DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s response/application filed on 06/18/2025.
The Examiner notes that citations to United States Patent Application Publication paragraphs are formatted as [####], #### representing the paragraph number.
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-16 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 is 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitations: “the step of exchanging” in lines 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes examiner has interpreted “the step of exchanging” to be “the step of performing”.
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.
As per claims 1-16, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because:
• Claim 1 recites:
performing transaction processing on a request for service use received from a user terminal and storing the request in a local [sub-database] edge chain;
propagating a result of the transaction processing to local BSP auditors in the form of an [sub-database file] edge chain block;
broadcasting the local edge chain blocks [sub-database file] to BSP servers in other regions constituting the main network; and
maintaining a global [database] blockchain named main chain by collecting [sub-database files] edge chain blocks from multiple BSP servers of the other regions.
• Under Step 1 of the Section 101 analysis, the claim(s) is/are directed to a method, a system, and a manufacture, which are statutory categories of invention.
• Under Step 2A Prong One of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligiblity Guidance, the claimed invention as drafted includes language (see underlined language above) that recites an abstract idea of collecting local data files to incorporate into a global data file (a certain method of organizing human activity such as a commercial or legal interactions) but for the recitation of additional claim elements. Claims 10 recites similar abstract idea. That is, other than reciting “processor”, “memory”, “server”, “edge chain”, “block(s)”, “main chain”, “blockchain”, nothing in the claim precludes the language from being considered as performed by a person.
• Under Step 2A Prong Two of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligiblity Guidance, the additional claim element(s), considered individually, do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and in a manner that integrates the exception into a practical application of the exception. The additional claim elements(s) merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. For example, the additional elements of “processor”, “memory”, “server”, merely use a generic computer device and/or generic computer components as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Furthermore, the additional claim elements(s) such as “edge chain”, “block(s)”, “main chain”, “blockchain”, generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use of blockchain.
• Under Step 2A Prong Two, the additional claim element(s), considered in combination, do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and in a manner that integrates the exception into a practical application of the exception. The combination of elements is no more than the sum of their parts. Unlike the eligible claims in Diehr and Bascom, in which the elements limiting the exception taken together improve a technical field, the instant claim lacks an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field.
• Under Step 2B, the additional claim element(s), considered individually and in combination, do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself for similar reasons outlined under Step 2A Prong Two.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 which further recite the abstract without any extra additional elements.
Therefore, claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai (CN 113010922 A), in view of Zhang (CN 112801795 A).
Regarding claim(s) 1 and 10, Bai discloses:
a processor; and a memory storing at least one instruction executed via the processor, wherein the at least one instruction is configured for the processor (By disclosing a cloud server ([0009] of Bai)) to:
propagate a result of the transaction processing to local BSP auditors in the form of an edge chain block; (By disclosing, energy transactions are stored in one of an edge chain, and the energy transaction is propagated to auditors nodes for consensus ([0037]-[0044], Fig. 1, Fig. 3 of Bai)).
broadcast the local edge chain blocks to BSP servers in other regions constituting the main network (By disclosing, a main network is constructed by aggregating the data on four edge chains ([0037]-[0045], Fig. 1, Fig. 3 of Bai)); and
maintain a global blockchain named main chain by ordered-collection of the edge chain blocks of the BSP servers of the other regions ([0037]-[0045], [0050]-[0051], Fig. 1 and Fig. 3 of Bai).
Bai does not expressly disclose, but Zhang teaches:
perform transaction processing on a request for service use received from a user terminal and storing the request in a local edge chain. (By disclosing, “receiving the transaction task of the user; receiving the first consensus node of the transaction task to the other first consensus node in the main chain, the access node, the division node broadcasts the transaction task; initiating the consensus processing of all the first consensus nodes in the main chain to the transaction task; when the consensus processing is passed, determining the side chain processing the transaction task through the division node; sending the transaction task to the side chain processing determined by the division node through the access node.” ([0005] of Zhang); and “after the main chain receives the asset information, firstly storing the asset information, and then sending the asset transfer request to at least one side chain other than the asset information source” ([0011] of Zhang)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the invention of Bai in view of Zhang to include techniques of performing transaction processing on a request for service use received from a user terminal and storing the request in a local edge chain. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would allow different blockchain to store different kinds of data for better data classification.
Claim(s) 2, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai (CN 113010922 A), in view of Liang (CN 113239052 A), further in view of Zhang (CN 112801795 A), Song (CN 110287259 A), and Ovalle (US 20200105096).
Regarding claim(s) 2 and 11, Bai does not disclose:
classifying, by the BSP server, the transactions into a user transaction, an audit transaction, and a cooperative transaction, wherein the user transaction comprises an intra-region transaction and an inter-region transaction, the audit transaction comprises a mainchain audit transaction and an edge chain audit transaction, and the cooperative transaction comprises a new-view transaction indicating transfer proof information for migrating to a new BSP.
However, Liang teaches:
classifying transactions into different side-chains (By disclosing, “adding the transaction to the corresponding sub-chain” (Abstract of Liang)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the combination of Bai and Zhang, in view of Liang to include techniques of classifying transactions into different side-chains. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would allow different blockchain to store different kinds of data for better data sorting.
Zhang teaches:
the user transaction comprises an intra-region transaction and an inter-region transaction ([0010] of Zhang).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the combination of Bai and Liang, in view of Zhang to include a user transaction comprises an intra-region transaction and an inter-region transaction. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would allow different blockchain to store different types of transactions.
Song teaches:
the audit transaction comprises a mainchain audit transaction and an edge chain audit transaction (By disclosing, “the invention uses fabric blockchain network as a basic platform, constructing a relational database-based block chain log side chain, ensuring the audit log in the database cannot be falsified. creating a database in one audit log of log side chain, side chain in the audit log to log transaction audit log package sent by each periodically log transaction in the log blocks of side chain. finally needs to periodically log the block in the side chain anchored to the fabric main chain, so as to ensure the real cannot be falsified.” (Abstract of Song)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the combination of Bai, Liang and Zhang, in view of Song to include an audit transaction comprises a mainchain audit transaction and an edge chain audit transaction. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would allow different blockchain to store different types of transactions.
And Ovalle teaches:
a new-view transaction indicating transfer proof information (By disclosing, “In block 409, the component records an order receipt transaction in a sidechain that records information related to orders.” ([0033] of Ovalle)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the combination of Bai, Liang, Zhang and Song, in view of Ovalle to include a new-view transaction indicating transfer proof information. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would allow a user to verify the order and transfer an asset associated with the order.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai (CN 113010922 A), in view of Zhang (CN 112801795 A), further in view of Yoo (US 20190182313).
Regarding claim(s) 8, Bai does not disclose, but Yoo teaches:
wherein the main chain as a global blockchain comprises a plurality of main chain blocks, and each main chain block comprises a main chain header, an edge chain block set, and a signature. (By disclosing, “A block is a kind of data packet, which contains some kind of information and is composed of a header and a body.” ([0050] of Yoo); “Referring to FIG. 2, T1, T2, T4, T5, T6, T8, and T9 are shard-specific local transactions, and T3 and T7 may be classified as global transactions.” ([0059] and Fig. 2 of Yoo); and “The generated epoch flag block is referred to and used by a node, which is not a member of the committee, to generate a proof of work (PoW) block. The committee contract may include a list of PoW block generating nodes and further include at least one of a sequence number, a hash value of an epoch flag block, a hash value of the PoW block, and a signature.” ([0015]-[0016] of Yoo)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the combination of Bai and Zhang, in view of Yoo to include a main chain as a global blockchain comprises a plurality of main chain blocks, and each main chain block comprises a main chain header, an edge chain block set, and a signature. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would allow the main chain to record both local and global transactions.
Claim(s) 9 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai (CN 113010922 A), in view of Zhang (CN 112801795 A), further in view of Yoo (US 20190182313), Kaye (US 20240297800), and Feng (CN 110166567 B).
Regarding claim(s) 9, Bai does not disclose, but Kaye teaches:
wherein the main chain header comprises a main chain previous block hash value, an edge chain block header set included in the main chain block, a Merkle root hash value comprising a header set, and main chain creation rule. (By disclosing, “Blockchains typically specify that blocks have a header—a small data structure (usually between 100 and 1000 bytes large) that includes cryptographic metadata. That metadata typically includes (but is not limited to): the hash of the parent block(s), a cryptographic commitment (often a Merkle root or equivalent) to both/either the transactions included in the block and/or the current state of the blockchain, network information such as the difficulty, the timestamp of the block's creation, a nonce, and protocol version information. Certain classes of consensus protocols (e.g., those based on Proof of Stake) may require additional data to be included in the header.” ([0010] of Kaye); “Parent-chains (generally) need to record their child-chains' headers anyway, so this use of one-way PoR—where a simplex-chain reflects child dapp-chains—has near-zero overhead for both the simplex-chain and the dapp-chain.” ([0270] of Kaye); “A Merkle tree of reflected headers has order O(N.sub.1)=O(k.sub.1)=O(c) and a corresponding proof size of order O(log.sub.2 N.sub.1)=O(log.sub.2 k)=O(log.sub.2 c).” ([0394] of Kaye)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the combination of Bai, Zhang, Yoo, in view of Kaye to include a main chain header comprises a main chain previous block hash value, an edge chain block header set included in the main chain block, a Merkle root hash value comprising a header set, and main chain creation rule. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would allow easy retrieving of blockchain information from the header.
And Feng teaches:
wherein the main chain header comprises a main chain block number (By disclosing, “the global blockchain is composed of a global block head and a global block two parts; the global block header comprises the information comprises (block number GBlockID, area head node signature CSig, block Hash value, Merkle tree root, timestamp t)” ([0018] of Feng)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the combination of Bai, Zhang, Yoo, Kaye, in view of Feng to include a main chain header comprises a main chain block number. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would allow easy retrieving of blockchain height information from the header.
Regarding claim(s) 16, Bai does not disclose, but Yoo teaches:
wherein the main chain as a global blockchain comprises a plurality of main chain blocks, and each main chain block comprises a main chain header, an edge chain block set, and a signature. (By disclosing, “A block is a kind of data packet, which contains some kind of information and is composed of a header and a body.” ([0050] of Yoo); “Referring to FIG. 2, T1, T2, T4, T5, T6, T8, and T9 are shard-specific local transactions, and T3 and T7 may be classified as global transactions.” ([0059] and Fig. 2 of Yoo); and “The generated epoch flag block is referred to and used by a node, which is not a member of the committee, to generate a proof of work (PoW) block. The committee contract may include a list of PoW block generating nodes and further include at least one of a sequence number, a hash value of an epoch flag block, a hash value of the PoW block, and a signature.” ([0015]-[0016] of Yoo)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the combination of Bai and Zhang, in view of Yoo to include a main chain as a global blockchain comprises a plurality of main chain blocks, and each main chain block comprises a main chain header, an edge chain block set, and a signature. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would allow the main chain to record both local and global transactions.
Kaye teaches:
wherein the main chain header comprises a main chain previous block hash value, an edge chain block header set included in the main chain block, a Merkle root hash value comprising a header set, and main chain creation rule. (By disclosing, “Blockchains typically specify that blocks have a header—a small data structure (usually between 100 and 1000 bytes large) that includes cryptographic metadata. That metadata typically includes (but is not limited to): the hash of the parent block(s), a cryptographic commitment (often a Merkle root or equivalent) to both/either the transactions included in the block and/or the current state of the blockchain, network information such as the difficulty, the timestamp of the block's creation, a nonce, and protocol version information. Certain classes of consensus protocols (e.g., those based on Proof of Stake) may require additional data to be included in the header.” ([0010] of Kaye); “Parent-chains (generally) need to record their child-chains' headers anyway, so this use of one-way PoR—where a simplex-chain reflects child dapp-chains—has near-zero overhead for both the simplex-chain and the dapp-chain.” ([0270] of Kaye); “A Merkle tree of reflected headers has order O(N.sub.1)=O(k.sub.1)=O(c) and a corresponding proof size of order O(log.sub.2 N.sub.1)=O(log.sub.2 k)=O(log.sub.2 c).” ([0394] of Kaye)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the combination of Bai, Zhang, Yoo, in view of Kaye to include a main chain header comprises a main chain previous block hash value, an edge chain block header set included in the main chain block, a Merkle root hash value comprising a header set, and main chain creation rule. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would allow easy retrieving of blockchain information from the header.
And Feng teaches:
wherein the main chain header comprises a main chain block number (By disclosing, “the global blockchain is composed of a global block head and a global block two parts; the global block header comprises the information comprises (block number GBlockID, area head node signature CSig, block Hash value, Merkle tree root, timestamp t)” ([0018] of Feng)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the combination of Bai, Zhang, Yoo, Kaye, in view of Feng to include a main chain header comprises a main chain block number. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would allow easy retrieving of blockchain height information from the header.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(S) 3-7, 12-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in this Office action.
The closest prior art of record, Bai (CN 113010922 A) discloses an invention for a system for propagating a result of the transaction processing to local BSP auditors in the form of an edge chain block; broadcasting the local edge chain blocks to BSP servers in other regions constituting the main network; and maintaining a global blockchain named main chain by collecting edge chain blocks from multiple BSP servers of the other regions. In addition, Liang (CN 113239052 A) discloses an invention for classifying transactions into different side-chains. In addition, Zhang (CN 112801795 A) discloses an invention for performing transaction processing on a request for service use received from a user terminal and storing the request in a local edge chain. In addition, Song (CN 110287259 A) discloses an invention for an audit transaction comprises a mainchain audit transaction and an edge chain audit transaction. In addition, Ovalle (US 20200105096) discloses an invention for a new-view transaction indicating transfer proof information. The closest prior art of record fail to teach or suggest, in the context of the ordered combination of the claims 3-7, 12-15.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN 113704810 A to Xiao for disclosing:
The invention claims a cross-chain consensus method and system for federated learning, the method at least comprises: learning the single-chain federation in the cluster and counting the local updating information; sending updated consensus information to the second federation to perform cross-cluster gradient exchange; receiving the confirmation result of the cross-cluster gradient updating consensus of the second federation feedback; and updating the local model based on the confirmation result. The invention after reaching the update consensus, according to the contribution of the cluster representation to reward and punishment, so as to excite the cluster in the computing node represents honest voting, so that the participant can actively assist model updating.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4642. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10 AM-5 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, Neha Patel can be reached at 571-270-1492. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DUAN ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699