DETAILED ACTION
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 is in response to the application filed on 04/15/2025. This application is a continuation (CON) of the patent US 12,298,968 B2.
Claims 1 and 2 are currently pending in this application.
No information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed.
Examiner’s Note
Please note that changing the scope of the claims (e.g., cancelling all claims and adding new claims after non-final office action) may cause a restriction/election, a new matter or other issues.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites “The inventions as shown and/or described herein”, however, it is not clear what the inventions are as nothing is shown and/or described (or the clam 2 is NOT a complete 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.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of the patent, US 12,298,968 B2.
A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). “ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
Current Application No. 19/179757
Reference Patent No. US 12,298,968 B2
Claim 1: A method comprising:
generating a first set of entries in a first table based on a set of initial entries;
identifying a first matching pair of entries in the first set of entries;
generating a first forward-propagated entry in a second table in a set of tables based on the first matching pair of entries and a cryptographic hash function;
for each table in the series of tables:
identifying a set of matching pairs of entries in the table; and
for each matching pair of entries in the set of matching pairs of entries, generating a forward-propagated entry in a succeeding table based on the matching pair of entries and the cryptographic hash function;
generating a plot file comprising:
the set of tables; and
a final table comprising a set of final entries comprising forward-propagated entries based on a preceding table in the series of tables; and
storing the plot file in a memory device.
Claim 1: A method comprising:
generating a first set of entries in a first table based on a set of initial entries …
identifying a first matching pair of entries in the first set of entries;
generating a first forward-propagated entry in a second table in a series of tables based on the first matching pair of entries and a cryptographic hash function;
for each table in the series of tables:
identifying a set of matching pairs of entries in the table; and
for each matching pair of entries in the set of matching pairs of entries, generating a forward-propagated entry in a succeeding table based on the matching pair of entries and the cryptographic hash function;
generating a plot file representing:
the series of tables; and
a final table comprising a set of final entries comprising forward-propagated entries based on a preceding table in the series of tables; and
storing the plot file in a memory device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 2 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the double patenting rejection (or filing a terminal disclaimer) and 112(b) rejections stated above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Miyamoto et al. (US 2020/0142984 A1) teaches a system and method for receiving an entry intended for a database, identifying a plurality of data fields associated with the entry, identifying a plurality of data fields associated with one or more previously committed entries, adding the entry to the database with a temporary status, determining whether one or more of the plurality of data fields associated with the entry match one or more of the plurality of data fields associated with the one or more previously committed entries, etc.;
Martino et al. (US 10,938,567 B2) teaches a system and method for providing a proof-of-work parallel-chain architecture of a distributed ledger system (e.g., a blockchain) with efficient throughput and security. The method comprises storing a plurality of parallel blockchains including a blockchain comprising a previously-generated block, wherein the blockchain is associated with at least one peer blockchain; receiving a transaction message from a node device; generating (e.g., by a cryptographic module), a new block hash based on a block header of the previously-generated block and on the corresponding Merkle root for each at least one peer blockchain; etc.;
Greco et al. (US 10,554,407 B1) teaches a method and system for establishing a proof of storage over a specified period of time. The method includes: (a) receiving, at a prover, an input challenge at a start time; (b) producing a proof responsive to the input challenge, wherein the proof is based at least in part on a proof of storage; (c) generating a new input challenge based at least in part on the proof; etc.
However, the prior art of record stated above does not teach or render obvious all limitations of the claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAUNG T LWIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7845. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 6:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached on 571-272-3739. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MAUNG T LWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2495
Prosecution Insights