DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to communications received on January 10, 2025. Claims 1-15 are pending and addressed below.
Specification
For the record, Examiner acknowledges that the Specification submitted on January 10, 2025 has been accepted.
Drawings
For the record, Examiner acknowledges that the Drawings submitted on January 10, 2025 have been accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-7 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the feature tree root feature.” There are multiple previously recited feature tree root features and it is unclear as to which particular feature tree root feature the limitation is referring. Also, claim 4 recites the limitation “the second block”. There are multiple previously recited second blocks and it is unclear as to which particular second block the limitation is referring. Also, claim 4 recites the limitation “the first block”. There are multiple previously recited first blocks and it is unclear as to which particular first block the limitation is referring. Dependent claim 5 is rejected for containing the same indefinite language as parent claim 4 without further remedying the indefinite language.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the feature tree root feature.” There are multiple previously recited feature tree root features and it is unclear as to which particular feature tree root feature the limitation is referring. Dependent claim 7 is rejected for containing the same indefinite language as parent claim 6 without further remedying the indefinite language.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the second block”. There are multiple previously recited second blocks and it is unclear as to which particular second block the limitation is referring. Dependent claim 12 is rejected for containing the same indefinite language as parent claim 11 without further remedying the indefinite language.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the first block”. There are multiple previously recited first blocks and it is unclear as to which particular first block the limitation is referring. Also, claim 12 recites the limitation “the determining the target block header”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. Claim 13 is directed towards a blockchain system comprising a first and second blockchain. A blockchain is not a piece of hardware. The claim does not recite any hardware. Therefore, the claim is non-statutory. Applicant may overcome this rejection by including a positive recitation of a hardware device as part of the blockchain system. Dependent claims 14-15 are rejected for failing to further define parent claim 13 as statutory.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (“SEPoW: Secure and Efficient Proof of Work Sidechains” cited in the IDS filed on 4/28/2026 and hereinafter referred to as Li).
As to claim 13, Li discloses a blockchain system, comprising a first blockchain and a second blockchain (sections 2.2 and 2.4, Li teaches a main chain and a side chain), a plurality of first blocks existing in the first blockchain, a plurality of second blocks in one-to-one correspondence with the plurality of first blocks existing in the second blockchain (sections 2.2, 2.4 and 3.1.2, Li teaches the blockchains can be simultaneously extended), each second block and the first block corresponding to the second block being generated based on a same proof-of-work result (sections 2.2, 2.4 and 3.1.2, Li teaches a producing multiple blocks at different chains with a single proof of work solution), and a second block header of each second block storing a feature tree root feature generated based on feature tree root information of the corresponding first block (sections 2.2, 2.4 and 3.1.2 and Fig. 1, Li teaches building a merged-block-header containing a mergedroot from root information of the main chain.).
As to claim 14, Li discloses the system according to claim 13, wherein the second block header of each second block and a first block header of the corresponding first block store the same feature tree root feature, and each feature tree root feature is obtained by fusing feature tree root information of the corresponding second block and the feature tree root information of the corresponding first block according to a preset fusion mode (sections 2.2, 2.4, 3.1.2 and 3.1.4 and Fig. 1, Li teaches building a merged-block-header containing a mergedroot generated from root information of the main chain and sidechain.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (“SEPoW: Secure and Efficient Proof of Work Sidechains” cited in the IDS filed on 4/28/2026 and hereinafter referred to as Li) in view of Back et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0330034 and hereinafter referred to as Back).
As to claim 1, Li discloses a resource processing method, executed by a node on a second blockchain (sections 2.2 and 2.4, Li teaches a main chain and a side chain), comprising:
receiving a first cross-chain proof transmitted by a node on a first blockchain (sections 2.2, 2.4, 3.1.2 and 3.1.4, Li teaches a cross-chain proof is received),
the first cross-chain proof carrying a first resource transfer record that has been uploaded to the first blockchain (sections 2.2, 2.4, 3.1.2, 3.1.3 and 3.1.4, Li teaches a transaction record),
a plurality of first blocks existing in the first blockchain, a plurality of second blocks in one-to-one correspondence with the plurality of first blocks existing in the second blockchain (sections 2.2, 2.4 and 3.1.2, Li teaches the blockchains can be simultaneously extended), each second block and the first block corresponding to the second block being generated based on a same proof-of-work result (sections 2.2, 2.4 and 3.1.2, Li teaches a producing multiple blocks at different chains with a single proof of work solution), and a second block header of each second block storing a feature tree root feature generated based on feature tree root information of the corresponding first block (sections 2.2, 2.4 and 3.1.2 and Fig. 1, Li teaches building a merged-block-header containing a mergedroot from root information of the main chain);
verifying validity of the first resource transfer record based on the feature tree root feature of each second block header in the second blockchain to obtain a first verification result (sections 2.2, 2.4, 3.1.2, 3.1.3 and 3.1.4 and Fig. 1, Li teaches verifying the cross-chain transfer). Li does not specifically disclose the first resource transfer record stating that a first resource is transferred into a first preset account in the first blockchain and is locked; and in response to the first verification result indicating a pass of the verification, unlocking and transferring out a second resource determined according to the first resource, from a second preset account in the second blockchain that corresponds to the first preset account as claimed. However, Back does disclose
the first resource transfer record stating that a first resource is transferred into a first preset account in the first blockchain and is locked (paragraphs [0033], [0042] and [0043], Back teaches locking an asset);
in response to the first verification result indicating a pass of the verification, unlocking and transferring out a second resource determined according to the first resource, from a second preset account in the second blockchain that corresponds to the first preset account (paragraphs [0030], [0033], [0043] and [0044], Back teaches releasing the asset.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Li with the teachings of Back for having the first resource transfer record state that a first resource is transferred into a first preset account in the first blockchain and is locked because this would improve security.
Claim 9 recites substantially similar subject matter to claim 1 and is therefore, rejected for similar reasons to claim 1 above.
As to claim 6, the combination of teachings between Li and Back disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the first blockchain is a mainchain, and the second blockchain is a sidechain corresponding to the first blockchain (sections 2.2 and 2.4, Li teaches a main chain and a side chain), and the method further comprises:
receiving the proof-of-work result transmitted by the node on the first blockchain, and first feature tree root information of a first block generated according to the proof-of-work result; using the proof-of-work result to generate a second block (sections 2.2, 2.4 and 3.1.2, Li teaches a producing multiple blocks at different chains with a single proof of work solution); generating a feature tree root feature according to the first feature tree root information; storing the feature tree root feature in a block header of the second block to obtain an updated second block; and uploading the updated second block to the second blockchain (sections 2.2, 2.4 and 3.1.2 and Fig. 1, Li teaches building a merged-block-header containing a mergedroot from root information of the main chain.).
As to claim 7, the combination of teachings between Li and Back disclose the method according to claim 6, further comprising: returning second feature tree root information of the generated second block to the node on the first blockchain, to instruct the node on the first blockchain to generate a feature tree root feature according to the second feature tree root information, store the feature tree root feature to obtain an updated first block, and upload the updated first block to the first blockchain (sections 2.2, 2.4 and 3.1.2, Li teaches the blockchains can be simultaneously extended.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 8 and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 4-5, 11-12 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 2 recites, inter alia, “determining, based on a position of the target block header in the second blockchain, block confirmation information of the first block where the first resource transfer record is located in the first blockchain; and obtaining a first verification result indicating a pass in response to a number of confirmation blocks represented by the block confirmation information being equal to or greater than a preset quantity threshold”. The prior art was not found to disclose these limitations in combination with the other limitations. Therefore, claim 2 is considered to recite allowable subject matter over the prior art. Dependent claims 3-5 are considered to recite allowable subject matter over the prior art based on their dependency.
Claim 8 recites, inter alia, “acquiring a remaining resource corresponding to the second resource which is transferred out; transferring the remaining resource into the second preset account for locking; generating a corresponding second resource transfer record; uploading the second resource transfer record to the second blockchain using the proof-of-work result transmitted by the node on the first blockchain”. The prior art was not found to disclose these limitations in combination with the other limitations. Therefore, claim 8 is considered to recite allowable subject matter over the prior art. Claim 10 is considered to recite allowable subject matter over the prior art for similar reasons to claim 8. Dependent claims 11-12 are considered to recite allowable subject matter over the prior art based on their dependency
Claim 15 recites, inter alia, “wherein each feature tree root feature is obtained by concatenating the feature tree root information of the corresponding second block with the feature tree root information of the corresponding first block to obtain concatenated feature information and performing a hash operation on the concatenated feature information”. The prior art was not found to disclose these limitations in combination with the other limitations. Therefore, claim 15 is considered to recite allowable subject matter over the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chen et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0063548) – cited for teaching cross-chain transactions involving locking - Abstract
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THADDEUS J PLECHA whose telephone number is (571)270-7506. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30.
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, Taghi Arani can be reached at 571-272-3787. 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.
/THADDEUS J PLECHA/Examiner, Art Unit 2438
Prosecution Insights