DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in response to Application filed June 24, 2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Specification
The Specification has been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any grammatical/spelling or any other errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made that the information disclosure statements filed on 06/24/2025has been received and considered by the examiner. If the applicant is aware of any prior art or any other co-pending applications not already of record, he/she is reminded of his/her duty under 37 CFR 1.56 to disclose the same.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
35 USC 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture and composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, e.g., claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 1. The method of claims 1-14, device of claims 15-19 and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 20 are directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter and therefore satisfy Step 1.
Step 2A. Prong one of the 2019 PEG:
1. In accordance with Step 2A, prong one, the limitations are directed to additional elements include electronic device, processors, memory, non-transitory computer readable storage medium.
2. The limitations are recited in claims 1, 15 and 20 are scheduling for a blockchain transaction, obtaining a plurality of blockchain transactions, the plurality of blockchain transactions; obtaining a target transaction, that is completely executed, from the blockchain transactions, and determining a first conflict relationship between the target transaction and a first reference transaction of at least one first reference transaction, the first reference transaction being a currently, completely executed blockchain transaction other than the target transaction; obtaining a first weight of the target transaction and a second weight of the first reference transaction when the first conflict relationship indicates that a conflict exists between the target transaction and the first reference transaction etc., is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. That is, other than reciting electronic device, processors, memory, non-transitory computer readable storage medium, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The steps can be done my nominally, insignificantly or user can perform each of the tasks merely manually and can consider as a data gathering performance. Further, the limitations of scheduling blockchain transactions when conflict occur, schedule transaction based on whether a conflict exists, conflict detection between transactions, using executed/reference transactions can be merely loan, money transfer, approval/disapproval of the loan, maintaining time when or what kind of application can review, during the review comparing (e.g., conflict), applying policy (e.g., conflict detection) different criteria for a loan application etc.. Thus, the limitations are directed to abstract mental process and can be manually performed by human. If a claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls with mental process grouping of abstract ideas.
With respect to Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG: the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The electronic device, processors, memory, non-transitory computer readable storage medium as recited at a high-level of generality or insignificant extra solution activity such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component or a software, Accordingly, these additional element (electronic device, processors, memory, non-transitory computer readable storage medium) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B.
Claims 1, 15 and 20 are recited additional limitations, such that first weight being determined based on a resource consumption parameter during execution of the target transaction, and the second weight being determined based on a resource consumption parameter during execution of the first reference transaction; and scheduling the target transaction according to a magnitude relationship between the first weight and the second weight. These limitations are a context which encompasses merely using a priority (weight), ranking a system or user to decide which transactions should run. Further, assigning weight to transactions, scheduling based on weights conflicts and routine and conventional. The additional elements are broadly applied to the abstract idea at a high level of generality, they are directed to extra solution activity or they operate in a well-understood, routine, and conventional manner (MPEP § 2106.05(f); MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)). Storing and retrieving information in memory (e.g. Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc..). Courts have held computer-implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amount to nothing more than generic computer function merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by human thinking. Using generic computing components (e.g., device) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract and is not enough to transform an abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible. Further, the subject matter can also interpret as well-understood, routine and conventional functions (e.g., electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document/object, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank….). There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. They are merely collective functions provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 2 recited the limitations of calculating a sum of second weights of the transaction, weight sum, which are merely describing merely mathematical calculation. The limitations are mental process. Dependent claim 3 recited the limitations of transaction snapshot or re-executing, which are describing viewing, describing, updating transactions. The limitations are mental process. Dependent claims 3-5 recited the limitations of weight is less than any second weight, the weight equals to a maximum value, second weight equal to the first weight, until the transaction added. These limitations are describing transactions with threshold value, predefined value. The limitations are mental process. Dependent claims 6-8 recited the limitations of waiting for a preset duration reaches the preset duration; no conflict exist between transaction, third conflict transaction, magnitude relationship between wight sum. The limitations are describing time function, comparing transactions. The limitations are mental process. Dependent claims 10-12 recited the limitations of third or fourth conflict relationship, until all transactions are added, first weight equals to the first weight sum. The limitations are describing ranking or prioritizing transactions. The limitations are mental process. Dependent claims 13-14 are describing re-executed transaction, quantity of the write set keys, determining a score value. These limitations are describing transactions associated with values, whether transactions have a higher or lower value. The claim recited limitations are do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. As such, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections- 35 USC § 103
7. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
8. 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) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
9. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner et al. (US 2021/0118054 A1), hereinafter Turner in view of Pandit et al. (US 2019/0188655 A1).
As for claim 1, Turner teaches a scheduling method for a blockchain transaction, performed by an electronic device and comprising: obtaining a plurality of blockchain transactions for execution, and executing the plurality of blockchain transactions (see [0007], e.g., outflow of resources for the company corresponding to completed transaction, [0065], e.g., amazon web services, microsoft azure, or other cloud or infrastructure-as-a-service provider. Resource pooling system utilize distributed ledger technology, such as blockchain);
obtaining a target transaction, that is completely executed, from the blockchain transactions, and determining a first….relationship between the target transaction and a first reference transaction of at least one first reference transaction (see [0007], outflow of resources for the company corresponding to completed transaction, [0045], e.g., a transaction manager configured to execute a loan transaction between the company and one of the plurality of lenders in response to a lender agreeing to terms for the loan),
the first reference transaction being a currently, completely executed blockchain transaction other than the target transaction; obtaining a first weight of the target transaction and a second weight of the first reference transaction when the first….relationship indicates that…. exists between the target transaction and the first reference transaction (see [0046], e.g., subsequent to execution of the loan transaction and modify terms of the loan in response to a change in the credit profile, [0550], e.g., characteristic refers to any property, trait, quality, or attribute of an object or thing, condition, magnitude, degree, direction, speed, rate of change, readiness for use, unreadiness for use, size, weight, composition, feature set, and the like),
the first weight being determined based on a resource consumption parameter during execution of the target transaction, and the second weight being determined based on a resource consumption parameter during execution of the first reference transaction; and scheduling the target transaction according to a magnitude relationship between the first weight and the second weight (see [0550], e.g., characteristic refers to any property, trait, quality, or attribute of an object or thing, condition, magnitude, degree, rate of change, size, weight, composition, feature set, and the like, [0132], e.g., a schedule to pull data from disparate computer server systems, the outflow module is communicatively coupled to the user interface logic allowing a user to instrument a pipeline of normalized data from the ingest module to the outflow module and from there to the user interface logic using hierarchical filter control settings, referred to herein as ‘tags’, [0146], e.g., tags that transform the identified transaction data, receives normalized transaction data from the ingest module and transforms the normalized data through the application of the tags that label the transaction data associated with the query, performed asynchronously from the operation of the outflow module).
Turner teaches the claimed invention but does not explicitly teach the limitations of a first conflict relationship or the first conflict relationship; a conflict exist; However, in the same field of endeavor, Pandit teaches the limitations of a first conflict relationship or the first conflict relationship; a conflict exist (see [0657], e.g., trigger associated with any condition, criteria, or pre-requisite associated with a suitable event and/or set of circumstances for relates to the change in resource position for an operating company, a threshold number of orders, a change in stock price, a change in account balance, among other events and/or circumstances that are possible and contemplated herein).
Turner and Pandit both references teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are from the same field of endeavor, such as processing transactional data, blockchain transaction, borrow or lease transaction among company’s, updated the data for the future use.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Pandit’s teaching to Turner system to implement a dynamic participation policy as a program at peer level (i.e., a blockchain peer device) outside and separate of the smart contract logic. Thus enable flexibility for policy change, ensure that the policy is consistent and replicated among all blockchain peers in the blockchain network. A dynamic policy is useful as that ensure the copies of the policy program at the different peers function identically with respect to a user that submitted a transaction (see Pandit, [0021]).
As for claim 15,
The limitations therein have substantially the same scope as claim 15 is a device claim for implementing those steps of claim 1. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Pandit’s teaching to Turner system to implement a dynamic participation policy as a program at peer level (i.e., a blockchain peer device) outside and separate of the smart contract logic. Thus enable flexibility for policy change, ensure that the policy is consistent and replicated among all blockchain peers in the blockchain network. A dynamic policy is useful as that ensure the copies of the policy program at the different peers function identically with respect to a user that submitted a transaction (see Pandit, [0021]).
As for claim 20,
The limitations therein have substantially the same scope as claim 20 is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim for implementing those steps of claim 1. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Pandit’s teaching to Turner system to implement a dynamic participation policy as a program at peer level (i.e., a blockchain peer device) outside and separate of the smart contract logic. Thus enable flexibility for policy change, ensure that the policy is consistent and replicated among all blockchain peers in the blockchain network. A dynamic policy is useful as that ensure the copies of the policy program at the different peers function identically with respect to a user that submitted a transaction (see Pandit, [0021]).
As to claim 2, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Turner and Pandit teach:
wherein scheduling the target transaction according to the magnitude relationship between the first weight and the second weight comprises: scheduling the target transaction according to a magnitude relationship between the first weight and another second weight of the at least one first reference transaction; or calculating a sum of second weights of the at least one first reference transaction as a first weight sum, and scheduling the target transaction according to a magnitude relationship between the first weight and the first weight sum (see Turner. [0226], [0550]).
As to claim 3, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Turner and Pandit teach:
wherein the target transaction is obtained after all blockchain transactions are completely executed, the first reference transaction is not added to a transaction snapshot, and scheduling the target transaction according to the magnitude relationship between the first weight and another second weight comprises: adding the target transaction to the transaction snapshot when the first weight is greater than the second weight of the at least one first reference transaction; or re-executing the target transaction when the first weight is less than any second weight; or adding the target transaction to the transaction snapshot or re-executing the target transaction when the first weight equals to a maximum value in the second weights of the at least one first reference transaction (see Turner, [0127], [0226], [0550]).
As to claim 4, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Turner and Pandit teach:
wherein adding the target transaction to the transaction snapshot or re-executing the target transaction comprises: forming a first transaction set by using the target transaction and one first reference transaction corresponding to one second weight equal to the first weight; and adding any blockchain transaction in the first transaction set to the transaction snapshot, and re-executing a remaining blockchain transaction in the first transaction set (see Turner, [0127], [0550], claim 3).
As to claim 5, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Turner and Pandit teach:
further comprising: using, when all blockchain transactions not added to the transaction snapshot are completely re-executed, a blockchain transaction that is completely re-executed and that is not added to the transaction snapshot as the target transaction; and scheduling the target transaction, until all the blockchain transactions are added to the transaction snapshot (see Turner, [0093], [0127], [0550], claim 3).
As to claim 6, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Turner and Pandit teach:
wherein the target transaction is obtained when one blockchain transaction is completely executed, the first reference transaction is not added to the transaction snapshot, and scheduling the target transaction according to the magnitude relationship between the first weight and the first weight sum comprises: waiting for a preset duration when the first weight is greater than the first weight sum, and scheduling the target transaction after the waiting duration reaches the preset duration; or re-executing the target transaction when the first weight is less than the first weight sum; or waiting for a preset duration when the first weight equals to the first weight sum, and scheduling the target transaction or re-executing the target transaction after the waiting duration reaches the preset duration (see Turner, [0176], [0265, [0550]).
As to claim 7, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Turner and Pandit teach:
wherein determining the first conflict relationship between the target transaction and the first reference transaction of the at least one first reference transaction comprises: determining a second conflict relationship between the target transaction and a second reference transaction, the second reference transaction being a blockchain transaction that is other than the target transaction, that is currently completely executed, and that has been added to the transaction snapshot; and determining the first conflict relationship between the target transaction and the first reference transaction of the at least one first reference transaction when the second conflict relationship indicates that no conflict exists between the target transaction and the second reference transaction (see Turner, [0065], [0127]; Also see, Pandit, [0657]).
As to claim 8, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Turner and Pandit teach:
wherein scheduling the target transaction after the waiting duration reaches the preset duration comprises: determining a third conflict relationship between the target transaction and a third reference transaction of at least one third reference transaction after the waiting duration reaches the preset duration, the third reference transaction being a blockchain transaction that is other than the target transaction, that is currently completely executed, and that is not added to the transaction snapshot; obtaining a third weight of the third reference transaction of the at least one third reference transaction when the third conflict relationship indicates that a conflict exists between the target transaction and the third reference transaction, the third weight being determined based on a resource consumption parameter during execution of the third reference transaction; and calculating a sum of third weights of the at least one third reference transaction as a second weight sum, and scheduling the target transaction according to a magnitude relationship between the first weight and the second weight sum (see Turner, [0074], [0127], [0132], [0236]).
As to claim 9, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Turner and Pandit teach:
wherein scheduling the target transaction according to the magnitude relationship between the first weight and the second weight sum comprises: adding the target transaction to the transaction snapshot when the first weight is greater than the second weight sum; or re-executing the target transaction when the first weight is less than the second weight sum; or adding the target transaction to the transaction snapshot or re-executing the target transaction when the first weight equals to the second weight sum (see Turner, [0550], [0658]).
As to claim 10, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Turner and Pandit teach:
wherein determining the third conflict relationship between the target transaction and the third reference transaction of the at least one third reference transaction comprises: determining a fourth conflict relationship between the target transaction and a fourth reference transaction, the fourth reference transaction being a blockchain transaction that is other than the target transaction, that is currently completely executed, and that has been added to the transaction snapshot; and determining the third conflict relationship between the target transaction and the at least one third reference transaction when the fourth conflict relationship indicates that no conflict exists between the target transaction and the fourth reference transaction (see Turner, [0043], [0127]; Also see, Pandit, [0657]).
As to claim 11, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Turner and Pandit teach:
further comprising: using, when blockchain transactions not added to the transaction snapshot are completely re-executed, a blockchain transaction that is completely re-executed and that is not added to the transaction snapshot as the target transaction; and scheduling the target transaction, until all the blockchain transactions are added to the transaction snapshot (see Turner, [0055], [0127], [0132]).
As to claim 12, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Turner and Pandit teach:
wherein the target transaction is obtained when one blockchain transaction is completely executed, the first reference transaction has been added to the transaction snapshot, and scheduling the target transaction according to the magnitude relationship between the first weight and the first weight sum comprises: replacing the first reference transaction in the transaction snapshot with the target transaction when the first weight is greater than the first weight sum; or re-executing the target transaction when the first weight is less than the first weight sum; or replacing the first reference transaction in the transaction snapshot with the target transaction or re-executing the target transaction when the first weight equals to the first weight sum (see Turner, [0102], [0127], [0550]).
As to claim 13, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Turner and Pandit teach:
further comprising: re-executing the replaced first reference transaction in the transaction snapshot; using, when the replaced first reference transaction is completely re-executed, the completely re-executed first reference transaction as the target transaction; and scheduling the target transaction, until all the blockchain transactions are added to the transaction snapshot (see Turner, [0127], [0132], [0661]).
As to claim 14, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Turner and Pandit teach:
wherein the resource consumption parameter comprises at least one of transaction execution time of the blockchain transaction, a quantity of read set keys of the blockchain transaction, a size of a read set memory of the blockchain transaction, a quantity of write set keys of the blockchain transaction, or a size of a write set memory of the blockchain transaction, and the first weight is determined by using following operations: determining a score value corresponding to at least one of the transaction execution time, the quantity of read set keys, the size of the read set memory, the quantity of the write set keys, or the size of the write set memory of the target transaction; and obtaining the first weight according to at least one score value (see Turner, [0065], [0091], [0550]).
Claims 16-19 correspond in scope to claims 2-8 and are similarly rejected.
Prior Arts
10. US 20240311807 A1 (filing date 04/23/23) teaches blockchain-based transaction processing method, apparatus, and device, a computer-readable storage medium, and a computer program product, which can reduce resource consumption and time consumption during transaction execution and improve transaction execution efficiency ([0004]).
US 2023/0078541 A1 (filing date 04/22/22) teaches a target storage node in a blockchain network, and generating a target storage proof of the multimedia data, the target storage proof indicating that the target storage node having stored the multimedia data; and transmitting the target storage proof to a consensus node in the blockchain network ([0004])
WO2005050488 A1 teaches template to the information sources, generates the plurality of data in a common format by parsing the information sources with the templates. Stores the data in the common format (page 2).
Also see, 20230093368, 20220180882, WO2022143242 A1, WO2020220860A1, WO20220136260, these reference also read the claim recited limitation. These references are state of the art at the time of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
11. The examiner suggests, in response to this Office action, support being shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application because:
a. 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(d)(1) requires antecedent basis in the Specification or original disclosure for any new language, including terms and phrases, added to the claims;
and because:
b. 37 C.F.R. § 1.83(a) requires the Drawings to illustrate or show all claimed features.
Applicant must clearly point out the patentable novelty that they think the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made, and must also explain how the amendments avoid the references or objections. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c).
The examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider each of the cited references in entirety
as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage disclosed by the examiner.
12. The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action (see MPEP § 7.96).
Contact Information
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Daniel A Kuddus whose telephone number is (571) 270-1722. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Thursday 8.00 a.m.-5.30 p.m. The examiner can also be reached on alternate Fridays from 8.00 a.m. to 4.30 p.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Boris Gorney can be reached on (571) 270-5626. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or processing 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 the 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.
/DANIEL A KUDDUS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
05/06/26
Prosecution Insights