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 is in response to Applicant’s communication filed on 06/24/2025 Claims 21-40 have been examined. Claims 1-20 are cancelled.
Claim Objections
Claims 26,34,40 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With regards to claim 26, 34, 40 , the claims recite “ to computer the next action”. The examiner believes it is a typo. Examiner suggests amending the claim to recite “to compute the next action”. 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 obviousness-type 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); and In re Torrington, 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 conflicting 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.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 21,24,25,26,28,29,32,33,34,36,37,40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13-15of the Patent No.12,316,790 in view of Wei further in view of Whitehead.
Claims 22,30,38 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13-15 of the Patent No.12,316,790 in view of Wei further in view of Whitehead further in view of Bellovin
Claims 23,31,39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13-15 of the Patent No.12,316,790 in view of Wei further in view of Whitehead further in view of Le
Claims 27,35, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13-15 of the Patent No.12,316,790 in view of Wei further in view of Whitehead further in view of Manamohan
Below are the analysis to the claims.
Claims 21-40 of Instant application
Claims 1, 13-15 of Patent No.12,316,790
Claims 21,29,37
A method/system/medium for processing a transaction in a blockchain, the method comprising:
receiving, by a smart contract, a transaction that includes an encrypted blockchain address, wherein the encrypted blockchain address is encrypted using an encryption scheme that is fully homomorphic without errors but with homomorphism into nonstandard operations;
verifying that the encrypted blockchain address matches a blockchain address of a party to the transaction;
applying a known plaintext attack to determine a next action for the smart contract to perform based on encrypted data stored in the smart contract; and
performing, by the smart contract, the next action.
Claim 13
The method comprising:
wherein the user sends a transaction to a smart contract, the transaction including the user's blockchain address in encrypted form using the public key received from the DAO.
Claim 14
authenticating, by the smart contract, the transaction by: using fully homomorphic encryption without errors but with homomorphism into nonstandard operations to compare an encrypted blockchain address included in the transaction that was sent by the user to a blockchain address of a party to the transaction; and responsive to the encrypted blockchain address matching the blockchain address of the party to the transaction: accepting the transaction; and proceeding to a next action, the next action being computed by fully homomorphic encryption without errors but with homomorphism into nonstandard operations from the first processed data and the second processed data on the blockchain, and then decrypted using a known plaintext attack.
Claims 22,30,38
wherein verifying that the encrypted blockchain address matches the blockchain address of the party to the transaction comprises using the known plaintext attack to verify that each bit of the encrypted blockchain address matches a corresponding bit in the blockchain address of the party..
Claim 14
authenticating, by the smart contract, the transaction by: using fully homomorphic encryption without errors but with homomorphism into nonstandard operations to compare an encrypted blockchain address included in the transaction that was sent by the user to a blockchain address of a party to the transaction; and responsive to the encrypted blockchain address matching the blockchain address of the party to the transaction: accepting the transaction; and proceeding to a next action, the next action being computed by fully homomorphic encryption without errors but with homomorphism into nonstandard operations from the first processed data and the second processed data on the blockchain, and then decrypted using a known plaintext attack
Claims 24,32
wherein the one or more oracles comprise a primary party designated by a decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) to provide the oracle data and a secondary party designated by the DAO to automatically provide the oracle data responsive to the primary party having failed to provide the oracle data in a timely or accurate manner.
Claim 1
method for creating an oracle on a blockchain which is governed by a decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) that has decision procedures to designate at least one primary party to provide primary oracle data and designate at least one secondary party to provide secondary oracle data responsive to determining that the at least one primary party has failed to provide the primary oracle data in a timely and/or accurate manner, the method comprising: receiving, from one or more first parties, first oracle data to introduce to the blockchain; determining that the one or more first parties are designated by the DAO as primary parties responsive to the one or more first parties being designated as primary parties; processing the first oracle data from the one or more first parties to generate first processed data; introducing the first processed data to the blockchain;; and responsive to the one or more second parties being designated as secondary parties, and the at least one primary party having failed to provide the third oracle data or having previously provided the third oracle data that was determined to be inaccurate: processing the second oracle data from the one or more second parties to generate second processed data; and introducing the second processed data to the blockchain
Claims 28,36
wherein the smart contract's code is obfuscated to prevent revealing a choice of homomorphic operations.
Claim 15
wherein the smart contract includes code that is obfuscated to avoid revealing a choice of homomorphic operations.
With regards to claims 21,29,37, the Patent No.12,316,790 teaches that the encrypted blockchain address is encrypted using scheme and to determine a next action for the smart contract to perform based on encrypted data stored in the smart contract (Claim 14 teaches determining next action to be performed based on encrypted data (first/second processed data) stored at the smart contract, Claim 14 also teaches that the blockchain address is encrypted). However, Patent No.12,316,790 does not explicitly teach that the encryption scheme that is fully homomorphic without errors but with homomorphism into nonstandard operations; applying a known plaintext attack to determine a next action;
However, Wei teaches using Wei teaches encryption scheme is fully homomorphic without errors but with homomorphism into nonstandard operations (Section II , Section A-D).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Patent No.12,316,790 to include the teachings of Wei. The motivation for doing so is to allow the system to ensure data security in Blockchain-based transaction (Section C – Security Analysis – Wei).
Whitehead teaches applying a known plaintext attack to determine a next action ( ¶ 0008).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Patent No.12,316,790 to include the teachings of Whitehead. The motivation for doing so is to allow the system to optimize error detection to detect unauthorized modification of transmitted data (Whitehead – ¶ 0001).
With regards to claims 22, 30,38, Patent No.12,316,790 does not explicitly teach using the known plaintext attack to verify that each bit of the encrypted blockchain address matches a corresponding bit in the blockchain address of the party.
However, Bellovin teaches using the known plaintext attack to verify that each bit of the encrypted address matches a corresponding bit in the encrypted address of the party (Introduction – Section 4, Section 5).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Patent No.12,316,790 to include the teachings of Bellovin. The motivation for doing so is to allow the system to provide probable plain text that can be used to aid in cryptanalytic attacks, (Bellovin – Abstract).
With regards to claims 23,31, the Patent No.12,316,790 teaches the encrypted data stored in the smart contract (Claim14). However, the Patent No.12,316,790 does not explicitly encrypted data comprises oracle data received from one or more oracles. However, Le teaches encrypted data comprises oracle data received from one or more oracles (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Patent No.12,316,790 to include the teachings of Le. The motivation for doing so is to allow the system to update a blockchain in response to data received from the oracle (Le – ¶ 0010).
With regards to claims 25,33, Patent No.12,316,790 does not explicitly teach providing payment to a provider of the oracle data responsive to completion of the next action. However,
Wei teaches providing payment to a provider of the oracle data responsive to completion of the next action (Section Il - See Also Section A – D).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Patent No.12,316,790 to include the teachings of Wei. The motivation for doing so is to allow the system to ensure data security in Blockchain-based transaction (Section C – Security Analysis – Wei).
With regards to claims 26,34,40, Patent No.12,316,790 teaches determine the next action for the smart contract to perform and that the encrypted data is stored in the smart contract (Claim 14). However, Patent No.12,316,790 does not explicitly teach using the plaintext attack to extract unencrypted information from the encrypted data stored; and using the unencrypted information to compute the next action. However, Whitehead teaches using the plaintext attack to extract unencrypted information from the encrypted data stored; and using the unencrypted information to compute the next action ( ¶ 0007 - ¶ 0008).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Patent No.12,316,790 to include the teachings of Whitehead. The motivation for doing so is to allow the system to optimize error detection to detect unauthorized modification of transmitted data (Whitehead – ¶ 0001).
With regards to claims 27,35, Patent No.12,316,790 does not explicitly teach wherein the unencrypted information is extracted without revealing a private key of the smart contract.
However, Manamohan teaches unencrypted information is extracted without revealing a private key of the smart contract (Abstract, ¶0045).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Patent No.12,316,790 to include the teachings of Manamohan. The motivation for doing so is to allow the system to ensure privacy (Manamohan – Abstract).
With regards to claim 39, the Patent No.12,316,790 teaches the encrypted data stored in the smart contract (Claim14). However, the Patent No.12,316,790 does not explicitly encrypted data comprises oracle data received from one or more oracles; providing payment to a provider of the oracle data responsive to completion of the next action. However, Le teaches encrypted data comprises oracle data received from one or more oracles (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Patent No.12,316,790 to include the teachings of Le. The motivation for doing so is to allow the system to update a blockchain in response to data received from the oracle (Le – ¶ 0010).
Wei teaches providing payment to a provider of the oracle data responsive to completion of the next action (Section Il -. - See Also Section A – D).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Patent No.12,316,790 to include the teachings of Wei. The motivation for doing so is to allow the system to ensure data security in Blockchain-based transaction (Section C – Security Analysis – Wei).
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims 21,29,37 recite “ (1) receiving, by smart contract, a transaction that include encrypted blockchain…; (2) verifying that the encrypted blockchain …3) applying a known plaintext attack to determine a next action….4) performing, by the smart contract, the next action.
The limitations of (2) verifying , (3) applying , 4) performing, as drafted are processes that under their broadest reasonable interpretation , cover performance of the limitations which can be practically performed in the human mind. These limitations encompass mental observation and evaluations ( e.g. computer programmer’s verifying the address, applying KPA and outputting the result ( next action) – Note: a computer programmer can apply KPA using mathematical concept/formula to derive a key or algorithm parameter). Thus, These limitations recite a concept that falls into the “mental process group” , “mathematical concept “ and “a method of organizing human activity group” of abstract ideas.
The (1), receiving limitation represents mere data gathering. This limitation does not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. The limitation amounts to necessary data gathering.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 21,29,37 only recite additional elements–“smart contract” and “ non transitory” and “computer system comprising one or more processors”
The additional elements as shown above recite at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
With regards to claims 22,30,38, the claims recite 1) verifying that the encrypted blockchain address matches the blockchain address of the party to the transaction comprises using the known plaintext attack to verify that each bit of the encrypted blockchain address matches a corresponding bit in the blockchain address of the part
The limitations of (1) verifying, as drafted is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation , covers performance of the limitation which can be practically performed in the human mind. This limitation encompasses mental observation and evaluations ( e.g. computer programmer’s verifying the address, applying KPA – Note: a computer programmer can use KPA using mathematical concept/formula to compare addresses bit by bit). Thus, This limitation recites a concept that falls into the “mental process group” , “mathematical concept” and “a method of organizing human activity group” of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 22,30,38 do not recite additional elements
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
With regards to claims 23, 31, the claims recite 1) wherein the encrypted data stored in the smart contract comprises oracle data received from one or more oracles.
The limitation of 1) encrypted data stored in the smart contract is just nominal or tangential addition to the claim. The storing data is also well known. This limitation therefore remain insignificant extra solution activity and not amount to significantly more.
The limitation of receiving oracle data represent mere data gathering. This limitation does not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. The limitation amounts to necessary data gathering.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 23,31 do not recite additional elements
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
With regards to claims 24,32, the claims recite 1) wherein the one or more oracles comprise a primary party designated by a decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) to provide the oracle data and a secondary party designated by the DAO to automatically provide the oracle data responsive to the primary party having failed to provide the oracle data in a timely or accurate manner.
This limitation only defines what the oracles comprises. The providing limitation represents mere data gathering. This limitation does not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. The limitation amounts to necessary data gathering.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 24,32 do not recite additional elements
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
With regards to claims 25,33, the claims recite 1) providing payment to a provider of the oracle data responsive to completion of the next action.
The providing limitation is just nominal or tangential addition to the claim. The providing payment is also well known. This limitation therefore remain insignificant extra solution activity and not amount to significantly more.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 25,33 do not recite additional elements
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
With regards to claims 26,27, 34,35,40, the claims recite 1) using plaintext attack to determine next action… comprises using plaintext attack to extract unencrypted information …without revealing private key.,
The limitations of (1) using plaintext attack to extract unencrypted information, as drafted is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation , covers performance of the limitation which can be practically performed in the human mind. This limitations encompass mental observation and evaluations ( e.g. computer programmer’s extract unencrypted data using basic decryption– Note: a computer programmer can use KPA which is a mathematical concept/formula to extract unencrypted data using basic decryption. Thus, This limitation recites a concept that falls into the “mental process group” , “mathematical concept” and “a method of organizing human activity group” of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 26,27, 34,35,40, do not recite additional elements
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
With regards to claims 28, 36, the claims recite 1) the smart contract’s code is obfuscated …” This limitation as drafted is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation , covers performance of the limitation which can be practically performed in the human mind. This limitation encompasses mental observation and evaluations ( e.g. computer programmers can obfuscate code by changing real data to fake data using basic masking) . Thus, This limitation recites a concept that falls into the “mental process group”, and “ organizing human activity” of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 28,36 do not recite additional elements
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 39, the claim recites 1) wherein the encrypted data stored in the smart .. providing payment ….
The limitation of 1) encrypted data stored in the smart contract is just nominal or tangential addition to the claim. The storing data is also well known. This limitation therefore remain insignificant extra solution activity and not amount to significantly more.
The providing limitation is just nominal or tangential addition to the claim. The providing payment is also well known. This limitation therefore remain insignificant extra solution activity and not amount to significantly more.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 39 does not recite additional elements
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regards to claims 21,22,29,30,37,38, the claims recite “the transaction” It is unclear what the transaction is referring to because claims recite “a transaction” in the preamble and “a transaction” in the receiving limitation. Therefore, the examiner is unable to determine the metes and bounds of the claim language.
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 21,26,29,34,37,40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cusden et al. Publication No. US 2017/0344988 A1 (Cusden hereinafter) in view of Wei et al. “Circuit Copyright Blockchain: Blockchain -Based Homomorphic Encryption for IP Circuit Protection” (Wei hereinafter) further in view of Whitehead et al. Publication No. US 2006/0120521 A1 ( Whitehead hereinafter).
Regarding claim 21,
Cusden teaches a method for processing a transaction in a blockchain, the method comprising:
receiving, by a smart contract, a transaction that includes an encrypted blockchain address, wherein the encrypted blockchain address is encrypted using an encryption scheme [..]; verifying that the encrypted blockchain address matches a blockchain address of a party to the transaction, [..] determine a next action for the smart contract to perform based on encrypted data stored in the smart contract and performing, by the smart contract, the next action (¶0042 – ¶ 0043 - responsive to obtaining the signed transaction, identity challenge smart contract 216 may automatically validate the signed transaction. Because the public key ( corresponding to the private key used to sign the record for which related proof is sought) is known, identity challenge smart contract 216 may use the corresponding public key to verify that the signed transaction was also signed using the same private key. Additionally, or alternatively, identity challenge smart contract 216 may hash the first hash output (in the signed transaction) to generate a second hash output and compare the second hash output to the double hash (e.g., the double hash in identity challenge smart contract 216, in the challenge request on which generation of identity challenge smart contract 216 was based, identity challenge smart contract 216 may compare the "from" address of the signed transaction to the blockchain address associated with the record (for which related proof is sought) (e.g., if User B sends the signed transaction from this blockchain address, the "from" address will match) identity challenge smart contract 216 may indicate that User B is the holder of the private key used to sign the record responsive to determining that the signed transaction was signed using the same private key and/or that the "from" address of the signed transaction matches the blockchain address associated with
the record (for which related proof is sought).
However, Cusden does not explicitly teach that the encryption scheme is fully homomorphic without errors but with homomorphism into nonstandard operations; and applying a known plaintext attack to determine a next action;
Wei teaches
encryption scheme is fully homomorphic without errors but with homomorphism into nonstandard operations (Section II - The homomorphic encryption is that the operations on the ciphertext are equal to that on the decrypted plain text. The service provider can directly deal with the ciphertext and return the result to the users in the form of ciphertext, so the users decrypt the result and obtain the original data. This work combines the Blockchain and homomorphic encryption to protect IP copyright in the transaction. Homomorphic encryption can directly decrypt the ciphertext after a series of operations, and the results are the same as that for the plain text [30]. Due to the high security, homomorphic encryption plays a vital role in the Blockchain environment - complete homomorphic encryption scheme is composed of four parts: key generation function, encryption function, decryption function, and evaluation function. In Section II, a complete IP transaction authentication scheme based on homomorphic encryption in Blockchain and the specific process of homomorphic encryption transaction is proposed. When the transaction initiator initiates a transaction, the miners in the Blockchain verify whether the transaction is reasonable through the IP transaction authentication scheme based on homomorphic encryption. After the verification is passed, the correct execution of the smart contract on the Blockchain will be triggered, and the smart contract automatically updates the ciphertext of the account balance of both parties according to the execution result. After some time, the verified transactions will be confirmed. That is, they enter the Blockchain with the new block - See Also Section A - D - The homomorphism of the above cryptosystem can be applied to prove to the miner that the ciphertexts C1T and C2T contain the same plaintext information, and verify that the transaction is legal while ensuring the transaction security, The verifier utilizes the homomorphic encryption to authenticate the copyright information in encrypted IP core or verifies the original IP circuit by decrypting it with the private key. The homomorphic and authentication of the federated chain is shown in Figure 7. The authentication steps are illustrated as follows.1) The verifier utilizes the private key and the decryption function Decrypt" CP to calculate the plain text) ).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cusden to include the teachings of Wei. The motivation for doing so is to allow the system to ensure data security in Blockchain-based transaction (Section C – Security Analysis – Wei).
However, Cusden in view of Wei does not explicitly teach
applying a known plaintext attack to determine a next action
Whitehead teaches
applying a known plaintext attack to determine a next action ( ¶ 0008 To perform a known-plaintext attack, the eavesdropper calculates the random number sequence, or encryption stream, from the ciphertext. This may be accomplished by inspecting each data packet of the ciphertext to determine a structure known to be consistent with a fixed content data packet. For example, a communication protocol may use a well-known fixed-content data packet to enable some functionality in the receiving device, where the contents of the fixed-content data packet transmitted at a first time are identical to the contents of the fixed-content data packet transmitted at a second time, third time, etc. By monitoring ciphertext and looking for specific data packets having the discerned length of the fixed-content data packet, the eavesdropper calculates the encryption stream by XORing the encrypted fixed-content data packet with the known, fixed contents of the data packet).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cusden in view of Wei to include the teachings of Whitehead. The motivation for doing so is to allow the system to optimize error detection to detect unauthorized modification of transmitted data (Whitehead – ¶ 0001).
Regarding claim 26,
Cusden further teaches determine the next action for the smart contract to perform and that the encrypted data is stored in the smart contract ( ¶ 0042 – ¶ 0043). However, Cusden does not explicitly teach
using the plaintext attack to extract unencrypted information from the encrypted data stored; and using the unencrypted information to compute the next action.
Whitehead teaches
using the plaintext attack to extract unencrypted information from the encrypted data stored; and using the unencrypted information to compute the next action ( ¶ 0007 - Although there are a number of "hacking" methods used by an eavesdropper, one method commonly used involves knowledge of a portion of the plaintext and calculation of the random number sequence used to encrypt that portion of the plaintext (i.e., a known-plain attack). Having knowledge of a portion of the plaintext allows the eavesdropper to decrypt the associated ciphertext to determine the random number sequence, alter the plaintext, determine the new CRC field, and then re-encrypt the altered plaintext with the determined random number sequence to form altered ciphertext - ¶ 0008 - To perform a known-plaintext attack, the eavesdropper calculates the random number sequence, or encryption stream, from the ciphertext - the eavesdropper calculates the encryption stream by XORing the encrypted fixed-content data packet with the known, fixed contents of the data packet. After calculating the encryption stream, the eavesdropper can alter the data packet as described above or the eavesdropper can construct an entirely different type of data packet, selected to cause maximum damage to the system connected to the receiving device).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cusden to include the teachings of Whitehead. The motivation for doing so is to allow the system to optimize error detection to detect unauthorized modification of transmitted data (Whitehead – ¶ 0001).
Regarding claim 29,
Cusden teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions for processing a transaction in a blockchain, the instructions, when executed, causing a computing system to perform operations comprising:
receiving, by a smart contract, a transaction that includes an encrypted blockchain address, wherein the encrypted blockchain address is encrypted using an encryption scheme [..]; verifying that the encrypted blockchain address matches a blockchain address of a party to the transaction, [..] determine a next action for the smart contract to perform based on encrypted data stored in the smart contract and performing, by the smart contract, the next action (¶0042 – ¶ 0043 - responsive to obtaining the signed transaction, identity challenge smart contract 216 may automatically validate the signed transaction. Because the public key ( corresponding to the private key used to sign the record for which related proof is sought) is known, identity challenge smart contract 216 may use the corresponding public key to verify that the signed transaction was also signed using the same private key. Additionally, or alternatively, identity challenge smart contract 216 may hash the first hash output (in the signed transaction) to generate a second hash output and compare the second hash output to the double hash (e.g., the double hash in identity challenge smart contract 216, in the challenge request on which generation of identity challenge smart contract 216 was based, identity challenge smart contract 216 may compare the "from" address of the signed transaction to the blockchain address associated with the record (for which related proof is sought) (e.g., if User B sends the signed transaction from this blockchain address, the "from" address will match) identity challenge smart contract 216 may indicate that User B is the holder of the private key used to sign the record responsive to determining that the signed transaction was signed using the same private key and/or that the "from" address of the signed transaction matches the blockchain address associated with
the record (for which related proof is sought).
However, Cusden does not explicitly teach that the encryption scheme is fully homomorphic without errors but with homomorphism into nonstandard operations, and applying a known plaintext attack to determine a next action;
Wei teaches
encryption scheme is fully homomorphic without errors but with homomorphism into nonstandard operations (Section II - The homomorphic encryption is that the operations on the ciphertext are equal to that on the decrypted plain text. The service provider can directly deal with the ciphertext and return the result to the users in the form of ciphertext, so the users decrypt the result and obtain the original data. This work combines the Blockchain and homomorphic encryption to protect IP copyright in the transaction. Homomorphic encryption can directly decrypt the ciphertext after a series of operations, and the results are the same as that for the plain text [30]. Due to the high security, homomorphic encryption plays a vital role in the Blockchain environment - complete homomorphic encryption scheme is composed of four parts: key generation function, encryption function, decryption function, and evaluation function. In Section II, a complete IP transaction authentication scheme based on homomorphic encryption in Blockchain and the specific process of homomorphic encryption transaction is proposed. When the transaction initiator initiates a transaction, the miners in the Blockchain verify whether the transaction is reasonable through the IP transaction authentication scheme based on homomorphic encryption. After the verification is passed, the correct execution of the smart contract on the Blockchain will be triggered, and the smart contract automatically updates the ciphertext of the account balance of both parties according to the execution result. After some time, the verified transactions will be confirmed. That is, they enter the Blockchain with the new block - See Also Section A - D - The homomorphism of the above cryptosystem can be applied to prove to the miner that the ciphertexts C1T and C2T contain the same plaintext information, and verify that the transaction is legal while ensuring the transaction security, The verifier utilizes the homomorphic encryption to authenticate the copyright information in encrypted IP core or verifies the original IP circuit by decrypting it with the private key. The homomorphic and authentication of the federated chain is shown in Figure 7. The authentication steps are illustrated as follows.1) The verifier utilizes the private key and the decryption function Decrypt" CP to calculate the plain text) ).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Li to include the teachings of Wei. The motivation for doing so is to allow the system to ensure data security in Blockchain-based transaction (Section C – Security Analysis – Wei).
However, Cusden in view of Wei does not explicitly teach
applying a known plaintext attack to determine a next action
Whitehead teaches
applying a known plaintext attack to determine a next action ( ¶ 0008 To perform a known-plaintext attack, the eavesdropper calculates the random number sequence, or encryption stream, from the ciphertext. This may be accomplished by inspecting each data packet of the ciphertext to determine a structure known to be consistent with a fixed content data packet. For example, a communication protocol may use a well-known fixed-content data packet to enable some functionality in the receiving device, where the contents of the fixed-content data packet transmitted at a first time are identical to the contents of the fixed-content data packet transmitted at a second time, third time, etc. By monitoring ciphertext and looking for specific data packets having the discerned length of the fixed-content data packet, the eavesdropper calculates the encryption stream by XORing the encrypted fixed-content data packet with the known, fixed contents of the data packet).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cusden in view of Wei to include the teachings of Whitehead. The motivation for doing so is to allow the system to optimize error detection to detect unauthorized modification of transmitted data (Whitehead – ¶ 0001).
Regarding claim 34,
Cusden further teaches determine the next action for the smart contract to perform and that the encrypted data is stored in the smart contract ( ¶ 0042 – ¶ 0043). However, Cusden does not explicitly teach
using the plaintext attack to extract unencrypted information from the encrypted data stored; and using the unencrypted information to compute the next action.
Whitehead teaches
using the plaintext attack to extract unencrypted information from the encrypted data stored; and using the unencrypted information to compute the next action ( ¶ 0007 - Although there are a number of "hacking" methods used by an eavesdropper, one method commonly used involves knowledge of a portion of the plaintext and calculation of the random number sequence used to encrypt that portion of the plaintext (i.e., a known-plain attack). Having knowledge of a portion of the plaintext allows the eavesdropper to decrypt the associated ciphertext to determine the random number sequence, alter the plaintext, determine the new CRC field, and then re-encrypt the altered plaintext with the determined random number sequence to form altered ciphertext - ¶ 0008 - To perform a known-plaintext attack, the eavesdropper calculates the random number sequence, or encryption stream, from the ciphertext - the eavesdropper calculates the encryption stream by XORing the encrypted fixed-content data packet with the known, fixed contents of the data packet. After calculating the encryption stream, the eavesdropper can alter the data packet as described above or the eavesdropper can construct an entirely different type of data packet, selected to cause maximum damage to the system connected to the receiving device).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cusden to include the teachings of Whitehead. The motivation for doing so is to allow the system to optimize error detection to detect unauthorized modification of transmitted data (Whitehead – ¶ 0001).
Regarding claim 37,
Cusden teaches a computing system comprising: one or more processors; anode or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions for processing a transaction in a blockchain, the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, causing the computing system to perform operations comprising:
receiving, by a smart contract, a transaction that includes an encrypted blockchain address, wherein the encrypted blockchain address is encrypted using an encryption scheme [..]; verifying that the encrypted blockchain address matches a blockchain address of a party to the transaction, [..] determine a next action for the smart contract to perform based on encrypted data stored in the smart contract and performing, by the smart contract, the next action. (¶0042 – ¶ 0043 - responsive to obtaining the signed transaction, identity challenge smart contract 216 may automatically validate the signed transaction. Because the public key ( corresponding to the private key used to sign the record for which related proof is sought) is known, identity challenge smart contract 216 may use the corresponding public key to verify that the signed transaction was also signed using the same private key. Additionally, or alternatively, identity challenge smart contract 216 may hash the first hash output (in the signed transaction) to generate a second hash output and compare the second hash output to the double hash (e.g., the double hash in identity challenge smart contract 216, in the challenge request on which generation of identity challenge smart contract 216 was based, identity challenge smart contract 216 may compare the "from" address of the signed transaction to the blockchain address associated with the record (for which related proof is sought) (e.g., if User B sends the signed transaction from this blockchain address, the "from" address will match) identity challenge smart contract 216 may indicate that User B is the holder of the private key used to sign the record responsive to determining that the signed transaction was signed using the same private key and/or that the "from" address of the signed transaction matches the blockchain address associated with
the record (for which related proof is sought).
However, Cusden does not explicitly teach that the encryption scheme is fully homomorphic without errors but with homomorphism into nonstandard operations
applying a known plaintext attack to determine a next action;
Wei teaches
encryption scheme is fully homomorphic without errors but with homomorphism into nonstandard operations (Section II - The homomorphic encryption is that the operations on the ciphertext are equal to that on the decrypted plain text. The service provider can directly deal with the ciphertext and return the result to the users in the form of ciphertext, so the users decrypt the result and obtain the original data. This work combines the Blockchain and homomorphic encryption to protect IP copyright in the transaction. Homomorphic encryption can directly decrypt the ciphertext after a series of operations, and the results are the same as that for the plain text [30]. Due to the high security, homomorphic encryption plays a vital role in the Blockchain environment - complete homomorphic encryption scheme is composed of four parts: key generation function, encryption function, decryption function, and evaluation function. In Section II, a complete IP transaction authentication scheme based on homomorphic encryption in Blockchain and the specific process of homomorphic encryption transaction is proposed. When the transaction initiator initiates a transaction, the miners in the Blockchain verify whether the transaction is reasonable through the IP transaction authentication scheme based on homomorphic encryption. After the verification is passed, the correct execution of the smart contract on the Blockchain will be triggered, and the smart contract automatically updates the ciphertext of the account balance of both parties according to the execution result. After some time, the verified transactions will be confirmed. That is, they enter the Blockchain with the new block - See Also Section A - D - The homomorphism of the above cryptosystem can be applied to prove to the miner that the ciphertexts C1T and C2T contain the same plaintext information, and verify that the transaction is legal while ensuring the transaction security, The verifier utilizes the homomorphic encryption to authenticate the copyright information in encrypted IP core or verifies the original IP circuit by decrypting it with the private key. The homomorphic and authentication of the federated chain is shown in Figure 7. The authentication steps are illustrated as follows.1) The verifier utilizes the private key and the decryption function Decrypt" CP to calculate the plain text) ).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cusden to include the teachings of Wei. The motivation for doing so is to allow the system to ensure data security in Blockchain-based transaction (Section C – Security Analysis – Wei).
However, Cusden in view of Wei does not explicitly teach
applying a known plaintext attack to determine a next action
Whitehead teaches
applying a known plaintext attack to determine a next action ( ¶ 0008 To perform a known-plaintext attack, the eavesdropper calculates the random number sequence, or encryption stream, from the ciphertext. This may be accomplished by inspecting each data packet of the ciphertext to determine a structure known to be consistent with a fixed content data packet. For example, a communication protocol may use a well-known fixed-content data packet to enable some functionality in the receiving device, where the contents of the fixed-content data packet transmitted at a first time are identical to the contents of the fixed-content data packet transmitted at a second time, third time, etc. By monitoring ciphertext and looking for specific data packets having the discerned length of the fixed-content data packet, the eavesdropper calculates the encryption stream by XORing the encrypted fixed-content data packet with the known, fixed contents of the data packet).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cusden in view of Wei to include the teachings of Whitehead. The motivation for doing so is to allow the system to optimize error detection to detect unauthorized modification of transmitted data (Whitehead – ¶ 0001).
Regarding claim 40,
Cusden further teaches determine the next action for the smart contract to perform and that the encrypted data is stored in the smart contract ( ¶ 0042 – ¶ 0043). However, Cusden does not explicitly teach
using the plaintext attack to extract unencrypted information from the encrypted data stored; and using the unencrypted information to compute the next action.
Whitehead teaches
using the plaintext attack to extract unencrypted information from the encrypted data stored; and using the unencrypted information to compute the next action ( ¶ 0007 - Although there are a number of "hacking" methods used by an eavesdropper, one method commonly used involves knowledge of a portion of the plaintext and calculation of the random number sequence used to encrypt that portion of the plaintext (i.e., a known-plain attack). Having knowledge of a portion of the plaintext allows the eavesdropper to decrypt the associated ciphertext to determine the random number sequence, alter the plaintext, determine the new CRC field, and then re-encrypt the altered plaintext with the determined random number sequence to form altered ciphertext - ¶ 0008 - To perform a known-plaintext attack, the eavesdropper calculates the random number sequence, or encryption stream, from the ciphertext - the eavesdropper calculates the encryption stream by XORing the encrypted fixed-content data packet with the known, fixed contents of the data packet. After calculating the encryption stream, the eavesdropper can alter the data packet as described above or the eavesdropper can construct an entirely different type of data packet, selected to cause maximum damage to the system connected to the receiving device).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cusden to include the teachings of Whitehead. The motivation for doing so is to allow the system to optimize error detection to detect unauthorized modification of transmitted data (Whitehead – ¶ 0001).
Claims 22,30,38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cusden in view of Wei further in view of Whitehead further in view of Bellovin et al. “ Probable Plaintext Cryptanalysis of the IP Security Protocols (Bellovin hereinafter)
Regarding claim 22,
Cusden further teaches
wherein verifying that the encrypted blockchain address matches the blockchain address of the party to the transaction ( ¶ 0042 – ¶ 0043)
However, Cusden does not explicitly teach
using the known plaintext attack to verify that each bit of the encrypted blockchain address matches a corresponding bit in the blockchain address of the party.
Bellovin teaches
using the known plaintext attack to verify that each bit of the encrypted address matches a corresponding bit in the encrypted address of the party (Introduction - A probable plaintext attack works by looking at certain bit positions for which a likely value can be predicted. Rather than looking for an exact match, though, even for those bit positions, the comparison engine counts the number of matches. Packets with more than a certain thresh hold value of matches are kicked out for further analysis by a second-stage engine; this could involve more probable plaintext, semantic consistency checks, even (ultimately) human analysis. – Section 4 – The remaining fields of the IP header are the source and destination addresses. In host-to-firewall mode, one of the clear text IP addresses will match the encrypted copy, us 32 bits – Section 5 - The benefits of two-packet attacks can be seen most easily for the source and destination addresses fields in the IP header. As noted above, if tunnel mode is used for firewall to-firewall encryption, the attacker has little knowledge of what those fields should be. But if two packets from the same conversation are decrypted, the two fields will match each other).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cusden to include the teachings of Bellovin. The motivation for doing so is to allow the system to provide probable plain text that can be used to aid in cryptanalytic attacks (Bellovin – Abstract).
Regarding claim 30,
Cusden further teaches
wherein verifying that the encrypted blockchain address matches the blockchain address of the party to the transaction ( ¶ 0042 – ¶ 0043)
However, Cusden does not explicitly teach
using the known plaintext attack to verify that each bit of the encrypted blockchain address matches a corresponding bit in the blockchain address of the party.
Bellovin teaches
using the known plaintext attack to verify that each bit of the encrypted address matches a corresponding bit in the encrypted address of the party (Introduction - A probable plaintext attack works by looking at certain bit positions for which a likely value can be predicted. Rather than looking for an exact match, though, even for those bit positions, the comparison engine counts the number of matches. Packets with more than a certain thresh hold value of matches are kicked out for further analysis by a second-stage engine; this could involve more probable plaintext, semantic consistency checks, even (ultimately) human analysis. – Section 4 – The remaining fields of the IP header are the source and destination addresses. In host-to-firewall mode, one of the clear text IP addresses will match the encrypted copy, us 32 bits – Section 5 - The benefits of two-packet attacks can be seen most easily for the source and destination addresses fields in the IP header. As noted above, if tunnel mode is used for firewall to-firewall encryption, the attacker has little knowledge of what those fields should be. But if two packets from the same conversation are decrypted, the two fields will match each other).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cusden to include the teachings of Bellovin. The motivation for doing so is to allow the system to provide probable plain text that can be used to aid in cryptanalytic attacks, (Bellovin – Abstract).
Regarding claim 38,
Cusden further teaches
wherein verifying that the encrypted blockchain address matches the blockchain address of the party to the transaction ( ¶ 0042 – ¶ 0043)
However, Cusden does not explicitly teach
using the known plaintext attack to verify that each bit of the encrypted blockchain address matches a corresponding bit in the blockchain address of the party.
Bellovin teaches
using the known plaintext attack to verify that each bit of the encrypted address matches a corresponding bit in the encrypted address of the party (Introduction - A probable plaintext attack works by looking at certain bit positions for which a likely value can be predicted. Rather than looking for an exact match, though, even for those bit positions, the comparison engine counts the number of matches. Packets with more than a certain thresh hold value of matches are kicked out for further analysis by a second-stage engine; this could involve more probable plaintext, semantic consistency checks, even (ultimately) human analysis. – Section 4 – The remaining fields of the IP header are the source and destination addresses. In host-to-firewall mode, one of the clear text IP addresses will match the encrypted copy, us 32 bits – Section 5 - The benefits of two-packet attacks can be seen most easily for the source and destination addresses fields in the IP header. As noted above, if tunnel mode is used for firewall to-firewall encryption, the attacker has little knowledge of what those fields should be. But if two packets from the same conversation are decrypted, the two fields will match each other).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cusden to include the teachings of Bellovin. The motivation for doing so is to allow the system to provide probable plain text that can be used to aid in cryptanalytic attacks, (Bellovin – Abstract).
Claims 23,25,31,33,39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cusden in view of Wei further in view of Whitehead further in view of Le et al. Publication No. US 2020/0396302 A1 ( Le hereinafter)
Regarding claim 23,
Cusden teaches wherein the encrypted data stored in the smart contract ( ¶ 0042 – ¶ 0043). However Cusden does not explicitly teach
wherein the encrypted data comprises oracle data received from one or more oracles.
Le teaches
wherein the encrypted data comprises oracle data received from one or more oracles ( Abstract – The master oracle may aggregate the data messages into an aggregated data message. The master oracle may digitally sign the aggregated data message with a private key and public key pair. The master oracle may transmit the aggregated data message to a participant node of a distributed ledger network) .
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cusden to include the teachings of Le. The motivation for doing so is to allow the system to update a blockchain in response to data received from the oracle (Le – ¶ 0010).
Regarding claim 25,
Cusden does not explicitly teach
providing payment to a provider of the oracle data responsive to completion of the next action.
However, Wei teaches
providing payment to a provider of [..] data responsive to completion of the next action (Section Il -. After the verification is passed, the correct execution of the smart contract on the Blockchain will be triggered, and the smart contract automatically updates the ciphertext of the account balance of both parties according to the execution result. After some time, the verified transactions will be confirmed. That is, they enter the Blockchain with the new block - See Also Section A - D - The homomorphism of the above cryptosystem can be applied to prove to the miner that the ciphertexts C1T and C2T contain the same plaintext information, and verify that the transaction is legal while ensuring the transaction security, The verifier utilizes the homomorphic encryption to authenticate the copyright information in encrypted IP core or verifies the original IP circuit by decrypting it with the private key. The homomorphic and authentication of the federated chain is shown in Figure 7. The authentication steps are illustrated as follows.1) The verifier utilizes the private key and the decryption function Decrypt" CP to calculate the plain text - See Also Algorithm 1 - The miner verifies the transaction between the server and the user. The reward standard is transmitted to the server, which will verify and pay the reward to the user- See Section III - Initial Blockchain is a P2P payment system from which users can directly send bitcoin toward each other for the transaction via Blockchain. The transaction can be controlled by intelligent contract and recorded in Blockchain without the participation of the government.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cusden to include the teachings of Wei. The motivation for doing so is to allow the system to ensure data security in Blockchain-based transaction (Section C – Security Analysis – Wei).
Cusden in view of Wei does not explicitly teach that the data is oracle data .
However, Le teaches
Oracle data ( Abstract – The master oracle may aggregate the data messages into an aggregated data message. The master oracle may digitally sign the aggregated data message with a private key and public key pair. The master oracle may transmit the aggregated data message to a participant node of a distributed ledger network) .
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cusden in view of Wei to include the teachings of Le. The motivation for doing so is to allow the system to update a blockchain in response to data received from the oracle (Le – ¶ 0010).
Regarding claim 31,
Cusden further teaches wherein the encrypted data stored in the smart contract ( ¶ 0042 – ¶ 0043). However Cusden does not explicitly teach
wherein the encrypted data comprises oracle data received from one or more oracles.
Le teaches
wherein the encrypted data comprises oracle data received from one or more oracles ( Abstract – The master oracle may aggregate the data messages into an aggregated data message. The master oracle may digitally sign the aggregated data message with a private key and public key pair. The master oracle may transmit the aggregated data message to a participant node of a distributed ledger network) .
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cusden to include the teachings of Le. The motivation for doing so is to allow the system to update a blockchain in response to data received from the oracle (Le – ¶ 0010).
Regarding claim 33,
Cusden does not explicitly teach
providing payment to a provider of the oracle data responsive to completion of the next action.
However, Wei teaches
providing payment to a provider of the [..] data responsive to completion of the next action ( Section Il -. After the verification is passed, the correct execution of the smart contract on the Blockchain will be triggered, and the smart contract automatically updates the ciphertext of the account balance of both parties according to the execution result. After some time, the verified transactions will be confirmed. That is, they enter the Blockchain with the new block - See Also Section A - D - The homomorphism of the above cryptosystem can be applied to prove to the miner that the ciphertexts C1T and C2T contain the same plaintext information, and verify that the transaction is legal while ensuring the transaction security, The verifier utilizes the homomorphic encryption to authenticate the copyright information in encrypted IP core or verifies the original IP circuit by decrypting it with the private key. The homomorphic and authentication of the federated chain is shown in Figure 7. The authentication steps are illustrated as follows.1) The verifier utilizes the private key and the decryption function Decrypt" CP to calculate the plain text - See Also Algorithm 1 - The miner verifies the transaction between the server and the user. The reward standard is transmitted to the server, which will verify and pay the reward to the user- See Section III - Initial Blockchain is a P2P payment system from which users can directly send bitcoin toward each other for the transaction via Blockchain. The transaction can be controlled by intelligent contract and recorded in Blockchain without the participation of the government.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cusden to include the teachings of Wei. The motivation for doing so is to allow the system to ensure data security in Blockchain-based transaction (Section C – Security Analysis – Wei).
Cusden in view of Wei does not explicitly teach that the data is oracle data .
However, Le teaches
Oracle data ( Abstract – The master oracle may aggregate the data messages into an aggregated data message. The master oracle may digitally sign the aggregated data message with a private key and public key pair. The master oracle may transmit the aggregated data message to a participant node of a distributed ledger network) .
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cusden in view of Wei to include the teachings of Le. The motivation for doing so is to allow the system to update a blockchain in response to data received from the oracle (Le – ¶ 0010).
Regarding claim 39,
Cusden further teaches wherein the encrypted data stored in the smart contract ( ¶ 0042 – ¶ 0043). However Cusden does not explicitly teach
wherein the encrypted data comprises oracle data received from one or more oracles.
Le teaches
wherein the encrypted data comprises oracle data received from one or more oracles ( Abstract – The master oracle may aggregate the data messages into an aggregated data message. The master oracle may digitally sign the aggregated data message with a private key and public key pair. The master oracle may transmit the aggregated data message to a participant node of a distributed ledger network) .
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cusden to include the teachings of Le. The motivation for doing so is to allow the system to update a blockchain in response to data received from the oracle (Le – ¶ 0010).
Claims 24,32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cusden in view of Wei further in view of Whitehead further in view of Le further in view of Wang et al. “ A Novel Blockchain oracle Implementation Scheme Based on Application Specific Knowledge Engines” ( Wang hereinafter)
Regarding claim 24,
Cusden does not explicitly teach
wherein the one or more oracles comprise a primary party designated by a decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) to provide the oracle data and a secondary party designated by the DAO to automatically provide the oracle data responsive to the primary party having failed to provide the oracle data in a timely or accurate manner.
However, Le teaches
wherein the one or more oracles comprise a primary party designated by a [..] organization to provide the oracle data and a secondary party designated by the [..] organization to automatically provide the oracle data responsive to the primary party having failed to provide the oracle data in a timely or accurate manner ( ¶ 0012 - In deterministic approaches to oracle management, an oracle may receive data from a data source to ensure a smart contract operates within deterministic outcomes on the blockchain. Vulnerabilities may arise as the data source may be subject to failure, security threats, inaccuracies, or deprecation, which could degrade the quality of information provided to the smart contract. In consensus based approaches to oracle management, multiple oracles may operate according to an oracle consensus protocol to receive data from multiple sources – ¶ 0055 - The master oracle 108 may generate a list of oracles (304). The list of oracles may include a list of oracles that are designated as data providers for the master oracle 108. The list of oracles may include oracles that generate data messages of a particular data type or topic. In some examples, the list of oracles may be stored in the key management cache 114).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cusden to include the teachings of Le. The motivation for doing so is to allow the system to update a blockchain in response to data received from the oracle (Le – ¶ 0010).
Cusden in view of Le does not explicitly teach that the organization is DAO.
Wang teaches
the organization is decentralized autonomous organization and party is designated by the DAO (Abstract - Page 258 - Decentralized Oracles. Such Oracles are not controlled by a single institution and there is no risk of SPoF. According to whether human participation is required, the decentralized Oracles can be divided into prediction markets Oracles (e.g. Augur2) and Layer-2 Oracles (e.g. Chainlink3). The former obtains data through group intelligence [5] and voting mechanism [6]; the latter collects data through a group of off-chain nodes, and the collected data is aggregated to get a final data -See Also Page 261 - (DAO)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the teachings of Cusden in view of Le to include the teachings of Wang. The motivation to do so is to allow the system to prevent risk of centralization and single point of failure (Wang - Page 258).
Regarding claim 32,
Cusden does not explicitly teach
wherein the one or more oracles comprise a primary party designated by a decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) to provide the oracle data and a secondary party designated by the DAO to automatically provide the oracle data responsive to the primary party having failed to provide the oracle data in a timely or accurate manner.
However, Le teaches
wherein the one or more oracles comprise a primary party designated by a [..] organization to provide the oracle data and a secondary party designated by the [..] organization to automatically provide the oracle data responsive to the primary party having failed to provide the oracle data in a timely or accurate manner ( ¶ 0012 - In deterministic approaches to oracle management, an oracle may receive data from a data source to ensure a smart contract operates within deterministic outcomes on the blockchain. Vulnerabilities may arise as the data source may be subject to failure, security threats, inaccuracies, or deprecation, which could degrade the quality of information provided to the smart contract. In consensus based approaches to oracle management, multiple oracles may operate according to an oracle consensus protocol to receive data from multiple sources – ¶ 0055 - The master oracle 108 may generate a list of oracles (304). The list of oracles may include a list of oracles that are designated as data providers for the master oracle 108. The list of oracles may include oracles that generate data messages of a particular data type or topic. In some examples, the list of oracles may be stored in the key management cache 114).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cusden to include the teachings of Le. The motivation for doing so is to allow the system to update a blockchain in response to data received from the oracle (Le – ¶ 0010).
Cusden in view of Le does not explicitly teach that the organization is DAO.
However, Wang teaches
the organization is decentralized autonomous organization and party is designated by the DAO (Abstract - Page 258 - Decentralized Oracles. Such Oracles are not controlled by a single institution and there is no risk of SPoF. According to whether human participation is required, the decentralized Oracles can be divided into prediction markets Oracles (e.g. Augur2) and Layer-2 Oracles (e.g. Chainlink3). The former obtains data through group intelligence [5] and voting mechanism [6]; the latter collects data through a group of off-chain nodes, and the collected data is aggregated to get a final data -See Also Page 261 - (DAO)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the teachings of Cusden in view of Le to include the teachings of Wang. The motivation to do so is to allow the system to prevent risk of centralization and single point of failure (Wang - Page 258).
Claims 27,35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cusden in view of Wei further in view of Whitehead further in view of Manamohan et al. Publication No. US 2021/0234668 A1 ( Manamohan hereinafter)
Regarding claim 27,
Cusden does not explicitly teach
wherein the unencrypted information is extracted without revealing a private key of the smart contract.
However, Manamohan teaches
unencrypted information is extracted without revealing a private key of the smart contract (Abstract – the decrypted merged parameter can then be shared amongst the nodes, and applied to their local models. This process can be repeated until a desired level of learning has been achieved. The public and private keys are never revealed to the same node, and may be permanently discarded after use to further ensure privacy ¶0045 - The smart contracts 44 may include rules, which each edge node 10 follows, that direct the nodes to inspect transactions and/or blocks to determine whether it should apply a management operation contained in the transaction and/or block).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cusden to include the teachings of Manamohan. The motivation for doing so is to allow the system to ensure privacy (Manamohan – Abstract).
Regarding claim 35,
Cusden does not explicitly teach
wherein the unencrypted information is extracted without revealing a private key of the smart contract.
However, Manamohan teaches
unencrypted information is extracted without revealing a private key of the smart contract (Abstract – the decrypted merged parameter can then be shared amongst the nodes, and applied to their local models. This process can be repeated until a desired level of learning has been achieved. The public and private keys are never revealed to the same node, and may be permanently discarded after use to further ensure privacy ¶0045 - The smart contracts 44 may include rules, which each edge node 10 follows, that direct the nodes to inspect transactions and/or blocks to determine whether it should apply a management operation contained in the transaction and/or block).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cusden to include the teachings of Manamohan. The motivation for doing so is to allow the system to ensure privacy (Manamohan – Abstract).
Claims 28,36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cusden in view of Wei further in view of Whitehead further in view of Aidoo et al. Publication No. US 2020/0074548 A1 (Aidoo hereinafter)
Regarding claim 28,
Cusden does not explicitly teach
wherein the smart contract's code is obfuscated to prevent revealing a choice of homomorphic operations.
However, Aidoo teaches
wherein the smart contract's code is obfuscated to prevent revealing a choice of homomorphic operations (¶0074 - data sharing module 120 may finalize market rates associated with a particular market instrument. As noted above, these market rates may represent market data compiled for an accounting period of a particular firm associated with network node 101a. At block 502, smart contract module 122 may obfuscate the market rates. For example, smart contract module 122 may apply a homomorphic algorithm to calculate, for each market rate, a homomorphically encrypted ciphertext value. At block 504, the encrypted ciphertext calculated for each market rate may be sent to other network nodes of network 100).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the teaching of Cusden to include the teachings of Aidoo. The motivation to do so is to allow the system improve security.
Regarding claim 36,
Cusden does not explicitly teach
wherein the smart contract's code is obfuscated to prevent revealing a choice of homomorphic operations.
However, Aidoo teaches
wherein the smart contract's code is obfuscated to prevent revealing a choice of homomorphic operations (¶0074 - data sharing module 120 may finalize market rates associated with a particular market instrument. As noted above, these market rates may represent market data compiled for an accounting period of a particular firm associated with network node 101a. At block 502, smart contract module 122 may obfuscate the market rates. For example, smart contract module 122 may apply a homomorphic algorithm to calculate, for each market rate, a homomorphically encrypted ciphertext value. At block 504, the encrypted ciphertext calculated for each market rate may be sent to other network nodes of network 100).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the teaching of Cusden to include the teachings of Aidoo. The motivation to do so is to allow the system improve security.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOUNES NAJI whose telephone number is (571)272-2659. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:30 AM -5:30 PM.
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, Oscar A Louie can be reached on (571) 270-1684. 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.
/YOUNES NAJI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Prosecution Insights