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 .
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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the local rule engine". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent 11,431,520. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because aside from a few minor differences, these claims contain the same limitations and perform the same functions.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner would like to note that there are no page and line or paragraph numbers noted for reference KR 102084674 B1 due to the fact that this was a translation that did not contain page, line, or paragraph numbers. This reference also did not have an inventor or applicant that was translated. The translated text has been included for reference.
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.
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 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.
Claims 1-4, 7-8, 10-14, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holloway et al., (WO 2017194976 A1) hereinafter referred to as Holloway in view of (KR 102084674 B1) hereinafter referred to as KR4674.
Regarding Claims 1 and 11, Holloway discloses A system, comprising: a plurality of first building components, each first building component having at least one first unique identifier; [page 24, lines 14-18, a supply chain owner may have created a blockchain and then authorised other nodes to connect. The blockchain is scalable so that additional nodes may be added to the blockchain as required. Adding a new node associated with an entity may comprise generating a secret key having a corresponding public key. Each node contains a copy of the blockchain ledger] [page 28, lines 10-16, The supply chain owner may add nodes for each participant on the private blockchain: owner, manufacturer, retailer in this example]
a private local blockchain implemented by the plurality of first building components, the private local blockchain including: a device ledger that maintains a data structure indicating each first building component of the plurality of first building components; [page 4, lines 5-25, Advantageously, the present invention allows for a private distributed consensus network whereby each node may be trusted, unlike the public nature of a system such as bitcoin blockchain. Additionally, the private distributed consensus network may use a proof-of-work principle of the bitcoin blockchain for example to ensure that data in the chain can be trusted. This means that each transaction must be validated by a consensus of other nodes on the network to be able to be added to the blockchain. A distributed consensus network such as a blockchain has a number of advantages over traditional centralised databases. In particular, communication may be done directly between two nodes (i.e. two participants) of the network, removing reliance on a central authority and thus increasing security. Further, a distributed consensus network is robust. For example, the loss of a node within the blockchain network due to maintenance or power failure has no impact over the overall distributed consensus network as a whole. Further still, transactions within a distributed consensus network are difficult to falsify since the nodes in a distributed consensus network are typically required to perform a computationally complex task which must be shared with other nodes to verify the result (e.g. a 'proof-of-work' or a 'proof-of-stake')]
a transaction ledger that maintains a plurality of blocks, each block corresponding to a transaction between at least two first building components of the plurality of first building components, each block including the at least one first unique identifier of the corresponding first building component and a timestamp of the corresponding transaction; [page 18, lines 20-29, Each distributed ledger comprises a linked list of blocks (that is, a blockchain). Each block (aside from the original block) comprises a reference to a previous block, and a number of transaction records. Each distributed consensus network comprises a number of nodes in communication with one another. Each of the entities of a supply chain typically has one or more nodes associated with it, and there may be additional nodes which are not associated with an entity. Each node in a distributed consensus network typically maintains a copy of the ledger in that network, though it could alternatively be a 'light client' that relies on an entity's server node to access the network. When a node in a distributed consensus network wishes to change the state of the ledger of that network (that is, transfer the intrinsic blockchain tokens from one address to another), it creates and transmits a value transaction record to other nodes in the network. Over time, a number of transaction records (which will typically be unrelated, and will have been created by different nodes) are bundled together by one of the nodes to form a block. For security purposes and prevention of fraud, the block may also include a proof-of-work based on a property of the block. In an alternative, there may be a proof-of-stake. In the case of a proof-of-work, it would be configured to be difficult to find but easy to verify once found. The block is then propagated to other nodes in the network, which each checking and appending it to the end of the ledger. Thus each node has a full copy of all transaction records that have been accepted in the distributed consensus network – the transaction records contain information about the transaction including the time of the transaction]
and a local rule engine defining one or more rules used to evaluate the transaction of one or more blocks; [page 5, lines 11-12, The access permissions to the blockchain are controlled by the supply chain owner]
a second building component having at least one second unique identifier; and a client device that identifies the at least one second unique identifier of the second building component [page 24, lines 16-18, Adding a new node associated with an entity may comprise generating a secret key having a corresponding public key] [page 27, lines 22-31, a consumer of the supply chain is able to verify the authenticity of the product by inspecting the public ledger or publicly accessible non-transactional node. For example the supply chain owner may have a public web-based application whereby a consumer (or anyone else for that matter) may enter or capture through other means such as by imaging the unique identifier on a label attached to the product to obtain a set of data confirming its authenticity. The unique identifier may be captured through a handheld device including personal digital assistants, tablet computers and in particular mobile telephones which are equipped with cameras and imaging software. The unique identifier may take the form of a 1 D or 2D barcode such as QR code]
and provides the at least one second unique identifier to the private local blockchain, [page 27, lines 7-9, the owner of an asset in a public blockchain (i.e. a consumer), may transfer the asset back into the private blockchain]
the private local blockchain uses the at least one second unique identifier and the local rule engine to determine to add the second building component to the device ledger. [page 24, lines 14-18, a supply chain owner may have created a blockchain and then authorised other nodes to connect. The blockchain is scalable so that additional nodes may be added to the blockchain as required. Adding a new node associated with an entity may comprise generating a secret key having a corresponding public key. Each node contains a copy of the blockchain ledger] [page 28, lines 10-16, The supply chain owner may add nodes for each participant on the private blockchain: owner, manufacturer, retailer in this example]
Holloway does not explicitly teach a transaction processor that generates at least one block by executing a predetermined hash function using a previous block.
KR4674 teaches a transaction processor that generates at least one block by executing a predetermined hash function using a previous block; [to generate a block…the blocks may include a block hash value, a nonce value, a block hash value of a previous block, and the like of the corresponding block. The hash value and the nonce value are values obtained by using a predetermined hash function]
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of KR4674 with the disclosure of Holloway. The motivation or suggestion would have been “for managing content based on a blockchain.”
Regarding Claims 2 and 12, Holloway discloses comprising: the client device includes an image capture device that detects the at least one second unique identifier based on a QR code of the second building component. [page 27, lines 22-31, a consumer of the supply chain is able to verify the authenticity of the product by inspecting the public ledger or publicly accessible non-transactional node. For example the supply chain owner may have a public web-based application whereby a consumer (or anyone else for that matter) may enter or capture through other means such as by imaging the unique identifier on a label attached to the product to obtain a set of data confirming its authenticity. The unique identifier may be captured through a handheld device including personal digital assistants, tablet computers and in particular mobile telephones which are equipped with cameras and imaging software. The unique identifier may take the form of a 1 D or 2D barcode such as QR code]
Regarding Claims 3 and 13, Holloway discloses comprising: the second building component has an encoded version of the at least one second unique identifier, and the private local blockchain decodes the encoded version to retrieve the at least one second unique identifier. [page 27, lines 22-31, a consumer of the supply chain is able to verify the authenticity of the product by inspecting the public ledger or publicly accessible non-transactional node. For example the supply chain owner may have a public web-based application whereby a consumer (or anyone else for that matter) may enter or capture through other means such as by imaging the unique identifier on a label attached to the product to obtain a set of data confirming its authenticity. The unique identifier may be captured through a handheld device including personal digital assistants, tablet computers and in particular mobile telephones which are equipped with cameras and imaging software. The unique identifier may take the form of a 1 D or 2D barcode such as QR code – in order to “obtain a set of data confirming its authenticity” based off of the encoded (1D, 2D or QR code) identifier, it must be decoded]
Regarding Claims 4 and 14, Holloway discloses comprising: a public blockchain that includes a public transaction ledger; the private local blockchain generates one or more packets including an output block of the plurality of blocks of the transaction ledger, the output block including a public identifier corresponding to the at least one first unique identifier of the block from which the output block is generated, the public blockchain adds the output block to the public transaction ledger. [page 6, lines 21-26, The distinct blockchains are linked so that assets within the private blockchain may be moved to a node within the public blockchain. In preferred embodiments, only a retailer may transfer a product from the private chain to the public chain. Accordingly, all assets that exist in the public chain must have been created and transferred from the private blockchain to the public blockchain.]
Regarding Claim 7, Holloway discloses comprising: the second building component transmits a network token indicating a data access request to a particular first building component via the private local blockchain; the particular first building component extracts the data access request from the network token, and cryptographically signs the network token responsive to the data access request satisfying one or more data access rules of the second building component; a network node that receives the network token and verifies the network token using the local rule engine; and the first building component provides data corresponding to the data access request to the second building component responsive to the network node verifying the network token. [page 4, lines 26-28, transactions are deemed complete after the receiving entity has received both the digital certificate (e.g. a digital token) as well as the asset (e.g. a physical item)] [page 7, lines 14-24, associating the digital certificate with the asset may comprise generating a unique identification code from one or more properties of the digital certificate and applying the unique identification code to the asset. In alternative embodiments, associating the digital certificate with the asset may comprise generating a unique identification code from one or more properties of the asset and incorporating the code in the digital certificate. Providing a digital certificate such as a digital token may comprise signing the digital certificate with a secret key of the first entity, wherein the secret key has a corresponding public key. Advantageously, providing a unique association between an asset and its digital certificate increases security of the system as legitimate transfers of the assets must be accompanied by the associated digital certificate]
Regarding Claims 8 and 18, Holloway does not explicitly teach comprising: at least one first building component validates the transaction ledger by executing the predetermined hash function on at least one block of the plurality of blocks.
KR4674 teaches comprising: at least one first building component validates the transaction ledger by executing the predetermined hash function on at least one block of the plurality of blocks. [to generate a block…the blocks may include a block hash value, a nonce value, a block hash value of a previous block, and the like of the corresponding block. The hash value and the nonce value are values obtained by using a predetermined hash function]
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of KR4674 with the disclosure of Holloway. The motivation or suggestion would have been “for managing content based on a blockchain.”
Regarding Claims 10 and 20, Holloway discloses comprising: the client device executes a distributed application to receive user preference data and update the local rule engine based on the user preference data. [page 21, lines 22-27, the private distributed consensus network may include at least one 'non-transactional' node'. The non-transactional node is typically a dedicated reporting node associated with any entity and there may be more than one such nodes (as each entity may have at least one reporting node) as entities may have different requirements and preferences for exporting data and they may have access to only certain parts of the data]
Regarding Claim 17, Holloway discloses comprising: transmitting, by the second building component, a network token indicating a data access request to a particular first building component via the private local blockchain; extracting, by the particular first building component, the data access request from the network token; cryptographically signing, by the particular first building component, the network token responsive to the data access request satisfying one or more data access rules of the particular first building component; verifying, by a network node, the network token using the local rule engine; and providing, by the particular first building component, data corresponding to the data access request to the second building component responsive to the network node verifying the network token. [page 4, lines 26-28, transactions are deemed complete after the receiving entity has received both the digital certificate (e.g. a digital token) as well as the asset (e.g. a physical item)] [page 7, lines 14-24, associating the digital certificate with the asset may comprise generating a unique identification code from one or more properties of the digital certificate and applying the unique identification code to the asset. In alternative embodiments, associating the digital certificate with the asset may comprise generating a unique identification code from one or more properties of the asset and incorporating the code in the digital certificate. Providing a digital certificate such as a digital token may comprise signing the digital certificate with a secret key of the first entity, wherein the secret key has a corresponding public key. Advantageously, providing a unique association between an asset and its digital certificate increases security of the system as legitimate transfers of the assets must be accompanied by the associated digital certificate]
Claims 5-6 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holloway in view of KR4674, as applied to Claims 1 and 11, respectively, above, and further in view of Lawbaugh et al., (US 20190370866 A1) hereinafter referred to as Lawbaugh.
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, Holloway discloses comprising: an analytics layer that receives blocks from a plurality of private local blockchains, [page 5, lines 18-19, the first and second distributed consensus networks may be respectively implemented as one or more blockchains]
The combination of Holloway and KR4674 does not explicitly teach each block having an anonymized identifier of the corresponding first building component, the analytics layer generates a model representative of behavior of the plurality of first building components.
Lawbaugh teaches each block having an anonymized identifier of the corresponding first building component, [paragraph 0017, A handler may consult the private blockchain and the linking database to determine whether any of the anonymous identifiers specified by the request is linked to a user that has authorized use of their profiling data]
the analytics layer generates a model representative of behavior of the plurality of first building components. [paragraph 0028, A handler is created with the analytics data type. This allows the audience assembly to perform counts and measurement of the audience members as it assembles the matching users. This kind of data analysis occurs directly on anonymous data stores as well but some scenarios require identity and/or private blockchain transactions to be scored and tallied]
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Lawbaugh with the disclosures of Holloway and KR4674. The motivation or suggestion would have been to “securing and enabling user control of profiling data, use of a private blockchain to facilitate matching of users and anonymous profiling data records of interest, and use of a public blockchain to transparently and immutably publish system activity.” (paragraph 0001)
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, Holloway discloses comprising: a plurality of network nodes that provide external data to the private local blockchain, [page 27, lines 22-31, a consumer of the supply chain is able to verify the authenticity of the product by inspecting the public ledger or publicly accessible non-transactional node. For example the supply chain owner may have a public web-based application whereby a consumer (or anyone else for that matter) may enter or capture through other means such as by imaging the unique identifier on a label attached to the product to obtain a set of data confirming its authenticity. The unique identifier may be captured through a handheld device including personal digital assistants, tablet computers and in particular mobile telephones which are equipped with cameras and imaging software. The unique identifier may take the form of a 1 D or 2D barcode such as QR code]
The combination of Holloway and KR4674 does not explicitly teach and the private local blockchain evaluates a smart contract based on the external data.
Lawbaugh teaches and the private local blockchain evaluates a smart contract based on the external data. [paragraph 0065, the system may include write the unique record identifier from the anonymous profiling data record, the user identifier, and a grant transaction identifier to the private blockchain… Thus, any anonymous profiling data record cannot be linked to a user. In some instances, this functionality may be encoded as a smart contract so that creation or deletion of a link is automatic upon user input and is transparent so that users and others can verify this functionality]
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Lawbaugh with the disclosures of Holloway and KR4674. The motivation or suggestion would have been to “securing and enabling user control of profiling data, use of a private blockchain to facilitate matching of users and anonymous profiling data records of interest, and use of a public blockchain to transparently and immutably publish system activity.” (paragraph 0001)
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holloway in view of KR4674, as applied to Claims 1 and 11, respectively, above, and further in view of Stocker (WO 2017167399 A1) hereinafter referred to as Stocker.
Regarding Claims 9 and 19, the combination of Holloway and KR4674 does not explicitly teach comprising: the private local blockchain uses a sensor to monitor a state of at least one first building component, evaluates a smart contract responsive to the sensor indicating the at least one first building component having a failure state, and generates a service request based on the evaluation.
Stocker teaches comprising: the private local blockchain uses a sensor to monitor a state of at least one first building component, [page 34, lines 1-7, Further, a production process can also be monitored. For instance, at least one sensor 225 can be provided for detecting at least one status parameter relating to the production process. For instance, at least one status parameter of the processing unit 204 and/or at least one status parameter of the starting material 218 and/or first product 220 can be detected. The sensor 225 can provide the at least one detected status parameter to the peer-to-peer module 228.
evaluates a smart contract responsive to the sensor indicating the at least one first building component having a failure state, and generates a service request based on the evaluation. [page 34, lines 9-13, Then, the peer-to-peer module 228 can transmit status parameter relating to the production process to the peer-to-peer application 224. By way of example, status parameter or status data may be whether a particular production process for a first product has not been started yet, is currently started, is already finished or whether a failure is occurred]
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Stocker with the disclosures of Holloway and KR4674. The motivation or suggestion would have been for a “Production System controllable by means of a peer-to-peer application.” (page 1)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J STEINLE whose telephone number is (571)272-9923. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm CT.
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, Eleni Shiferaw can be reached at (571) 272-3867. 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.
/ANDREW J STEINLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2497
Prosecution Insights