured to store one or more instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the one or more instructions to: (Par. 0025 CN discloses a processor);
generate the first transaction (Par. 0039 CN discloses generating ordered transactions);
CN does not teach but Rago teaches obtain home shard information of the first reception account by applying an address of the first reception account and a total number of shards to a predetermined function (Par. 0058 Rago discloses using the jump consistent hash function which uses the key and the total number of shards. The key is seen as the address, the total number of shards is seen as the total number of shards);
CN and Rago are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, shard processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the shard processing of CN to include jump consistent hash function of Rago, to allow for accessing content in order to allow for improved performance (Par. 0000 Rago).
Cn teaches obtain working shard information of the first reception account from a node belonging to the home shard of the first reception account (Par. 0042-0043 CN discloses receiving or sending transactions relating to shards. The transactions are seen the shard information);
request the first transaction from a reception node configured to manage the first reception account based on the working shard information of the first reception account; (Par. 0042-0043 CN discloses receiving or sending transactions);
record and manage first transaction information in a transaction transmission list (Par. 0042-0043 CN discloses mapping process of storing the transactions);
calculate first transaction verification information for verifying the first transaction in a world round state chain including the first transaction information (Par. 0051 CN discloses verifying the transaction account of the sender);
transmit the first transaction verification information to a nodes belonging to a reception shard of the first transaction (Par. 0051 CN discloses verifying the transaction account of the sender before executing the transaction and once confirmed executing the transaction).
As to claim 30 CN in combination with Rago teaches each and every limitation of claim 29.
In addition CN teaches each and every limitation of clam 29.
In addition CN teaches wherein the one or more instructions further comprise instructions to receive a transaction completion message for the first transaction (Par. 0061 CN discloses sending a message that the transaction is complete).
As to claim 31 CN in combination with Rago teaches each and every limitation of clam 30.
In addition CN teaches wherein one or more instructions further comprise instructions to complete the first transaction in the transaction transmission list based on the transaction completion message for the first transaction (Par. 0061 CN discloses sending a message that the transaction is complete).
As to claim 33 CN in combination with Rago teaches each and every limitation of clam 29.
In addition CN teaches wherein the node is a verification confirmation node of a second transaction between a second transmission account and a second reception account, and the one or more instructions further comprise instructions to record and manage the second transaction information in the transaction transmission list, to receive a verification request for the second transaction from the node belonging to the reception shard of the second transaction, calculate second transaction verification information for verifying the second transaction in the world round state chain including information for the second transaction; and transmit the second transaction verification information to the node belonging to the reception shard of the second transaction (Par. 0051-0053 CN discloses the system sending and monitoring the second execution information in order to satisfy the request).
As to claim 34 CN in combination with Rago teaches each and every limitation of clam 33.
In addition CN teaches wherein the node one or more instructions further includes comprise instructions to transmit the second transaction (Par. 0051-0053 CN discloses the system sending and monitoring the second execution information in order to satisfy the request).
As to claim 35 CN in combination with Rago teaches each and every limitation of clam 33.
In addition CN teaches wherein the one or more instructions further comprise instructions to receive a transaction completion message for the second transaction (Par. 0061 CN discloses sending a message that the transaction is complete).
As to claim 36 CN in combination with Rago teaches each and every limitation of clam 35.
In addition CN teaches wherein the one or more instructions further comprise instructions to complete the second transaction in the transaction transmission list based on the transaction completion message for the second transaction (Par. 0061 CN discloses determines to execute the second information after verifying the balance of the sender).
As to claim 37 CN in combination with Rago teaches each and every limitation of clam 29.
In addition CN teaches wherein the node is a reception node configured to manage a third reception account for performing a third transaction between a third transmission account and the third reception account, and the one or more instructions further comprise instructions receive the third transaction request from a transmission node configured to manage the third transmission account” “record and manage the third transaction information in a transaction reception list”, “receive verification information for the third transaction from a node belonging to the transmission shard of the third transaction”, “apply the verification information for the third transaction to the world round state chain to verify the third transaction”, “register the verified third transaction in a transaction chain of the third reception account”, “transmit a third transaction completion message for the third transaction registered in the transaction chain to the node belonging to the transmission shard of the third transaction (Par. 0044 CN discloses a transaction list. Par. 0051-0053 CN discloses the system sending and monitoring the second execution information in order to satisfy the request).
As to claim 38 CN in combination with Rago teaches each and every limitation of clam 37.
In addition CN teaches wherein the one or more instructions further comprise instructions to change status information of the third transaction recorded in the transaction reception list (Par. 0044 CN discloses a transaction list. Par. 0051-0053 CN discloses the system sending and monitoring the second execution information in order to satisfy the request. The system also provides status updates).
As to claim 39 CN in combination with Rago teaches each and every limitation of clam 37.
In addition CN teaches “wherein the node is a verification request node of a fourth transaction between a fourth transmission account and a fourth reception account, and the one or more instructions further comprise instructions record and manage the fourth transaction information in the transaction reception list”, “request the node belonging to the transmission shard of the fourth transaction to verify the fourth transaction”, “receive verification information for the fourth transaction from the node belonging to the transmission shard of the fourth transaction”, “apply the verification information for the fourth transaction to the world round state chain to verify the fourth transaction (Par. 0044 CN discloses a transaction list. Par. 0051-0053 CN discloses the system sending and monitoring the second execution information in order to satisfy the request).
As to claim 40 CN in combination with Rago teaches each and every limitation of clam 39.
In addition CN teaches wherein the one or more instructions further comprise instructions transfer the fourth transaction Par. 0051-0053 CN discloses the system sending and monitoring the second execution information in order to satisfy the request).
As to claim 41 CN in combination with Rago teaches each and every limitation of clam 39.
In addition CN teaches wherein the one or more instructions further comprise instructions receive a fourth transaction completion message from the reception node of the fourth transaction and transmit the fourth transaction completion message to the node belonging to the transmission shard of the fourth transaction (Par. 0044 CN discloses a transaction list. Par. 0051-0053 CN discloses the system sending and monitoring the second execution information in order to satisfy the request).
As to claim 42 CN in combination with Rago teaches each and every limitation of clam 41.
In addition CN teaches wherein the one or more instructions further comprise instructions to change status information of the fourth transaction recorded in the transaction reception list (Par. 0061 CN discloses sending a message that the transaction is complete).
As to claim 43 an inter-shard transaction method capable of performing verification implemented by at least one processor in a node configured to manage a first transmission account performing a first transaction between the first transmission account and a first reception account, in a blockchain network employing a dynamic sharding technique, wherein the node comprises a memory configured to store one or more instructions and one or more processors configured to execute the one or more instructions, (Par. 0037-0039 and Fig. 1 CN discloses a blockchain network); the inter-shard transaction method comprising:
generating, by the one or more processors, a first transaction (Par. 0039 CN discloses generating ordered transactions);
CN does not teach but Rago teaches obtaining, by the one or more processors, home shard information of the first reception account by applying an address of the first reception account and a total number of shards to a predetermined function (Par. 0058 Rago discloses using the jump consistent hash function which uses the key and the total number of shards. The key is seen as the address, the total number of shards is seen as the total number of shards);
CN and Rago are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, shard processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the shard processing of CN to include jump consistent hash function of Rago, to allow for accessing content in order to allow for improved performance (Par. 0000 Rago).
Cn teaches obtaining, by the one or more processors, working shard information of the first reception account from a node belonging to the home shard of the first reception account (Par. 0042-0043 CN discloses receiving or sending transactions relating to shards. The transactions are seen the shard information);
requesting, by the one or more processors, the first transaction from a reception node configured to manage the first reception account based on the working shard information of the first reception account (Par. 0042-0043 CN discloses receiving or sending transactions);
recording and managing, by the one or more processors, first transaction information in a transaction transmission list (Par. 0042-0043 CN discloses mapping process of storing the transactions);
calculating, by the one or more processors, first transaction verification information for verifying the first transaction in a world round state chain including the first transaction information (Par. 0051 CN discloses verifying the transaction account of the sender);
and transmitting, by the one or more processors, the first transaction verification information to nodes belonging to a reception shard of the first transaction (Par. 0051 CN discloses verifying the transaction account of the sender before executing the transaction and once confirmed executing the transaction).
As to claim 44 CN in combination with Rago teaches each and every limitation of clam 43.
In addition CN teaches further comprising: receiving, by the one or more processors, a transaction completion message for the first transaction; and completing, by the one or more processors, the first transaction in the transaction transmission list based on the transaction completion message for the first transaction (Par. 0061 CN discloses sending a message that the transaction is complete).
As to claim 45 CN in combination with Rago teaches each and every limitation of clam 44.
In addition CN teaches wherein the node is a verification confirmation node of a second transaction between a second transmission account and a second reception account, and the inter-shard transaction method further comprises: recording and managing, by the one or more processors, the second transaction information in the transaction transmission list; receiving, by the one or more processors, a verification request for the second transaction from the nodes belonging to the reception shard of the second transaction; calculating, by the node, second transaction verification information for verifying the second transaction in the world round state chain including information for the second transaction; and transmitting, by the one or more processors, the second transaction verification information to the nodes belonging to the reception shard of the second transaction (Par. 0051-0053 CN discloses the system sending and monitoring the second execution information in order to satisfy the request).
As to claim 46 CN in combination with Rago teaches each and every limitation of clam 45.
In addition CN teaches further comprising: receiving, by the one or more processors, a transaction completion message for the second transaction; and completing, by the one or more processors, the second transaction in the transaction transmission list based on the transaction completion message for the second transaction (Par. 0061 CN discloses sending a message that the transaction is complete).
As to claim 47 CN in combination with Rago teaches each and every limitation of clam 43.
In addition CN teaches wherein the node is a reception node configured to manage the third reception account performing a third transaction between a third transmission account and a third reception account, and the inter-shard transaction method further comprises:
receiving, by the one or more processors, the third transaction request from a transmission node configured to manage the third transmission account; recording and managing, by the one or more processors, the third transaction information in the transaction reception list; receiving, by the one or more processors, verification information for the third transaction from the node belonging to the transmission shard of the third transaction; applying, by the one or more processors, the verification information for the third transaction to the world round state chain to verify the third transaction; registering, by the one or more processors, the verified third transaction, in a transaction chain of the third reception account; and transmitting, by the one or more processors, a third transaction completion message for the third transaction registered in the transaction chain to the node belonging to the transmission shard of the third transaction (Par. 0051-0053 CN discloses the system sending and monitoring the second execution information in order to satisfy the request).
As to claim 48 CN in combination with Rago teaches each and every limitation of clam 43.
In addition CN teaches wherein the node is a verification request node of a fourth transaction between a fourth transmission account and a fourth reception account, and the method further comprises recording and managing, by the one or more processors, the fourth transaction information in the transaction reception list; requesting, by the one or more processors, the node belonging to the transmission shard of the fourth transaction to verify the fourth transaction; receiving, by the one or more processors, verification information for the fourth transaction from the node belonging to the transmission shard of the fourth transaction; and applying, by the one or more processors, the verification information for the fourth transaction to the world round state chain to verify the fourth transaction (Par. 0051-0053 CN discloses the system sending and monitoring the second execution information in order to satisfy the request).
Conclusion
8. 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 JERMAINE A MINCEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5010. The examiner can normally be reached 8am EST until 5pm 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, Ann J Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9767. 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.
/J.A.M/ September 19, 2026Examiner, Art Unit 2159
/ANN J LO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2159
