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 .
This Office Action has been issued in response to Applicant’s Communication of application S/N 19/074,051 filed on March 7, 2025. Claims 1 to 20 are currently pending with the application.
Priority
The instant application is a continuation of Application No. 17/877,033, filed on July 29, 2022. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of prior-filed application 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, or 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/13/2026 was filed before the mailing date of the first action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “code loaded inside the TEE is protected with integrity” in line 12, which appears to contain a typographical error, and that it should read “code loaded inside the TEE is protected with regard to integrity” OR “code loaded inside the TEE is protected for integrity”.
Same rationale applies to claims 8 and 15, since they recite similar limitations.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 to 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 to 6 of U.S. Patent 12,265,522. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the instant application are anticipated by the claims in the U.S. Patent.
Following mapping of claims 1 to 7 of Instant Application to claims 1 to 6 of U.S. Patent 12,265,522. Similar mapping applies to claims 8 to 20 of instant application, since they recite similar limitations.
Instant Application
U.S. Patent 12,265,522
1. An apparatus, comprising: a device including at least one memory having processor-executable code stored therein, and at least one processor that is adapted to execute the processor-executable code, wherein the processor-executable code includes processor-executable instructions that, in response to execution, enable the device to perform actions, including: for each node in a plurality of nodes in a consortium blockchain, verifying, by trusted execution environment (TEE) attestation, that other nodes in the plurality of nodes comply with a governance process of the consortium blockchain that defines code to be run in a TEE of each of the plurality of nodes; for each node in the plurality of nodes, executing, in the TEE of the node, database code and distributed ledger code to respectively implement a distributed database and a distributed ledger on the consortium blockchain, wherein code loaded inside the TEE is protected with integrity, and wherein the TEE comprises a journal of effects that contains commit points; and upon reaching a commit point in the journal of effects, updating the database based on entries associated with a plurality of transactions in the journal of effects since a last commit point.
4. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the actions further include persisting changes associated with a first transaction of the plurality of transactions to the distributed ledger by updating the journal of effects to add, for each of the changes, an entry that corresponds to the change.
1. An apparatus, comprising: a device including at least one memory having processor-executable code stored therein, and at least one processor that is adapted to execute the processor-executable code, wherein the processor-executable code includes processor-executable instructions that, in response to execution, enable the device to perform actions, including: verifying, by a first node using trusted execution environment (TEE) attestation, that a plurality of other nodes complies with a governance process defined by a consortium blockchain, wherein the consortium blockchain comprises the first node and the plurality of other nodes; executing, in a TEE of the first node, database code and distributed ledger code, such that the distributed ledger code is distributed among the first node and the plurality of other nodes of the consortium blockchain to provide a distributed ledger, and such that execution of the database code of the first node instantiates a first instance of a database, wherein the database is distributed among the first node and the plurality of other nodes, wherein the TEE comprises a portion of the processor that provides confidentiality and integrity to loaded code and data; receiving a first transaction that is associated with modifying the database; executing the first transaction; receiving a second transaction that is associated with modifying the database; executing the second transaction; persisting changes associated with the first and second transactions to the distributed ledger by updating a journal of effects in the distributed ledger, wherein the journal of effects comprises a first entry generated for the first transaction and a second entry generated for the second transaction, and wherein the journal of effects further comprises a commit point after the first entry and the second entry; and upon reaching the commit point, updating the database based on entries in the journal of effects since a last commit point, wherein the entries in the journal of effects since the last commit point comprise the first entry and the second entry.
2. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the actions further include executing, in the TEE of the node, proxy code.
2. The apparatus of claim 1, the actions further including executing, in the TEE of the first node, proxy code.
3. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the distributed database is a relational database.
3. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the database is a relational database.
5. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the actions further include providing a universally verifiable receipt for a first transaction of the plurality of transactions, and wherein the universally verifiable receipt includes a Merkle tree proof and a signed root hash.
4. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the actions further include providing a universally verifiable receipt for the first transaction, wherein the universally verifiable receipt includes a Merkle tree proof and a signed root hash.
6. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the actions further include using the distributed ledger to recover the distributed database.
5. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the actions further include using the distributed ledger to recover the database.
7. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the actions further include, responsive to a successful consensus vote within the consortium blockchain, persisting changes associated with a first transaction of the plurality of transactions to the distributed ledger.
6. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein persisting the changes associated with the first transaction to the distributed ledger is accomplished responsive to a successful consensus vote within the consortium blockchain.
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.
Claims 1, 3 to 8, 10 to 15, and 17 to 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higgins et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0245117) hereinafter Higgins, in view of Smith et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0014132) hereinafter Smith, and further in view of Vermeulen et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,609,890) hereinafter Vermeulen.
As to claim 1:
Higgins discloses:
An apparatus, comprising: a device including at least one memory having processor-executable code stored therein, and at least one processor that is adapted to execute the processor-executable code, wherein the processor-executable code includes processor-executable instructions that, in response to execution, enable the device to perform actions, including:
for each node in the plurality of nodes, executing, in the TEE of the node, database code and distributed ledger code to respectively implement a distributed database and a distributed ledger on the consortium blockchain [Paragraph 0008 teaches a distributed ledger system configured to create, update and maintain at least one blockchain indicative of transactions performed by a network of users of the system; Paragraph 0009 teaches a network of user nodes; Paragraph 0037 teaches each user node is configured to execute database management software for enabling the node to create, read, update and/or delete one or more blockchain related transactions on the at least one database; Paragraph 0059 teaches each application instance runs a node; Paragraph 0061 teaches synchronizing data between blockchain instances and one or more SQL databases].
Higgins does not appear to expressly disclose for each node in a plurality of nodes in a consortium blockchain, verifying, by trusted execution environment (TEE) attestation, that other nodes in the plurality of nodes comply with a governance process of the consortium blockchain that defines code to be run in a TEE of each of the plurality of nodes; wherein code loaded inside the TEE is protected with integrity, and wherein the TEE comprises a journal of effects that contains commit points; and upon reaching a commit point in the journal of effects, updating the database based on entries associated with a plurality of transactions in the journal of effects since a last commit point.
Smith discloses:
for each node in a plurality of nodes in a consortium blockchain, verifying, by trusted execution environment (TEE) attestation, that other nodes in the plurality of nodes comply with a governance process of the consortium blockchain that defines code to be run in a TEE of each of the plurality of nodes [Paragraph 0094 teaches executing or operating of a trusted execution environment (TEE), where aspects of security hardening, hardware roots-of-trust, and trusted or protected operations may be implemented through the TEE, therefore, including verifying compliance with governance processes; Paragraph 0125 teaches tracking distributed ledger records in the blockchain, which hold individual transactions among blockchain participants];
wherein code loaded inside the TEE is protected with integrity [Paragraph 0126 teaches blockchain records are integrity protected; Paragraph 0094 teaches the TEE operates as a protected area accessible to the processor for secure execution of instructions and secure access to data].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of the cited references and modify the invention as taught by Higgins, by for each node in a plurality of nodes in a consortium blockchain, verifying, by trusted execution environment (TEE) attestation, that other nodes in the plurality of nodes comply with a governance process of the consortium blockchain that defines code to be run in a TEE of each of the plurality of nodes; wherein code loaded inside the TEE is protected with integrity, as taught by Smith [Paragraph 0094, 0125, 0126], because both applications are directed to improved solutions for distributed ledger transactions; incorporating a TEE enhances security of execution and access of data (See Smith Para [0094]).
Neither Higgins nor Smith appear to expressly disclose wherein the TEE comprises a journal of effects that contains commit points; and upon reaching a commit point in the journal of effects, updating the database based on entries associated with a plurality of transactions in the journal of effects since a last commit point.
Vermeulen discloses:
wherein the TEE comprises a journal of effects that contains commit points [Column 6, lines 18 to 27 teach each journal entry includes a commit record entry]; and
upon reaching a commit point in the journal of effects, updating the database based on entries associated with a plurality of transactions in the journal of effects since a last commit point [Column 11, line 54 to Column 12, line 2 teach the journal manager may provide an indication of the latest committed state of the database (such as the highest commit sequence number generated thus far), and determining the most recently applied write at the materialization node (database) based on the commit entry, to perform the writes].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of the cited references and modify the invention as taught by Higgins, by incorporating a TEE comprising a journal of effects that contains commit points; and upon reaching a commit point in the journal of effects, updating the database based on entries associated with a plurality of transactions in the journal of effects since a last commit point, as taught by Vermeulen [Columns 6, 11, 12], because the applications are directed to improved solutions for distributed ledger transactions; updating the database upon committing the changes to the distributed ledger enhances the management of distributed ledger data, while providing a simplified conflict detection, thereby enhancing integrity, consistency, and security (See Vermeulen Cols 3, 7).
As to claim 3:
Higgins discloses:
the database is a relational database [Paragraph 0061 teaches synchronizing data between blockchain instances and one or more SQL databases, hence, relational database].
As to claim 4:
Higgins discloses:
persisting changes associated with a first transaction of the plurality of transactions to the distributed ledger by updating the journal of effects to add, for each of the changes, an entry that corresponds to the change [Paragraph 0022 teaches creating, maintaining and updating at least one blockchain indicative of the one or more transactions in a distributed ledger system via the network of user nodes; Paragraph 0058 teaches transmit said transactions securely across a peer-to-peer network as corresponding blockchain or distributed ledger transactions; Paragraph 0077 teaches writing transactions to the blockchain; Paragraph 0702 teaches blockchains represent a sequential series of records or transactions immutably written to and stored in a sequential chain of blocks].
As to claim 5:
Higgins discloses:
providing a universally verifiable receipt for a first transaction of the plurality of transactions, and wherein the universally verifiable receipt includes a Merkle tree proof and a signed root hash [Paragraph 0443 teaches uses a Merkle Tree to rapidly and efficiently validate a list of transactions within a block; Paragraph 0047 teaches each block has a property of type UPMerkle, which is a hash tree of all the transactions in the Block with binary branches until a single root node hash represents the hash of the entire tree].
As to claim 6:
Higgins discloses:
using the distributed ledger to recover the distributed database [Paragraph 0677 teaches a fresh copy of the database could be recovered at least by replaying the blockchain].
As to claim 7:
Higgins discloses:
responsive to a successful consensus vote within the consortium blockchain, persisting changes associated with a first transaction of the plurality of transactions to the distributed ledger [Paragraph 0127 teaches candidate transaction is sent to each peer, parent and child to validate and adding to their queue; Paragraph 0128 teaches Founder Node writes all valid transactions to a block which is transmitted to each peer, parent and child to validate and if validated adding to their version of the blockchain].
Same rationale applies to claims 8, 10 to 15, and 17 to 20, since they recite similar limitations, and are therefore, similarly rejected.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higgins et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0245117) hereinafter Higgins, in view of Smith et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0014132) hereinafter Smith, in view of Vermeulen et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,609,890) hereinafter Vermeulen, and further in view of Stamos et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0034606) hereinafter Stamos.
As to claim 2:
Higgins as modified by Smith and Vermeulen discloses all the limitations as set forth in the rejections of claim 1 above, but does not appear to expressly disclose executing, in the TEE of the node, proxy code.
Stamos discloses:
executing, in the TEE of the node, proxy code [Paragraph 0095 teaches each DBMS participant runs a proxy server, which allows DBMS participants to participate securely in a BCA network, by transmitting messages transmitted as part of block apply to the proxy server].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of the cited references and modify the invention as taught by Higgins, by executing, in the TEE of the first node, proxy code, as taught by Stamos [Paragraph 0095], because the applications are directed to improved solutions for distributed ledger transactions; using a proxy server avoids the need for one database to connect to another database directly, which may not be permitted in a deployment with minimal trust (See Stamos [0095]).
Same rationale applies to claims 9, and 16, since they recite similar limitations, and are therefore, similarly rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAQUEL PEREZ-ARROYO whose telephone number is (571)272-8969. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 5:30pm, Alt Friday, 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, Sherief Badawi can be reached at 571-272-9782. 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.
/RAQUEL PEREZ-ARROYO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169
Prosecution Insights