Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This non-final action is responsive to application filed on 02/11/2025. Claims 1-25 are pending, with claims 1, 13 and 25 being independent.
Priority
This application is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/602,168, filed on October 7, 2021, which is the U.S. National Stage of International Application No. PCT/IB2020/053416 filed on April 9, 2020, which claims the benefit of United Kingdom Patent Application No. 1905221.6, filed on April 12, 2019.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/18/2025, 05/21/2026 and 06/12/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 25 is 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 because the claim is drawn to “computer-readable medium”. The specification of examined application does not define the term “computer-readable medium”. Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims as a whole cover both transitory and non-transitory media. A transitory medium does not fall into any of the four categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). The claims may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiment to avoid a rejection under 35 USC § 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites modifying the candidate block to add a second plurality of transactions in a second order and updating the block header to continue the hashing. This application is a continuation and the subject matter above was not describe in the specification of its parent.
Claims 2-12 depend on claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons as detailed above.
Claims 13-24 are computing device claims, corresponding to the method claims 1-12, and are rejected for the same reasons as detailed above.
Claim 25 is a computer-readable medium claim, corresponding to the method claims 1-12, and is rejected for the same reasons as detailed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 7-9, 13, 14, 19-21 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Decker et al. (npl: Information Propagation in the Bitcoin Network, published 1-Sep-2013) and Noh (US 2021/0166221, PCT filed May 8, 2018).
As per claim 1, Decker discloses a computer-implemented method of block propagation in a blockchain network (Decker abstract, In this paper we analyze how Bitcoin uses a multi-hop broadcast to propagate transactions and blocks through the network), comprising:
building a candidate block containing a first plurality of transactions in a first order (Decker, section B. Propagation Method on pg. 4, Each block or transaction is introduced to the network at one of the nodes, its origin, and is then propagated throughout the network using the above broadcast mechanism; Decker, section B. Blocks on pg. 2, The block creator may only decide in which order transactions arrived and whether to include transactions in its block); and
hashing a block header of the candidate block (Decker, section B. Blocks on pgs. 2-3, The proof-of-work consists in finding a byte string, called nonce, that combined with the block header results in a hash Hb with a given number of leading zero-bits, or target),
sending, to other mining nodes, a first message specifying the first plurality of transactions and the first order of the first plurality of transactions in the candidate block (Decker, section B. Propagation Method on pg. 4: Each block or transaction is introduced to the network at one of the nodes, its origin, and is then propagated throughout the network using the above broadcast mechanism. [i.e., when one node creates a block, it sends the block to other nodes]; Decker, section B. Blocks on pg. 2, The block creator may only decide in which order transactions arrived and whether to include transactions in its block).
Decker does not explicitly disclose:
while hashing a block header of the candidate block,
sending, to other mining nodes, the first message;
modifying the candidate block to add a second plurality of transactions in a second order and updating the block header to continue the hashing; and
sending, to the other mining nodes, an add message specifying the second plurality of transactions and the second order of the second plurality of transactions in the candidate block.
Noh teaches:
modifying the candidate block to add a second plurality of transactions in a second order and updating the block header to continue the hashing (Noh par. 38, adding the first transaction information to a candidate block; and performing a proof of work on the candidate block, and adding the candidate block to the blockchain as a valid block; Noh Fig. 15, Root of Merkle Tree; Noh par. 132, a data structure of a Merkle tree in which hash references indicating data of transaction information and the data of the transaction information are connected in the shape of a tree. [Implicitly data structure of a Merkle tree is updated for the added transaction before performing hashing (proof of work)]); and
sending, to the other mining nodes, an add message specifying the second plurality of transactions and the second order of the second plurality of transactions in the candidate block (Noh par. 38, adding the first transaction information to a candidate block; and performing a proof of work on the candidate block, and adding the candidate block to the blockchain as a valid block; Noh par. 122, transmit the valid block to the other nodes).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Decker with the teaching of Noh for modifying the candidate block to add a second plurality of transactions in a second order and updating the block header to continue the hashing; and sending, to the other mining nodes, an add message specifying the second plurality of transactions and the second order of the second plurality of transactions in the candidate block. One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because it offers the advantage of reducing transaction backlog.
Note, Decker-Noh disclose hashing a block header of the candidate block, sending, to other mining nodes, the first message; modifying the candidate block; and sending, to the other mining nodes, the add message, but does not explicitly disclose while hashing, performing a series of actions (e.g., sending the first message, modifying the candidate block and sending the add message). However, there are only a finite number of orders that these steps can perform: hashing before performing the series of actions, hashing while performing the series of actions and hashing after performing the series of actions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date of the claimed invention to try these alternatives in an attempt to determine the efficiency of the system.
As per claim 2, Decker-Noh discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the modifying of the candidate block and the sending of the add message are repeated for subsequent sets of transactions added to the candidate block until a block solution is found (Noh par. 144, If the value of the block hash 1620 satisfies the constraint, the proof of work is completed, but if the value of the block hash 1620 does not satisfy the constraint, the node may repeat the same process after guessing another nonce).
As per claim 7, Decker-Noh discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
finding a proof-of-work in association with a nonce in the block header of the candidate block by hashing the block header to produce a hash value below a difficulty threshold (Decker, section B. Blocks on pgs. 2-3, The proof-of-work consists in finding a byte string, called nonce, that combined with the block header results in a hash Hb with a given number of leading zero-bits, or target) and, as a result,
sending the other mining nodes a coinbase transaction from the candidate block and block header information (Decker, section B. Blocks on pgs. 2-3, The proof-of-work consists in finding a byte string, called nonce, that combined with the block header results in a hash Hb with a given number of leading zero-bits, or target … The nonce is part of the block so that nodes receiving it can verify that the creator solved the proof-of-work … it may include a transaction that has no inputs but may specify outputs for a predetermined number of coins into the block; Decker, section B. Propagation Method on pg. 4: Each block or transaction is introduced to the network at one of the nodes, its origin, and is then propagated throughout the network using the above broadcast mechanism), wherein the block header information includes at least a timestamp (Decker, section C. Measurements on pg. 7, Each block includes a timestamp of the time the block was found) and the nonce (Decker, section B. Blocks on pgs. 2-3, The proof-of-work consists in finding a byte string, called nonce, that combined with the block header results in a hash Hb with a given number of leading zero-bits, or target … The nonce is part of the block so that nodes receiving it can verify that the creator solved the proof-of-work); and
adding the candidate block to a local copy of the blockchain (Decker, section B. Blocks on pg. 2, A block b contains the set of transactions Tb that the node which created the block has committed since the previous block).
As per claim 8, Decker-Noh discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the block header information excludes at least some header fields (see Decker, section B. Blocks on pgs. 2-3, implicitly block header information does not include all fields).
As per claim 9, Decker-Noh discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the first plurality of transactions and the first order and the second plurality of transactions and the second order are not resent to the other mining nodes after finding the proof-of-work (Decker, section B. Propagation Method on pg. 4, In order to avoid sending transaction and block messages to nodes that already received them from other nodes, they are not forwarded directly. Instead their availability is announced to the neighbors by sending them an inv message once the transaction or block has been completely verified … A node, receiving an inv message for a transaction or block that it does not yet have locally, will issue a getdata message to the sender of the inv message containing the hashes of the information it needs. The actual transfer of the block or transaction is done via individual block or tx messages).
Claims 13, 14 and 19-21 do not teach or further define over the limitations in claims 1, 2 and 7-9 respectively. As such, claims 13, 14 and 19-21 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 1, 2 and 7-9, respectively.
Claim 25 does not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 1. As such, claim 25 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
Claims 3, 5, 6, 15, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Decker et al. (npl: Information Propagation in the Bitcoin Network, published 1-Sep-2013), Noh (US 2021/0166221, PCT filed May 8, 2018) and Poornachandran et al. (US 2017/0178072, published Jun. 22, 2017).
As per claim 3, Decker-Noh discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first message includes a template identifier and wherein the add message includes the template identifier.
Poornachandran teaches:
identifier (Poornachandran par. 47, The subsequent concatenation hash is generated by hashing the previous block chain value with the new owner-record hash. This produces a new hash that may be contributed to the block chain).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the method of Decker with the teaching of Poornachandran for the first message includes a template identifier and the add message includes the template identifier. One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because it offers the advantage of keeping track of creator of a block.
As per claim 5, Decker-Noh-Poornachandran discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the template identifier is determined based on a mining node identifier and a block level indicator (Poornachandran par. 47, The subsequent concatenation hash is generated by hashing the previous block chain value with the new owner-record hash. This produces a new hash that may be contributed to the block chain). The same rationale as in claim 3 applies.
As per claim 6, Decker-Noh-Poornachandran discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the template identifier is obtained from a hash of a concatenation of (a) the mining node identifier and (b) a hash value associated with a previous block in the blockchain. (Poornachandran par. 47, The subsequent concatenation hash is generated by hashing the previous block chain value with the new owner-record hash. This produces a new hash that may be contributed to the block chain). The same rationale as in claim 3 applies.
Claims 15, 17 and 18 do not teach or further define over the limitations in claims 3, 5 and 6 respectively. As such, claims 15, 17 and 18 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 3, 5 and 6, respectively.
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Decker et al. (npl: Information Propagation in the Bitcoin Network, published 1-Sep-2013), Noh (US 2021/0166221, PCT filed May 8, 2018) and Vijayvergia et al. (US 10,833,843, filed Dec. 1, 2016).
As per claim 4, Decker-Noh discloses the method of claim 3, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first message and the add message each include respective sequence numbers indicating an order for the first plurality of transactions and the second plurality of transactions.
Vijayvergia teaches:
message each include respective sequence numbers indicating an order for the first plurality of transactions (Vijayvergia 9:58-61, each block 302 may store any number of records each indicating when and in what order the transaction(s) 304 are applied to modify 60 the data stored in the blockchain 300).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify further the method of Decker with the teaching of Vijayvergia for the first message and the add message each include respective sequence numbers indicating an order for the first plurality of transactions and the second plurality of transactions. One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because it offers the advantage of providing synchronization across distributed system.
Claim 16 does not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 4. As such, claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 4.
Claims 10, 11, 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Decker et al. (npl: Information Propagation in the Bitcoin Network, published 1-Sep-2013), Noh (US 2021/0166221, PCT filed May 8, 2018) and Roberts et al. (US 2015/0317748, published Jun. 22, 2017).
As per claim 10, Decker-Noh discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first message and the add message contain transaction identifiers for specifying the first plurality of transactions and the second plurality of transactions (Decker, section B. Propagation Method on pg. 4: Each block or transaction is introduced to the network at one of the nodes, its origin, and is then propagated throughout the network using the above broadcast mechanism; Decker, section B. Blocks on pg. 2, The block creator may only decide in which order transactions arrived and whether to include transactions in its block; Decker, section A. Transactions on pg. 2, Transactions are identified by the hash of their serialized Representation).
Decker-Noh discloses transaction identifiers but does not explicitly disclose compressed transaction identifiers.
Roberts teaches:
compressed transaction identifiers (Roberts par. 10, truncating each of the plurality of transaction identifiers, and each transaction identifier element is a truncated transaction identifier).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify further the method of Decker with the teaching of Roberts for the first message and the add message contain compressed transaction identifiers for specifying the first plurality of transactions and the second plurality of transactions. One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because it offers the advantage of reducing size of the block for faster transmission.
As per claim 11, Decker-Noh-Roberts discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the compressed transaction identifiers are truncated transaction identifiers. (Roberts par. 10, truncating each of the plurality of transaction identifiers, and each transaction identifier element is a truncated transaction identifier). The same rationale as in claim 10 applies.
Claims 22 and 23 do not teach or further define over the limitations in claims 10 and 11 respectively. As such, claims 22 and 23 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 10 and 11, respectively.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/ patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer
Claims 1-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 12,277,552 in view of Noh (US 2021/0166221). For instance, claim 1 of the patent teaches all the limitations of claim 1 of the application except modifying the candidate block to add a second plurality of transactions in a second order and updating the block header to continue the hashing; and sending, to the other mining nodes, an add message specifying the second plurality of transactions and the second order of the second plurality of transactions in the candidate block. Noh (at least paragraph 38) teaches those limitations. It would have been obvious to modify because it offers the advantage of reducing transaction backlog.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20190370486 A1; Blockchain-Based Transaction Processing Method And Apparatus
One or more implementations of the present specification relate to the field of blockchain technologies, and in particular, to a blockchain-based transaction processing method and apparatus.
US 20180144340 A1; Triggering Actions Responsive To Blockchain Transactions
This application relates to actions being triggered from a blockchain, and more particularly, to having certain operations performed as transactions are received and/or stored in a blockchain.
US 20210150512 A1; Method And Device For Providing Transaction Service For Cryptocurrencies Based On Different Blockchains
The present disclosure relates to a device and method for providing a transaction service of cryptocurrency based on blockchain.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHANG DO whose telephone number is (571)270-7837. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 5:00 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, RUPAL DHARIA can be reached at (571) 272-3880. 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.
/KHANG DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492
Prosecution Insights