Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1,6, 8-10, 15 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Kurian (U.S. Pub. 2019/0268319 A1).
With respect to claims 1, 10 and 17, Kurian discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
obtaining consensus corresponding to a first transaction based on votes from a first set of validator node devices of a distributed digital ledger transaction network (i.e., “the request may include a request to add a block or entry in the distributed ledger, modify a block or entry in the distributed ledger, or the like. At step 602 approval data may be received from one or more modification approval users.”(0089) and validator node is approval users of reference );
identifying a second transaction referencing a module defining parameters for modifying validator node devices (i.e., “At step 606, the approved modification may be executed and the generated unique identifier may be embedded in the modified block or entry of the distributed ledger.”(0090) and “one or more requirements associated with the identified modification authentication approval devices may be implemented”(0006) or “ may receive a request to modify a distributed ledger. In response to the request, the system, computing platform, or the like, may transmit a request for availability data to computing devices associated with a plurality of modification
approval users.”(0005) and availability data is defining parameters as claimed invention); and
modifying the first set of validator node devices to a second set of validator node devices of the distributed digital ledger transaction network (i.e., “when the block or entry is modified, the unique identifier may be transmitted to the modification approval users. However, if a modification approval user did not approve the block, he or she may view or otherwise obtain the identifier from the modified block or entry. The unique identifier may then be used as an authentication device when a second, subsequent request for modification is received.”(0028)) by:
executing the second transaction according to the parameters defined by the module (i.e., “ the modification approval authentication device may include identification of one or more predetermined locations (e.g., predetermined approval locations) from which the approval must be received. For example, one or more authorized approval locations may be predetermined and transmitted to the modification approval users. When a request to modify the distributed ledger is received, global positioning system (GPS) or other location data may be received from the modification user computing device and compared to the predetermined list of authorized approval locations”(0030) and “At step 606, the approved modification may be executed and the generated unique identifier may be embedded in the modified block or entry of the distributed ledger.”(0090) or “At step 514, the generated instruction may be transmitted to one or more distributed ledger nodes 130, 135. At step 516, the instruction may be executed causing the one or more distributed ledger nodes to execute or implement the modification”(0087)); and
obtaining consensus on the second transaction based on additional votes from the first set of validator node devices (i.e., “a request for approval data including, for example, the unique identifier to validate the approval data, may be generated and transmitted to computing devices associated with modification approval users. The request may be transmitted to computing devices associated with some or all of the modification approval users (e.g., all modification approval users, available modification approval users, or the like).”(0092) and Examiner asserts that available modification approval users is additional votes as claimed invention).
With respect to claims 6 and 15, Kurian discloses further comprising determining the second set of validator node devices based on votes received from computing devices associated with user accounts of the distributed digital ledger transaction network (i.e., “ In some examples, the number of modification approval users (and associated computing devices) may be compared to a threshold number of users for approval of the requested modification. If the available number is at or above the threshold, a first percentage of users must approve the modification in order for the modification to be considered approved.”(0023) and “a user may authenticate to the distributed ledger control computing platform to approve a requested modification using login credentials, such as username and password, biometric data, and the like (0110)).
With respect to claims 8, and 18, Kurian discloses further comprising: obtaining consensus corresponding to a third transaction based on further votes from the second set of validator node devices; and committing an execution result from the third transaction to memory in response to obtaining consensus based on the further votes from the second set of validator node devices (fig. 6a shows step 612 further votes from the second set of validator node (approval data from user such as ., “a request for approval data including, for example, the unique identifier to validate the approval data, may be generated and transmitted to computing devices associated with modification approval users. The request may be transmitted to computing devices associated with some or all of the modification approval users (e.g., all modification approval users, available modification approval users, or the like).”(0092) and Examiner asserts that available modification approval users is additional votes as claimed invention) and further 6 B shows committing step 620-522 an executing result and step 624 is step result).
With respect to claims 9, and 19, Kurian discloses further comprising modifying the parameters defined by the module by obtaining consensus on a third transaction based on further votes from the second set of validator node devices (i.e.,“a request for approval data including, for example, the unique identifier to validate the approval data, may be generated and transmitted to computing devices associated with modification approval users. The request may be transmitted to computing devices associated with some or all of the modification approval users (e.g., all modification approval users, available modification approval users, or the like).”(0092.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurian (U.S. Pub. 2019/0268319 A1).in view of Kim et al. (U.S. 2021/0004777 A1).
With respect to claims 7 and 16, Kurian discloses all limitations recited in claim 6 or 15 except for . further comprising allocating the votes to the computing devices by allocating one or more votes to each computing device based on digital assets of an associated user account. However, Kim et al. discloses further comprising allocating the votes to the computing devices by allocating one or more votes to each computing device based on digital assets of an associated user account (i.e., “ Each account registered in the PoT node pool 211 may claim on a blockchain a revenue share allocated thereto in proportion to the amount of transaction votes won by each account.”(0076)). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include Kim et al.’s feature in order to have reliability network for the stated purpose has been well known in the art as evidenced by teaching of Kim et al (0005).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 11 and 20 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, since the prior art of record and considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure does not teach or suggest the claimed further comprising: determining that a voting epoch associated with the first set of validator node devices has ended in accordance with the parameters defined by the module; and implementing the second set of validator node devices as a current set of validator node devices for the distributed digital ledger transaction network upon determining that the voting epoch associated with the first set of validator node devices has ended.
Claim 3-6 and 12-14 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, since the prior art of record and considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure does not teach or suggest the claimed further comprising locking digital assets of user accounts associated with the first set of validator node devices during a voting epoch in which the first set of validator node devices is implemented by disabling access to the digital assets by the user accounts during the voting epoch;
further comprising locking the digital assets of the user accounts associated with the first set of validator node devices during a cool-off period after the voting epoch in which the first set of validator node devices is implemented by disabling access to the digital assets by the user accounts during the cool-off period; wherein disabling access to the digital assets by the user accounts during the cool-off period comprises disabling access to the digital assets by the user accounts during at least one voting epoch after the first set of validator node devices have been modified.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG T VY whose telephone number is (571)272-1954. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached at (571)272-4078. 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.
/HUNG T VY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163 March 7, 2026