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 is in response to the original filing and preliminary amendments of 02/06/2025. Claims 1-10 and 14 have been amended. Claims 11-13 and 15 have been cancelled. Claims 16-23 have been added. Claims 1-10, 14 and 16-23 are pending and have been considered below.
Priority
19101852 filed 02/06/2025 is a National Stage entry of PCT/EP2023/068976 , International Filing Date: 07/10/2023; claims foreign priority to 2211597.6, filed 08/09/2022.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 02/06/2025 are accepted.
Specification
The amendment to the specification filed on 02/06/2025 is accepted.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/06/2025 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the limitations of ” associating a record in a database with an output of a first blockchain transaction ‘, “verifying whether at least one party is authorized to access the database record”, recites a determination that could be performed in the human mind or with a paper and pen. The concept of verifying verifying whether at least one party is authorized to access the database record is a fundamental, long standing data management practice that can be performed mentally or by a human administrator following a policy. The act verifying whether at least one party is authorized to access the database record a determination that could be performed in the human mind or with a paper and pen. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the recited hardware elements ”” “processing unit”, “ processing apparatus”, “memory”, “memory unit”, blockchain”(col.1: generic computing and storage components that merely provide a conventional environment for executing the abstract idea, The blockchain is used merely as a tool to implement the abstract idea of access control it does not improve the functionality of the computer or network, the claims do not recite a specific improvement to blockchain technology. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because generic hardware are recited at a high level of generality and represent standard computing components.
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.
Claims 1-3, 9, 14 and 16-18 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)1 as being anticipated by Sears et al U.S. 2021/0334176 A1.
Claim 1: Sears et al U.S. 2021/0334176 teaches a computer implemented method (abstract, a method operative in association with a set of transaction handling computing elements that comprise a network core that receive and process transaction requests into an append-only immutable chain of data block) comprising:
associating a record in a database with an unspent output of a first blockchain transaction (Sears et al at par.85-86,107, the transaction handler interacts with a set of UTXO handlers 614 with messages (via 615 and 620) to create, query, spend, and assign Unspent Transaction Outputs (UTXOs) associated with each transaction. The examiner finds this equivalent in function to associate “a record with unspent output), wherein the unspent output comprises at least one authorisation condition for verifying whether at least one party is authorized to access the database record (Sears et al at par.85-87, 56-58, the transaction handler interacts with a set of UTXO handlers with messages to create, query, spend, and assign Unspent Transaction Outputs (UTXOs) associated with each transaction. A UTXO also has two other pieces of information, namely, a value, and a “locking script.” Generally, the locking script is a set of instructions or simply a public key associated with the output. Sometimes the public key is called an address or wallet address. The locking script (e.g., the public key) is conveyed in the output of a transaction along with the value, and typically it is stored in a UTXO database along with the UTXO identifying information and its value. Thus, a query to the UTXO handler during initial transaction validation returns both the value and the locking script (public key). To spend a UTXO as an input to a new transaction, the new transaction (essentially its outputs), must be signed by the private key cryptographically matching the public key of the UTXO to be spent. This signature is provided with each transaction input and is generally called the “unlocking script.” The unlocking script can be a set of instructions or simply a digital signature. Thus, the digital signatures bind the output values of the transaction to the locking scripts (public keys) for which the receivers of the values presumably have the corresponding private key (later used to formulate an unlocking script) . The examiner interpret the locking script as the claimed “authorisation condition”);
granting access to the record upon successful validation, by a consensus mechanism of a blockchain network, of a further blockchain transaction comprising an input arranged to satisfy the at least one authorisation condition of the unspent output (Sears et al at par.87, each UTXO has a value and an locking script that must be executed successfully for the transaction to validate. The script is a set of instructions that must be executed to lock the use of a UTXO as an input to another transaction. Commonly, the script contains public key material that corresponds to the private key that must be used to sign transactions that consume the UTXO as an input. Par.85 To spend a UTXO as an input to a new transaction, the new transaction (essentially its outputs), must be signed by the private key cryptographically matching the public key of the UTXO to be spent. This signature is provided with each transaction input and is generally called the “unlocking script.” The unlocking script can be a set of instructions or simply a digital signature. Thus, the digital signatures bind the output values of the transaction to the locking scripts (public keys) for which the receivers of the values presumably have the corresponding private key (later used to formulate an unlocking script).).
Claim 2: Sears et al teaches wherein:
the at least one authorisation condition comprises at least a portion of a script and/or at least one cryptographic key associated with or controlled by the at least one party (Sears et al at par. 85-87, 56, ”each input contains an unlocking script (digital signature) of the transaction, and thus the signature verification performed by a signature verifier involves the signature verifier checking that the signature matches the locking script (pubic key) associated with each UTXO consumed by the transaction” . The examiner reads this as teaching that the authorization condition is not simply a key but whose final operation verify a digital signature produced the authorized party private key).
Claim 3: the method of claim1 wherein:
the at least one authorisation condition is operative to use the consensus mechanism associated with a protocol of the blockchain to verify a request to process the record (Sears et al at par. 56, ”the check thus involves a cryptographic operation and is computationally-intensive; thus, the signature verifier preferably is only consulted by the transaction hander for a valid input received from the UTXO handler. The signature verifier 617 acknowledges the validity of the input (in particular, the input signature) at 619. The transaction handler can interact with the UTXO handler and the signature verifier concurrently as inputs are received by the transaction handler. Once all input signatures are verified by the signature verifier 617, the raw transaction is considered by the transaction handler to the “valid” or “validated,” and at 615 transaction handler 609 creates new transactions outputs (UTXOs) in the UTXO handler 614 responsible for UTXOs associated with the new transaction).
Claim 9: Sears et al teaches wherein:
the at least one authorisation condition is arranged to facilitate a request or attempt to unlock/satisfy/redeem a locking script which is associated with an unspent output (UTXO) of the blockchain transaction, wherein the UTXO is associated with the record (Sears et al at par.85-87);
the UTXO can only be unlocked/satisfied/redeemed upon successful verification of the transaction by the consensus mechanism of a blockchain network(Sears et al at par.85-87);
unlocking/satisfying/redeeming the locking script comprises provision of at least one required cryptographic key(Sears et al at par.56, 58, 85-87);
unlocking/satisfying/redeeming the locking script results in an update or change being made in an index or overlay(Sears et al at par56-58, .85-87);
unlocking/satisfying/redeeming the locking script results in the unspent output being spent to an address specified in an input of the further blockchain transaction (Sears et al at par.85-87).
Claim 14: Sears et al teaches computer equipment comprising:
memory comprising one or more memory units(Figs.9, 10 computer and server comprising memory); and
processing apparatus comprising one or more processing units, wherein the memory stores code arranged to run on the processing apparatus, the code being configured so as when run on the processing apparatus, the processing apparatus (Figs.9, 10)performs a method of:
associating a record in a database with an unspent output of a first blockchain transaction (Sears et al at par.85-86,107, the transaction handler interacts with a set of UTXO handlers 614 with messages (via 615 and 620) to create, query, spend, and assign Unspent Transaction Outputs (UTXOs) associated with each transaction. The examiner finds this equivalent in function to associate “a record with unspent output), wherein the unspent output comprises at least one authorisation condition for verifying whether at least one party is authorized to access the database record (Sears et al at par.85-87, 56-58, the transaction handler interacts with a set of UTXO handlers with messages to create, query, spend, and assign Unspent Transaction Outputs (UTXOs) associated with each transaction. A UTXO also has two other pieces of information, namely, a value, and a “locking script.” Generally, the locking script is a set of instructions or simply a public key associated with the output. Sometimes the public key is called an address or wallet address. The locking script (e.g., the public key) is conveyed in the output of a transaction along with the value, and typically it is stored in a UTXO database along with the UTXO identifying information and its value. Thus, a query to the UTXO handler during initial transaction validation returns both the value and the locking script (public key). To spend a UTXO as an input to a new transaction, the new transaction (essentially its outputs), must be signed by the private key cryptographically matching the public key of the UTXO to be spent. This signature is provided with each transaction input and is generally called the “unlocking script.” The unlocking script can be a set of instructions or simply a digital signature. Thus, the digital signatures bind the output values of the transaction to the locking scripts (public keys) for which the receivers of the values presumably have the corresponding private key (later used to formulate an unlocking script) . The examiner interpret the locking script as the claimed “authorisation condition”) and
granting access to the record upon successful validation, by a consensus mechanism of a blockchain network, of a further blockchain transaction comprising an input arranged to satisfy the at least one authorisation condition of the unspent output(Sears et al at par.87, each UTXO has a value and an locking script that must be executed successfully for the transaction to validate. The script is a set of instructions that must be executed to lock the use of a UTXO as an input to another transaction. Commonly, the script contains public key material that corresponds to the private key that must be used to sign transactions that consume the UTXO as an input. Par.85 To spend a UTXO as an input to a new transaction, the new transaction (essentially its outputs), must be signed by the private key cryptographically matching the public key of the UTXO to be spent. This signature is provided with each transaction input and is generally called the “unlocking script.” The unlocking script can be a set of instructions or simply a digital signature. Thus, the digital signatures bind the output values of the transaction to the locking scripts (public keys) for which the receivers of the values presumably have the corresponding private key (later used to formulate an unlocking script)).
Claim 16: Sears et al teaches
wherein the at least one authorisation condition is arranged to specify and/or verify the at least one party(Sears et al at par. 85-87, 56, ”each input contains an unlocking script (digital signature) of the transaction, and thus the signature verification performed by a signature verifier involves the signature verifier checking that the signature matches the locking script (pubic key) associated with each UTXO consumed by the transaction” . The examiner reads this as teaching that the authorization condition is not simply a key but whose final operation verify a digital signature produced the authorized party private key).
Claim 17: Sears et al teaches
wherein the at least one authorisation condition is a required feature of the script as specified by a protocol associated with the blockchain and/or implemented by a network of nodes operating in accordance with a protocol associated with the blockchain (Sears et al at par. 85-87, 56, ”each input contains an unlocking script (digital signature) of the transaction, and thus the signature verification performed by a signature verifier involves the signature verifier checking that the signature matches the locking script (pubic key) associated with each UTXO consumed by the transaction”).
Claim 18: Sears et al teaches
wherein the unspent output comprises a script which comprises or implements a control operation that enables or facilitates selective access of the at least one record by one or more of the at least one parties (Sears et al at par. 85-87, 56, ”each input contains an unlocking script (digital signature) of the transaction, and thus the signature verification performed by a signature verifier involves the signature verifier checking that the signature matches the locking script (pubic key) associated with each UTXO consumed by the transaction”).
Claim 22: Sears et al teaches
wherein the record relates to, stores and/or represents at least one portion of data and which: is stored on or off the blockchain; or pointed to or referee to from the blockchain transaction (par.109-112).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang et al U.S. 2023/0394063 A1 .
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Claim 10 : Zhang et al teaches a computer-implemented method comprising the steps of:
generating at least one blockchain transaction which comprises a at least one output that represents or is associated with at least one record, at least one group of records, or all records in a database(Fig.2, par.60-63);
searching for a target output in a target transaction on a blockchain ledger, the target output being associated with a record or group of records in a database and having the at least one blockchain transaction in its on-chain history(Fig.4, par.117-125, The MPS 601 is configured to obtain the target transaction. The target transaction may be obtained from storage (i.e. the stored set of transactions contains the target transaction). For instance, the MPS 601 may identify the target transaction based on the target data item, e.g. for searching for a transaction comprising the target data item. As a particular example, the target data item may be a transaction identifier (TxID). A TxID uniquely identifies a transaction. The MPS 601 may perform a look-up using the TxID. As another example, the target data item may be a public key or public key hash. The MPS 6021 may search for a transaction comprising the public key or public key hash in an input and/or output of the transaction. Or, the target transaction may be provided to the MPS 601 along with the target data item);
wherein the search comprises a use of a Merkle path or proof to locate the target transaction (Fig.5, par.125-130, 0130] The MPS 601 is also configured to output the target Merkle proof. For instance, the target Merkle proof may be transmitted directly to the requesting party 603. Or, the target Merkle proof may be published, e.g. on a webpage. The target Merkle proof can be used as proof that the target transaction exists on the blockchain. The MPS 601 may also output the target transaction to the requesting party 603. This is not necessary if the requesting party 603 has access to the target transaction.).
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.
Claims 4-8, 20-21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sears et al U.S. 2021/0334176 A1 in view of Wright et al W.O. 2021/033134 A1.
Claim 4: Sears et al fails to teach, however Wright et al in the same field of endeavor teaches the method of claim and comprising the step of:
repeating the associating step to provide a plurality of associations, each associating at least one record with an unspent output of the same or another blockchain transaction(page 7, ll.2-25, page 8. ll.3-16, record of table as stated the transaction can in fact comprise multiple UTXO entries identified by TxIDs that pertain to different entries and are individually spendable).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Sears et al with the additional features of Wright et al in order to provide a data structure for storing and or managing data associated with one or more transactions pertaining to a distributed ledger, as suggested by Wright et al abstract.
Claim 5: Sears et al fails to teach, however Wright et al in the same field of endeavor teaches
is stored on the blockchain and/or in an off-chain resource; and/or
comprises an identifier for the record and/or an identifier for the blockchain transaction and/or an unspent output of the blockchain transaction(page 17, ll.1-15, separate record of the indices stored as registered also see page 33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Sears et al with the additional features of Wright et al in order to provide a data structure for storing and or managing data associated with one or more transactions pertaining to a distributed ledger, as suggested by Wright et al abstract.
Claim 6: Sears et al fails to teach, however Wright et al in the same field of endeavor teaches the step of:
providing an event history which implements enables or facilitates a functionality of a database transaction log (Page 24,third paragraph, SQL server contains a record of all request to the database in a file called transaction log).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Sears et al with the additional features of Wright et al in order to provide a data structure for storing and or managing data associated with one or more transactions pertaining to a distributed ledger, as suggested by Wright et al abstract.
Claim 7: Sears et al fails to teach, however Wright et al in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein:
accessing the record comprises at least one of: processing, reading from, deleting, modifying or writing to the record (page 22, 23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Sears et al with the additional features of Wright et al in order to provide a data structure for storing and or managing data associated with one or more transactions pertaining to a distributed ledger, as suggested by Wright et al abstract.
Claim 8: Sears et al fails to teach, however Wright et al in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the blockchain transaction comprises one or more of:
data relating to or associated with the record (page 6, last paragraph and page7);
a pointer to, a reference to or an identifier for the record or its storage location (page 6, last paragraph and page7);
data relating to one or more further records that are associated with the record (Fig.2, page 6, last paragraph and page7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Sears et al with the additional features of Wright et al in order to provide a data structure for storing and or managing data associated with one or more transactions pertaining to a distributed ledger, as suggested by Wright et al abstract.
Claim 20: the combination teaches
wherein the event history comprises a list of all or some blockchain transactions historically associated with one or more records in the database (Sears et al at par 118-119).
Claim 21: the combination teaches
wherein the event history is stored on or off the blockchain (Sears et at par.119).
Claim 23: Sears et al fails to teach, however Wright et al in the same field of endeavor teaches
wherein the database is a graph database, a relational database or an SQL database; and/or comprises a Database Management System (DBMS)(Wright et ala at pages 20, 24 , the database management system (DBMS) can have predetermined rules).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Sears et al with the additional features of Wright et al in order to provide a data structure for storing and or managing data associated with one or more transactions pertaining to a distributed ledger, as suggested by Wright et al abstract.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sears et al U.S. 2021/0334176 A1 in view of Rutter et al U.S. 2022/0012725 A1.
Claim 19: Sears et al fails to teach, however Rutter et al in the same field of endeavor teaches
wherein the control operation may comprise a selection operation such as an IF or CASE, and/or a Boolean operator such as an OR, AND, XOR or NOT (par.3, 57).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Sears et al with the additional features of Rutter et al in order to for controlling privacy in an exchange of an asset., as suggested by Rutter et al abstract.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FATOUMATA TRAORE whose telephone number is (571)270-1685. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30-3:00.
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, SHEWAYE GELAGAY can be reached at 5712724219. 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.
Saturday, June 27, 2026
/FATOUMATA TRAORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2436
Prosecution Insights