DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
1. This office action is in response to application filed 6/24/2025.
2. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-10 are directed to a method; claims 11-19 are directed to a non-transitory, computer-readable medium; claim 20 is directed to a method – each of which is one of the statutory categories of inventions.
Step 2A: A claim is eligible at revised Step 2A unless it recites a judicial exception and the exception is not integrated into a practical application of the application.
Prong 1: Prong One of Step 2A evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Groupings of Abstract Ideas:
I. MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS
A. Mathematical Relationships
B. Mathematical Formulas or Equations
C. Mathematical Calculations
II. CERTAIN METHODS OF ORGANIZING HUMAN ACTIVITY
A. Fundamental Economic Practices or Principles (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk)
B. Commercial or Legal Interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)
C. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions between People (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
III. MENTAL PROCESSES.
Concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
See MPEP 2106.04 (a) (2) Abstract Idea Groupings [R-10.2019]
The limitations recited in independent clams 1, 11 and 20 –
a method for grouping transactions in a blockchain, executed by a [blockchain node], comprising:
obtaining a plurality of transactions, wherein the plurality of transactions invoke a same contract, the plurality of transactions comprise a plurality of first transactions, wherein execution of each of the first transactions comprises access to one or more first variables of the same contract, and wherein the one or more first variables correspond to mapping relationships in the same contract;
obtaining a mapping relationship identity corresponding to the one or more first variables that are to be accessed in the execution of each of the first transactions, wherein a storage position of each of the one or more first variables in a state database is determined based on the mapping relationship identity corresponding to the one or more first variables; and
grouping the plurality of first transactions based on the mapping relationship identity corresponding to each of the first transactions
– that constitutes Mental Process and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
The dependent claims further limit the abstract idea to –
(Claims 2, 12) mapping relationship identities comprise identifiers of a plurality of layers of mapping relationships from outside to inside, and grouping the plurality of first transactions based on the mapping relationship identity corresponding to each of the first transactions, comprises:
grouping two of the plurality of first transactions into a transaction group in response to determining that a mapping relationship identity corresponding to one of the transactions is at least one layer of mapping relationship identity at an outermost layer of a mapping relationship identity corresponding to the other transaction.
(Claims 3, 13) the blockchain stores contract data of the same contract, the contract data comprises storage location information of state variables asked to be accessed in the same contract, the storage location information comprises storage location information of the one or more first variables, and the storage location information of the one or more first variables comprises the mapping relationship identities corresponding to the one or more first variables; and
obtaining a mapping relationship identity corresponding to the one or more first variables that are to be accessed in the execution of each of the first transactions, comprises:
reading the storage location information of the one or more first variables from the contract data of the same contract according to the first transactions; and
obtaining the mapping relationship identities corresponding to the one or more first variables from the storage location information of the one or more first variables.
(Claims 4, 14) wherein the first transactions invoke a first function in the same contract, the contract data comprises first function data corresponding to the first function, and the first function data comprises storage location information of state variables asked to be accessed by the first function.
(Claim 5, 15) wherein the same contract corresponds to a plurality of numbers arranged in a value sequence, wherein each of the mapping relationship identities comprises at least one first number of the plurality of numbers, and wherein the at least one first number is determined based on a declared position of at least one layer of mapping relationship corresponding to a mapping relationship identity in the same contract.
(Claims 6, 16) obtaining a mapping relationship identity corresponding to the one or more first variables that are to be accessed in the execution of each of the first transactions, comprises:
obtaining the mapping relationship identity corresponding to the one or more first variables that are to be read in the execution of each of the first transactions and the mapping relationship identity corresponding to the one or more first variables that are to be written.
(Claims 7, 17) obtaining a mapping relationship identity corresponding to the one or more first variables that are to be accessed in the execution of each of the first transactions, comprises:
grouping the plurality of first transactions based on the mapping relationship identity corresponding to each of the first transactions, comprises:
generating a first set, wherein the first set comprises the mapping relationship identity corresponding to the one or more first variables that are to be written in the execution of each of the first transactions;
determining whether the first set comprises at least one layer of mapping relationship identity at an outermost layer in first mapping relationship identities corresponding to state variables that are to be read in execution of second transactions in the plurality of first transactions;
grouping at least one layer of mapping relationship at the outermost layer into second sets corresponding to the second transactions in a case where the first set comprises the at least one layer of mapping relationship identity at the outermost layer;
grouping the first mapping relationship identity into a second set in a case where the first mapping relationship identity is the at least one layer of mapping relationship identity at the outermost layer of any one of the mapping relationship identities in the first set; and
grouping the second transactions based on the second sets.
(Claims 8, 18) wherein grouping the second transactions based on the second sets, comprises:
grouping two second transactions into a transaction group in response to determining that a first mapping relationship identity in a second set of one of the two second transactions of the plurality of first transactions is at least one layer of mapping relationship at an outermost layer of a second mapping relationship identity in a second set of the other second transaction.
(Claim 9, 19) receiving a third transaction, wherein the third transaction is used to deploy the same contract, and the third transaction comprises the storage location information of the state variables asked to be accessed in the same contract.
(Claim 10) storing the contract data of the same contract in the blockchain according to the third transaction, wherein the contract data comprises the storage location information of the state variables asked to be accessed in the same contract.
– that also constitute Mental Process and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Hence under Prong One of Step 2A, claims 1-20 recite judicial exception(s).
Prong 2: Prong Two of Step 2A evaluates whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include:
An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Additional elements recited by the claims, beyond the abstract idea, include: blockchain; database; non-transitory, computer-readable medium; one or more computers; one or more memory devices. Examiner finds that any additional element(s), beyond the judicial exception, has been recited at a high level of generality such that the claim limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant data gathering activities (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The combination of additional elements does not purport to improve the functioning of a computer or effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the additional elements do no more than use the computer as a tool and/or link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The focus of the claims is not on improvement in computers, but on certain independently abstract ideas – obtaining a plurality of transactions, wherein the plurality of transactions invoke a same contract, the plurality of transactions comprise a plurality of first transactions, wherein execution of each of the first transactions comprises access to one or more first variables of the same contract, and wherein the one or more first variables correspond to mapping relationships in the same contract; obtaining a mapping relationship identity corresponding to the one or more first variables that are to be accessed in the execution of each of the first transactions, wherein a storage position of each of the one or more first variables in a state database is determined based on the mapping relationship identity corresponding to the one or more first variables; and grouping the plurality of first transactions based on the mapping relationship identity corresponding to each of the first transactions – that merely uses generic computers as tools. Steps that do no more than spell out what it means to “apply it on a computer” cannot confer patent eligibility. Indeed, nothing in claim 1 improves the functioning of the computer, makes it operate more efficiently, or solves any technological problem. See Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1384-85 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Hence, under Prong Two of Step 2A, the additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Hence, the claims are ineligible under Step 2A.
Step 2B:
In Step 2B, the evaluation consists of whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception.
As discussed in Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. When considered individually or as an ordered combination, the additional elements fail to transform the abstract idea of – obtaining a plurality of transactions, wherein the plurality of transactions invoke a same contract, the plurality of transactions comprise a plurality of first transactions, wherein execution of each of the first transactions comprises access to one or more first variables of the same contract, and wherein the one or more first variables correspond to mapping relationships in the same contract; obtaining a mapping relationship identity corresponding to the one or more first variables that are to be accessed in the execution of each of the first transactions, wherein a storage position of each of the one or more first variables in a state database is determined based on the mapping relationship identity corresponding to the one or more first variables; and grouping the plurality of first transactions based on the mapping relationship identity corresponding to each of the first transactions – into significantly more.
See MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019].
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Hence, the claims are ineligible under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
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 1-20
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie et al. (US20200145197) in view of Jacobsson et al. (US20230385815).
Claim 1:
A computer-implemented method for grouping transactions in a blockchain, executed by a blockchain node, comprising:
obtaining a plurality of transactions, wherein the plurality of transactions invoke a same contract, the plurality of transactions comprise a plurality of first transactions, wherein execution of each of the first transactions comprises access to one or more first variables of the same contract, and wherein the one or more first variables correspond to mapping relationships in the same contract;
(See Xie: Para [0065] (“In some embodiments, any two or more of the candidate transactions each involving at least one common transaction account may be grouped under the same (transaction) group, and any two or more of the candidate transactions that do not involve any common transaction account may be grouped under different (transaction) groups. For example, for a pool of candidate transactions, A sends something to B, B sends something to C, and D sends something to E, the transactions between A and B and between B and C can be grouped together under a first group since B is the common transaction account involved in both transactions, and the transaction between D and E can be put in a second group since C and D are not involved in either of the two transactions in the first group.”)
grouping the plurality of first transactions based on the mapping relationship identity corresponding to each of the first transactions.
(See Xie: Para [0074] (“Block 442 comprises: grouping the candidate transactions into one or more transaction groups. In some embodiments, the one or more transaction groups are independent transaction groups. In some embodiments, grouping the candidate transactions into one or more transaction groups comprises: grouping two or more of the candidate transactions each involving at least one common transaction account under the same transaction group of the one or more transaction groups.”)
Xie does not specifically disclose:
obtaining a mapping relationship identity corresponding to the one or more first variables that are to be accessed in the execution of each of the first transactions, wherein a storage position of each of the one or more first variables in a state database is determined based on the mapping relationship identity corresponding to the one or more first variables; and
However, Jacobsson discloses the above limitation (See Jacobsson: Para [0385] (“A diagram of a smart contract with an NFT mapping data structure, configured in accordance with multiple embodiments of the invention, is illustrated in FIG. 35 . A smart contract 3500 may include an NFT mapping data structure 3510, which may include a column for token IDs 3520, a column for addresses of owners 3530, a column for validity dates 3540, and a validity period 3550. A minting date may be represented by a block height at which a transaction minting an NFT was accepted onto the blockchain. Additionally or alternatively, as illustrated in FIG. 35 , minting dates may be represented as Unix timestamps and/or times and dates of: a block including the transaction, a first record of the transaction, and/or some other time. Alternate times may include but are not limited to, a starting validity date in which NFTs are minted and become valid at a later date including but not limited to in a stock vesting contract. A validity period may be represented by a time period, specified in seconds, minutes, hours, and/or some other time unit, and/or the validity period may include a number of blocks for which the NFT remains valid.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to modify the above noted disclosure of Xie as it relates to transaction grouping to include the above noted disclosure of Jacobsson as it relates to facilitating access to token content. The motivation for combining the references would have been to remove mapping with banlisted account addresses.
Claims 11, 20 are similar to claim 1 and hence rejected on similar grounds.
Claim 2:
mapping relationship identities comprise identifiers of a plurality of layers of mapping relationships from outside to inside, and grouping the plurality of first transactions based on the mapping relationship identity corresponding to each of the first transactions, comprises:
(See Jacobsson: Figs. 34, 35; Para [0383], [0385])
grouping two of the plurality of first transactions into a transaction group in response to determining that a mapping relationship identity corresponding to one of the transactions is at least one layer of mapping relationship identity at an outermost layer of a mapping relationship identity corresponding to the other transaction.
(See Xie: Para [0074])
Claim 12 is similar to claim 2 and hence rejected on similar grounds.
Claim 3:
the blockchain stores contract data of the same contract, the contract data comprises storage location information of state variables asked to be accessed in the same contract, the storage location information comprises storage location information of the one or more first variables, and the storage location information of the one or more first variables comprises the mapping relationship identities corresponding to the one or more first variables; and
obtaining a mapping relationship identity corresponding to the one or more first variables that are to be accessed in the execution of each of the first transactions, comprises:
(See Jacobsson: Figs. 34, 35; Para [0383], [0385])
reading the storage location information of the one or more first variables from the contract data of the same contract according to the first transactions; and
obtaining the mapping relationship identities corresponding to the one or more first variables from the storage location information of the one or more first variables.
(See Xie: Para [0069] – [0071])
Claim 13 is similar to claim 3 and hence rejected on similar grounds.
Claim 4:
wherein the first transactions invoke a first function in the same contract, the contract data comprises first function data corresponding to the first function, and the first function data comprises storage location information of state variables asked to be accessed by the first function.
(See Xie: Para [0069] – [0071])
Claim 14 is similar to claim 4 and hence rejected on similar grounds.
Claim 5:
wherein the same contract corresponds to a plurality of numbers arranged in a value sequence, wherein each of the mapping relationship identities comprises at least one first number of the plurality of numbers, and wherein the at least one first number is determined based on a declared position of at least one layer of mapping relationship corresponding to a mapping relationship identity in the same contract.
(See Jacobsson: Figs. 34, 35; Para [0383], [0385])
Claim 15 is similar to claim 5 and hence rejected on similar grounds.
Claim 6:
obtaining a mapping relationship identity corresponding to the one or more first variables that are to be accessed in the execution of each of the first transactions, comprises:
obtaining the mapping relationship identity corresponding to the one or more first variables that are to be read in the execution of each of the first transactions and the mapping relationship identity corresponding to the one or more first variables that are to be written.
(See Jacobsson: Figs. 34, 35; Para [0383], [0385])
Claim 16 is similar to claim 6 and hence rejected on similar grounds.
Claim 7:
obtaining a mapping relationship identity corresponding to the one or more first variables that are to be accessed in the execution of each of the first transactions, comprises:
(See Jacobsson: Figs. 34, 35; Para [0383], [0385])
grouping the plurality of first transactions based on the mapping relationship identity corresponding to each of the first transactions, comprises:
generating a first set, wherein the first set comprises the mapping relationship identity corresponding to the one or more first variables that are to be written in the execution of each of the first transactions;
determining whether the first set comprises at least one layer of mapping relationship identity at an outermost layer in first mapping relationship identities corresponding to state variables that are to be read in execution of second transactions in the plurality of first transactions;
(See Jacobsson: Figs. 34, 35; Para [0383], [0385])
grouping at least one layer of mapping relationship at the outermost layer into second sets corresponding to the second transactions in a case where the first set comprises the at least one layer of mapping relationship identity at the outermost layer;
grouping the first mapping relationship identity into a second set in a case where the first mapping relationship identity is the at least one layer of mapping relationship identity at the outermost layer of any one of the mapping relationship identities in the first set; and
grouping the second transactions based on the second sets.
(See Xie: Para [0074])
Claim 17 is similar to claim 7 and hence rejected on similar grounds.
Claim 8:
wherein grouping the second transactions based on the second sets, comprises:
grouping two second transactions into a transaction group in response to determining that a first mapping relationship identity in a second set of one of the two second transactions of the plurality of first transactions is at least one layer of mapping relationship at an outermost layer of a second mapping relationship identity in a second set of the other second transaction.
(See Jacobsson: Figs. 34, 35; Para [0383], [0385]) (See Xie: Para [0074])
Claim 18 is similar to claim 8 and hence rejected on similar grounds.
Claim 9:
receiving a third transaction, wherein the third transaction is used to deploy the same contract, and the third transaction comprises the storage location information of the state variables asked to be accessed in the same contract.
(See Jacobsson: Para [0419])
Claim 19 is similar to claim 9 and hence rejected on similar grounds.
Claim 10:
storing the contract data of the same contract in the blockchain according to the third transaction, wherein the contract data comprises the storage location information of the state variables asked to be accessed in the same contract.
(See Jacobsson: Para [0419])
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARUNAVA CHAKRAVARTI whose telephone number is (571)270-1646. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM - 5 PM ET.
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, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/ARUNAVA CHAKRAVARTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights