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 .
Status of Claims
This is a first office action on the merits in response to the application filed on August 14, 2025, a continuation of U.S. Application No. 18/670,286.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
Priority
The applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS), submitted on 08/14/2025 and 09/30/2025, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the 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); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,051,063 (‘063 patent) in view of Aggarwal et al. (US 20210174343 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
This Application
Patent No. 12,051,063
Claim 1:
A system comprising:
a plurality of nodes each corresponding to a computing device having a processor and memory to store data, wherein one or more computing devices of the plurality of nodes is configured to:
receive a first transaction request from a first computing device, the first transaction request corresponding to a pending transaction between the first computing device and a second computing device and comprising a first plurality of transaction attributes;
append a first block instance comprising the first plurality of transaction attributes to a blockchain of the second computing device;
responsive to receiving, from the second computing device, a second transaction request corresponding to the pending transaction between the first computing device and the second computing device, the second transaction request comprising a second plurality of transaction attributes corresponding to the pending transaction, retrieve the first plurality of transaction attributes from the first block instance;
responsive to determining that the first plurality of transaction attributes do not match the second plurality of transaction attributes, generate an alert to the first computing device or the second computing device indicating a difference between the first plurality of transaction attributes and the second plurality of transaction attributes;
receive an adjustment to the first plurality of transaction attributes or the second plurality of transaction attributes that corresponds to the difference from the first computing device or the second computing device; and
responsive to the adjusted first plurality of transaction attributes or second plurality of transaction attributes matching the other of the first plurality of transaction attributes or the second plurality of transaction attributes, append a second block instance to a blockchain of the first computing device and a third block instance to the blockchain of the second computing device, the second block instance and the third block instance comprising data corresponding to the second transaction request.
Claim 1:
A system comprising:
a plurality of nodes each corresponding to a computing device having a processor and memory to store data, wherein one or more computing devices of the plurality of nodes is configured to:
receive a first transaction request from a first computing device, the first transaction request corresponding to a pending transaction between the first computing device and a second computing device and comprising a first plurality of transaction attributes;
append a first block instance comprising the first plurality of transaction attributes to a blockchain of the first computing device;
append a second block instance comprising the first plurality of transaction attributes to a blockchain of the second computing device;
responsive to receiving, from the second computing device, a second transaction request corresponding to the pending transaction between the first computing device and the second computing device, the second transaction request comprising a second plurality of transaction attributes corresponding to the pending transaction, retrieve two or more attributes of the first plurality of transaction attributes corresponding to the pending transaction from the second block instance, wherein retrieving the two or more attributes of the first plurality of transaction attributes comprises retrieving two or more of a first transaction type, a first length, a first start date, or a first end date of the pending transaction from the second block instance; and
execute a protocol to compare two or more attributes of a second transaction type, a second length, a second start date, or a second end date of the pending transaction of the second plurality of transaction attributes of the second transaction request with corresponding attributes of the same attribute type of the two or more attributes of the first plurality of transaction attributes retrieved from the second block instance; and
Claim 3:
determine that the first set of transaction attributes does not match the second set of transaction attributes; and transmit an alert to one or both of the first and the second computing device indicating the first and second sets of transaction attributes do not match.
Claim 1:
response to the two or more attributes of the first plurality of transaction attributes matching the two or more attributes of the second plurality of transaction attributes, append a third block instance to the blockchain of the first computing device and a fourth block instance to the blockchain of the second computing device, the third block instance and the fourth block instance comprising data corresponding to the second transaction request.
Claim 2:
The system of claim 1, wherein the first computing device communicates the pending transaction with the second computing device via a private channel that is not accessible to other computing devices.
Claim 2:
The system of claim 1, wherein the first computing device communicates the pending transaction with the second computing device via a private channel that is not accessible to other computing devices.
Claim 3:
The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more computing devices of the plurality of nodes are configured to: append a fourth block instance comprising the first plurality of transaction attributes to the blockchain of the first computing device in response to the first transaction request.
Claim 1:
a plurality of nodes each corresponding to a computing device having a processor and memory to store data, wherein one or more computing devices of the plurality of nodes is configured to:
append a first block instance comprising the first plurality of transaction attributes to a blockchain of the first computing device;
Claim 4:
The system of claim 1, wherein the alert comprises a list of differences between the first plurality of transaction attributes and the second plurality of transaction attributes.
Claim 4:
The system of claim 3, wherein the alert comprises a list of differences between the first set of transaction attributes and the second set of transaction attributes.
Claim 5:
The system of claim 1, wherein the first plurality of transaction attributes comprise a blockchain identifier or a block instance identifier and the one or more computing devices are configured to identify a second blockchain of the first computing device based on the blockchain identifier or the block instance identifier.
Claim 5:
The system of claim 1, wherein the first plurality of transaction attributes comprise a blockchain identifier or a block instance identifier and the one or more computing devices are configured to identify a second blockchain of the first computing device based on the blockchain identifier or the block instance identifier.
Claim 6:
The system of claim 5, wherein the first computing device corresponds to the second blockchain, wherein the second blockchain comprises a ledger comprising a set of rules, wherein the one or more computing devices are further configured to automatically execute a second protocol to compare the second plurality of transaction attributes with the set of rules, and wherein the one or more computing devices are further configured to append the second block instance to the blockchain of the first computing device or the third block instance to the blockchain of the second computing device responsive to determining that the second plurality of transaction attributes complies with the set of rules.
Claim 6:
The system of claim 5, wherein the first computing device corresponds to the second blockchain, wherein the second blockchain comprises a ledger comprising a set of rules, wherein the one or more computing devices are further configured to automatically execute a second protocol to compare the second plurality of transaction attributes with the set of rules, and wherein the one or more computing devices are further configured to append the third block instance to the blockchain of the first computing device or the fourth block instance to the blockchain of the second computing device responsive to determining that the second plurality of transaction attributes complies with the set of rules.
Claim 7:
The system of claim 6, wherein the set of rules is stored in a regulation block of the second blockchain, and wherein the one or more computing devices are configured to automatically execute the second protocol to compare the second plurality of transaction attributes with the set of rules stored in the regulation block.
Claim 7:
The system of claim 6, wherein the set of rules is stored in a regulation block of the second blockchain, and wherein the one or more computing devices are configured to automatically execute the second protocol to compare the second plurality of transaction attributes with the set of rules stored in the regulation block.
Claim 8:
The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more computing devices are further configured to: determine attribute types for each attribute of the first plurality of transaction attributes and the second plurality of transaction attributes; and determine whether the attributes of the first plurality of transaction attributes match corresponding attributes of the second plurality of transaction attributes based on the determined attribute types.
Claim 1:
a plurality of nodes each corresponding to a computing device having a processor and memory to store data, wherein one or more computing devices of the plurality of nodes is configured to:
execute a protocol to compare two or more attributes of a second transaction type, a second length, a second start date, or a second end date of the pending transaction of the second plurality of transaction attributes of the second transaction request with corresponding attributes of the same attribute type of the two or more attributes of the first plurality of transaction attributes retrieved from the second block instance.
Claim 9:
The system of claim 1, wherein the first plurality of transaction attributes and the second plurality of transaction attributes each comprise at least two of a second transaction type, a second length, a second start date, a second end date, a second amount, or a second maturity date of the pending transaction.
Claim 1:
wherein retrieving the two or more attributes of the first plurality of transaction attributes comprises retrieving two or more of a first transaction type, a first length, a first start date, or a first end date of the pending transaction from the second block instance;
Claim 10:
The system of claim 1, wherein each of the second block instance and the third block instance comprises a hash of at least data of the pending transaction.
Claim 8:
The system of claim 1, wherein each of the third block instance and the fourth block instance comprises a hash of at least data of the pending transaction.
Claim 11:
A method, comprising:
receiving, by one or more computing devices of a plurality of nodes, a first transaction request from a first computing device, the first transaction request corresponding to a pending transaction between the first computing device and a second computing device and comprising a first plurality of transaction attributes;
appending, by the one or more computing devices, a first block instance comprising the first plurality of transaction attributes to a blockchain of the second computing device;
responsive to receiving, from the second computing device, a second transaction request corresponding to the pending transaction between the first computing device and the second computing device, the second transaction request comprising a second plurality of transaction attributes corresponding to the pending transaction, retrieve the first plurality of transaction attributes from the first block instance;
responsive to determining that the first plurality of transaction attributes do not match the second plurality of transaction attributes, generating, by the one or more computing devices, an alert to the first computing device or the second computing device indicating a difference between the first plurality of transaction attributes and the second plurality of transaction attributes;
receiving, by the one or more computing devices, an adjustment to the first plurality of transaction attributes or the second plurality of transaction attributes that corresponds to the difference from the first computing device or the second computing device; and
responsive to the adjusted first plurality of transaction attributes or second plurality of transaction attributes matching the other of the first plurality of transaction attributes or the second plurality of transaction attributes, appending, by the one or more computing devices, a second block instance to a blockchain of the first computing device and a third block instance to the blockchain of the second computing device, the second block instance and the third block instance comprising data corresponding to the second transaction request.
Claim 9:
A method comprising:
receiving, by one or more computing devices of a plurality of nodes, a first transaction request from a first computing device, the first transaction request corresponding to a pending transaction between the first computing device and a second computing device and comprising a first plurality of transaction attributes;
appending, by the one or more computing devices, a first block instance comprising the first plurality of transaction attributes to a blockchain of the first computing device;
appending, by the one or more computing devices, a second block instance comprising the first plurality of transaction attributes to a blockchain of the second computing device; responsive to receiving, by the one or more computing devices and from the second computing device, a second transaction request corresponding to the pending transaction between the first computing device and the second computing device, the second transaction request comprising a second plurality of transaction attributes corresponding to the pending transaction, retrieving, by the one or more computing devices, two or more attributes of the first plurality of transaction attributes corresponding to the pending transaction from the second block instance, wherein retrieving the two or more attributes of the first plurality of transaction attributes comprises retrieving, by the one or more computing devices, two or more of a first transaction type, a first length, a first start date, or a first end date of the pending transaction from the second block instance; and
executing, by the one or more computing devices, a protocol to compare two or more attributes of a second transaction type, a second length, a second start date, or a second end date of the pending transaction of the second plurality of transaction attributes of the second transaction request with corresponding attributes of the same attribute type of the two or more attributes of the first plurality of transaction attributes retrieved from the second block instance; and
Claim 11:
determining, by the one or more computing devices, that the first set of transaction attributes does not match the second set of transaction attributes; and transmitting, by the one or more computing devices, an alert to one or both of the first and the second computing device indicating the first and second sets of transaction attributes do not match.
Claim 9:
responsive to the two or more attributes of the first plurality of transaction attributes matching the two or more attributes of the second plurality of transaction attributes, appending, by the one or more computing devices, a third block instance to the blockchain of the first computing device and a fourth block instance to the blockchain of the second computing device, the third block instance and the fourth block instance comprising data corresponding to the second transaction request.
Claim 12:
The method of claim 11, wherein the first computing device communicates the pending transaction with the second computing device via a private channel that is not accessible to other computing devices.
Claim 10:
The method of claim 9, wherein the first computing device communicates the pending transaction with the second computing device via a private channel that is not accessible to other computing devices.
Claim 13:
The method of claim 11, comprising: appending, by the one or more computing devices, a fourth block instance comprising the first plurality of transaction attributes to the blockchain of the first computing device in response to the first transaction request.
Claim 9:
appending, by the one or more computing devices, a first block instance comprising the first plurality of transaction attributes to a blockchain of the first computing device;
Claim 14:
The method of claim 11, wherein the alert comprises a list of differences between the first plurality of transaction attributes and the second plurality of transaction attributes.
Claim 12:
The method of claim 11, wherein the alert comprises a list of differences between the first set of transaction attributes and the second set of transaction attributes.
Claim 15:
The method of claim 11, wherein the first plurality of transaction attributes comprise a blockchain identifier or a block instance identifier and the method comprises identifying, by the one or more computing devices, a second blockchain of the first computing device based on the blockchain identifier or the block instance identifier.
Claim 13:
The method of claim 9, wherein the first plurality of transaction attributes comprise a blockchain identifier or a block instance identifier and the one or more computing devices are configured to identify a second blockchain of the first computing device based on the blockchain identifier or the block instance identifier.
Claim 16:
The method of claim 15, wherein the first computing device corresponds to the second blockchain, wherein the second blockchain comprises a ledger comprising a set of rules, wherein the method further comprises automatically executing, by the one or more computing devices, a second protocol to compare the second plurality of transaction attributes with the set of rules, and wherein the method further comprises appending, by the one or more computing devices, the second block instance to the blockchain of the first computing device or the third block instance to the blockchain of the second computing device responsive to determining that the second plurality of transaction attributes complies with the set of rules.
Claim 14:
The method of claim 13, wherein the first computing device corresponds to the second blockchain; wherein the second blockchain comprises a ledger comprising a set of rules; and wherein the method further comprises: automatically executing, by the one or more computing devices, a second protocol to compare the second plurality of transaction attributes with the set of rules; and appending, by the one or more computing devices, the third block instance to the blockchain of the first computing device or the fourth block instance to the blockchain of the second computing device in responsive to determining that the second plurality of transaction attributes complies with the set of rules.
Claim 17:
The method of claim 16, wherein the set of rules is stored in a regulation block of the second blockchain, and wherein the method further comprises automatically executing, by the one or more computing devices, the second protocol to compare the second plurality of transaction attributes with the set of rules stored in the regulation block.
Claim 15:
The method of claim 14, wherein the set of rules is stored in a regulation block of the second blockchain, and wherein the one or more computing devices are configured to automatically execute the second protocol to compare the second plurality of transaction attributes with the set of rules stored in the regulation block.
Claim 18:
The method of claim 11, further comprising: determining, by the one or more computing devices, attribute types for each attribute of the first plurality of transaction attributes and the second plurality of transaction attributes; and determining, by the one or more computing devices, whether the attributes of the first plurality of transaction attributes match corresponding attributes of the second plurality of transaction attributes based on the determined attribute types.
Claim 9:
wherein retrieving the two or more attributes of the first plurality of transaction attributes comprises retrieving, by the one or more computing devices, two or more of a first transaction type, a first length, a first start date, or a first end date of the pending transaction from the second block instance; and
executing, by the one or more computing devices, a protocol to compare two or more attributes of a second transaction type, a second length, a second start date, or a second end date of the pending transaction of the second plurality of transaction attributes of the second transaction request with corresponding attributes of the same attribute type of the two or more attributes of the first plurality of transaction attributes retrieved from the second block instance.
Claim 19:
The method of claim 11, wherein the first plurality of transaction attributes and the second plurality of transaction attributes each comprise at least two of a second transaction type, a second length, a second start date, a second end date, a second amount, or a second maturity date of the pending transaction.
Claim 9:
wherein retrieving the two or more attributes of the first plurality of transaction attributes comprises retrieving, by the one or more computing devices, two or more of a first transaction type, a first length, a first start date, or a first end date of the pending transaction from the second block instance;
Claim 20:
The method of claim 11, wherein each of the second block instance and the third block instance comprises a hash of at least data of the pending transaction.
Claim 16:
The method of claim 9, wherein each of the third block instance and the fourth block instance comprises a hash of at least data of the pending transaction.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, the ‘063 patent does not explicitly disclose receiving an adjustment to the first plurality of transaction attributes or the second plurality of transaction attributes that corresponds to the difference from the first computing device or the second computing device.
However, Aggarwal, an analogous art of processing blockchain transactions, discloses receiving an adjustment to the first plurality of transaction attributes or the second plurality of transaction attributes that corresponds to the difference from the first computing device or the second computing device. (See paragraph [0044], “[i]f the transaction was not successfully validated (e.g., confirmation failed), such as due to prior use of a transaction output or a failed validation of the digital signature, then, in step 316, the transmitting device 220 of the blockchain node 102 may electronically transmit a notification message to the sender device 106 using a suitable communication network and method to notify a user thereof that the transaction's validation failed. In such cases, the sender device 106 may be provided with an opportunity to update the transaction data and re-submit the new blockchain transaction, such as by adjusting the transaction amounts or changing the transaction outputs being submitted.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Aggarwal in the ‘063 patent system. Moreover, in order to improve the transaction verification process of the ‘063 patent system, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to resubmit a transaction with the corrected attributes, so that the pending transaction event can be effectively processed.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,645,650 (650 patent) in view of Aggarwal et al. (US 20210174343 A1) and Antonopoulos (“Mastering Bitcoin,” July 2017). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
This Application
Patent No. 11,645,650
Claim 1:
A system comprising:
a plurality of nodes each corresponding to a computing device having a processor and memory to store data, wherein one or more computing devices of the plurality of nodes is configured to:
receive a first transaction request from a first computing device, the first transaction request corresponding to a pending transaction between the first computing device and a second computing device and comprising a first plurality of transaction attributes;
append a first block instance comprising the first plurality of transaction attributes to a blockchain of the second computing device;
responsive to receiving, from the second computing device, a second transaction request corresponding to the pending transaction between the first computing device and the second computing device, the second transaction request comprising a second plurality of transaction attributes corresponding to the pending transaction, retrieve the first plurality of transaction attributes from the first block instance;
responsive to determining that the first plurality of transaction attributes do not match the second plurality of transaction attributes, generate an alert to the first computing device or the second computing device indicating a difference between the first plurality of transaction attributes and the second plurality of transaction attributes;
receive an adjustment to the first plurality of transaction attributes or the second plurality of transaction attributes that corresponds to the difference from the first computing device or the second computing device; and
responsive to the adjusted first plurality of transaction attributes or second plurality of transaction attributes matching the other of the first plurality of transaction attributes or the second plurality of transaction attributes, append a second block instance to a blockchain of the first computing device and a third block instance to the blockchain of the second computing device, the second block instance and the third block instance comprising data corresponding to the second transaction request.
Claim 1:
A system comprising:
a plurality of nodes each corresponding to a computing device having a processor and memory to store data, wherein one or more computing devices of the plurality of nodes is configured to:
receive a first transaction request from a first computing device, the transaction request corresponding to a pending transaction between the first computing device and a second computing device and comprising a first plurality of transaction attributes;
append a first block instance comprising the first plurality of transaction attributes to a blockchain of the first computing device; identify a blockchain of the second computing device based on a transaction attribute of the first plurality of transaction attributes;
append a second block instance comprising the first plurality of transaction attributes to the blockchain of the second computing device; responsive to receiving, from the second computing device, a second transaction request corresponding to the pending transaction between the first computing device and the second computing device and comprising a second plurality of transaction attributes corresponding to the pending transaction, retrieve the first plurality of transaction attributes from the second block instance; and
execute a protocol to compare the second plurality of transaction attributes of the second transaction request with the first plurality of transaction attributes retrieved from the second block instance of the blockchain of the second computing device;
responsive to the first plurality of transaction attributes matching the second plurality of transaction attributes: identify, using at least one transaction attribute of the first plurality of transaction attributes or the second plurality of transaction attributes, a second blockchain of the second computing device; automatically execute a protocol to compare the second plurality of transaction attributes with data stored onto a ledger of the identified second blockchain; and
Claim 3:
determine that the third set of transaction attributes does not match the fourth set of transaction attributes; and transmit an alert to one or both of the first and the second computing device indicating the third and fourth sets of transaction attribute does not match.
Claim 1:
in response to determining that the second plurality of transaction attributes complies with data of the ledger of the identified second blockchain, append a third block instance to the blockchain of the first computing device and a fourth block instance to the blockchain of the second computing device, the third block instance and the fourth block instance comprising data corresponding to the second transaction request.
Claim 2:
The system of claim 1, wherein the first computing device communicates the pending transaction with the second computing device via a private channel that is not accessible to other computing devices.
Claim 2:
The system of claim 1, wherein the first computing device communicates the pending transaction with the second computing device via a private channel that is not accessible to other computing devices.
Claim 3:
The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more computing devices of the plurality of nodes are configured to: append a fourth block instance comprising the first plurality of transaction attributes to the blockchain of the first computing device in response to the first transaction request.
Claim 1:
a plurality of nodes each corresponding to a computing device having a processor and memory to store data, wherein one or more computing devices of the plurality of nodes is configured to:
append a first block instance comprising the first plurality of transaction attributes to a blockchain of the first computing device;
Claim 4:
The system of claim 1, wherein the alert comprises a list of differences between the first plurality of transaction attributes and the second plurality of transaction attributes.
Claim 4:
The system of claim 3, wherein the alert comprises a list of differences between the first set of transaction attributes and the second set of transaction attributes.
Claim 5:
The system of claim 1, wherein the first plurality of transaction attributes comprise a blockchain identifier or a block instance identifier and the one or more computing devices are configured to identify a second blockchain of the first computing device based on the blockchain identifier or the block instance identifier.
Claim 5:
The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one transaction attribute comprises a blockchain identifier or a block instance identifier and the one or more computing devices are configured to identify the second blockchain of the second computing device based on the blockchain identifier or the block instance identifier.
Claim 6:
The system of claim 5, wherein the first computing device corresponds to the second blockchain, wherein the second blockchain comprises a ledger comprising a set of rules, wherein the one or more computing devices are further configured to automatically execute a second protocol to compare the second plurality of transaction attributes with the set of rules, and wherein the one or more computing devices are further configured to append the second block instance to the blockchain of the first computing device or the third block instance to the blockchain of the second computing device responsive to determining that the second plurality of transaction attributes complies with the set of rules.
Claim 6:
The system of claim 1, wherein the data stored onto the ledger of the identified second blockchain comprises a set of rules; wherein the one or more computing devices are configured to automatically execute the protocol to compare the second plurality of transaction attributes with data stored onto the ledger of the identified second blockchain by comparing the second plurality of transaction attributes against the set of rules; and wherein the one or more computing devices are further configured to determine that the second plurality of transaction attributes complies with the data of the ledger based on the second plurality of transaction attributes satisfying the set of rules.
Claim 7:
The system of claim 6, wherein the set of rules is stored in a regulation block of the second blockchain, and wherein the one or more computing devices are configured to automatically execute the second protocol to compare the second plurality of transaction attributes with the set of rules stored in the regulation block.
Claim 8:
The system of claim 1, wherein the data stored onto the ledger of the identified second blockchain is stored in a regulation block of the identified second blockchain, and wherein the one or more computing devices are configured to automatically execute the protocol to compare the second plurality of transaction attributes with the data stored in the regulation block.
Claim 8:
The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more computing devices are further configured to: determine attribute types for each attribute of the first plurality of transaction attributes and the second plurality of transaction attributes; and determine whether the attributes of the first plurality of transaction attributes match corresponding attributes of the second plurality of transaction attributes based on the determined attribute types.
Claim 7:
The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more computing devices are further configured to: determine attribute types for each of the attributes of the first plurality of transaction attributes and the second plurality of transaction attributes; and determine whether the attributes of the first plurality of transaction attributes match corresponding attributes of the second plurality of transaction attributes based on the determined attribute types.
Claim 9:
The system of claim 1, wherein the first plurality of transaction attributes and the second plurality of transaction attributes each comprise at least two of a second transaction type, a second length, a second start date, a second end date, a second amount, or a second maturity date of the pending transaction.
Claim 10:
The system of claim 1, wherein each of the second block instance and the third block instance comprises a hash of at least data of the pending transaction.
Claim 9:
The system of claim 1, wherein each of the third block instance and the fourth block instance comprises a hash of at least the data of the pending transaction.
Claim 11:
A method, comprising:
receiving, by one or more computing devices of a plurality of nodes, a first transaction request from a first computing device, the first transaction request corresponding to a pending transaction between the first computing device and a second computing device and comprising a first plurality of transaction attributes;
appending, by the one or more computing devices, a first block instance comprising the first plurality of transaction attributes to a blockchain of the second computing device;
responsive to receiving, from the second computing device, a second transaction request corresponding to the pending transaction between the first computing device and the second computing device, the second transaction request comprising a second plurality of transaction attributes corresponding to the pending transaction, retrieve the first plurality of transaction attributes from the first block instance;
responsive to determining that the first plurality of transaction attributes do not match the second plurality of transaction attributes, generating, by the one or more computing devices, an alert to the first computing device or the second computing device indicating a difference between the first plurality of transaction attributes and the second plurality of transaction attributes;
receiving, by the one or more computing devices, an adjustment to the first plurality of transaction attributes or the second plurality of transaction attributes that corresponds to the difference from the first computing device or the second computing device; and
responsive to the adjusted first plurality of transaction attributes or second plurality of transaction attributes matching the other of the first plurality of transaction attributes or the second plurality of transaction attributes, appending, by the one or more computing devices, a second block instance to a blockchain of the first computing device and a third block instance to the blockchain of the second computing device, the second block instance and the third block instance comprising data corresponding to the second transaction request.
Claim 10:
A method comprising:
receiving, by one or more computing devices of a plurality of nodes, a transaction request from a first computing device, the transaction request corresponding to a pending transaction between the first computing device and a second computing device, the transaction request comprising a first plurality of transaction attributes;
appending, by the one or more computing devices of the plurality of nodes, a first block instance comprising the first plurality of transaction attributes to a blockchain of the first computing device; identifying, by the one or more computing devices of the plurality of nodes, a blockchain of the second computing device based on a transaction attribute of the first plurality of transaction attributes;
appending, by the one or more computing devices of the plurality of nodes, a second block instance comprising the first plurality of transaction attributes to the blockchain of the second computing device;
responsive to receiving, from the second computing device, a second transaction request corresponding to the pending transaction between the first computing device and the second computing device and comprising a second plurality of transaction attributes corresponding to the pending transaction, retrieving, by the one or more computing devices of the plurality of nodes, the first plurality of transaction attributes from the second block instance; and
executing, by the one or more computing devices of the plurality of nodes, a protocol to compare the second plurality of transaction attributes of the second transaction request with the first plurality of transaction attributes retrieved from the second block instance of the blockchain of the second computing device; responsive to the first plurality of transaction attributes matching the second plurality of transaction attributes: identifying, by the one or more computing devices of the plurality of nodes, using at least one transaction attribute of the first plurality of transaction attributes or the second plurality of transaction attributes, a second blockchain; automatically executing, by the one or more computing devices of the plurality of nodes, a protocol to compare the second plurality of transaction attributes with data stored onto a ledger of the identified second blockchain; and
Claim 12:
determining, by the one or more computing devices of the plurality of nodes, that the third set of transaction attributes does not match the fourth set of transaction attributes; and transmitting, by the one or more computing devices of the plurality of nodes, an alert to one or both of the first and the second computing device indicating the third and fourth sets of transaction attributes does not match.
Claim 10:
in response to determining that the second plurality of transaction attributes complies with data of the ledger of the identified second blockchain, appending, by the one or more computing devices of the plurality of nodes, a third block instance to the blockchain of the first computing device and a fourth block instance to the blockchain of the second computing device, the third block instance and the fourth block instance comprising data corresponding to the second transaction request.
Claim 12:
The method of claim 11, wherein the first computing device communicates the pending transaction with the second computing device via a private channel that is not accessible to other computing devices.
Claim 11:
The method of claim 10, wherein the first computing device is configured to communicate the pending transaction with the second computing device via a private channel that is not accessible to other computing devices.
Claim 13:
The method of claim 11, comprising: appending, by the one or more computing devices, a fourth block instance comprising the first plurality of transaction attributes to the blockchain of the first computing device in response to the first transaction request.
Claim 10:
appending, by the one or more computing devices of the plurality of nodes, a first block instance comprising the first plurality of transaction attributes to a blockchain of the first computing device;
Claim 14:
The method of claim 11, wherein the alert comprises a list of differences between the first plurality of transaction attributes and the second plurality of transaction attributes.
Claim 13:
The method of claim 12, wherein the alert comprises a list of differences between the third set of transaction attributes and the fourth set of transaction attributes.
Claim 15:
The method of claim 11, wherein the first plurality of transaction attributes comprise a blockchain identifier or a block instance identifier and the method comprises identifying, by the one or more computing devices, a second blockchain of the first computing device based on the blockchain identifier or the block instance identifier.
Claim 14:
The method of claim 10, wherein the at least one transaction attribute comprises a blockchain identifier or a block instance identifier and the one or more computing devices are configured to identify the second blockchain of the second computing device based on the blockchain identifier or the block instance identifier.
Claim 16:
The method of claim 15, wherein the first computing device corresponds to the second blockchain, wherein the second blockchain comprises a ledger comprising a set of rules, wherein the method further comprises automatically executing, by the one or more computing devices, a second protocol to compare the second plurality of transaction attributes with the set of rules, and wherein the method further comprises appending, by the one or more computing devices, the second block instance to the blockchain of the first computing device or the third block instance to the blockchain of the second computing device responsive to determining that the second plurality of transaction attributes complies with the set of rules.
Claim 15:
The method of claim 10, wherein the data stored onto the ledger of the identified second blockchain comprises a set of rules; wherein automatically executing the protocol to compare the second plurality of transaction attributes with data stored onto the ledger of the identified second blockchain comprises comparing, by the one or more computing devices of the plurality of nodes, the second plurality of transaction attributes against the set of rules; and wherein determining that the second plurality of transaction attributes complies with the data of the ledger comprises determining, by the consensus of the plurality of nodes, that the second plurality of transaction attributes satisfies the set of rules.
Claim 17:
The method of claim 16, wherein the set of rules is stored in a regulation block of the second blockchain, and wherein the method further comprises automatically executing, by the one or more computing devices, the second protocol to compare the second plurality of transaction attributes with the set of rules stored in the regulation block.
Claim 17:
The method of claim 10, wherein the data stored onto the ledger of the identified second blockchain is stored in a regulation block of the identified second blockchain, and wherein automatically executing the protocol to compare the first plurality of transaction attributes with data stored onto the ledger of the identified second blockchain comprises comparing, by the one or more computing devices of the plurality of nodes the first plurality of transaction attributes with the data stored in the regulation block.
Claim 18:
The method of claim 11, further comprising: determining, by the one or more computing devices, attribute types for each attribute of the first plurality of transaction attributes and the second plurality of transaction attributes; and determining, by the one or more computing devices, whether the attributes of the first plurality of transaction attributes match corresponding attributes of the second plurality of transaction attributes based on the determined attribute types.
Claim 16:
The method of claim 10, further comprising: determining, by the one or more computing devices of the plurality of nodes, attribute types for each of the attributes of the first plurality of transaction attributes and the second plurality of transaction attributes; and determining, by the one or more computing devices of the plurality of nodes, whether the attributes of the first plurality of transaction attributes match corresponding attributes of the second plurality of transaction attributes based on the determined types.
Claim 19:
The method of claim 11, wherein the first plurality of transaction attributes and the second plurality of transaction attributes each comprise at least two of a second transaction type, a second length, a second start date, a second end date, a second amount, or a second maturity date of the pending transaction.
Claim 20:
The method of claim 11, wherein each of the second block instance and the third block instance comprises a hash of at least data of the pending transaction.
Claim 18:
The method of claim 10, wherein each of the third block instance and the fourth block instance comprises a hash of at least the data of the pending transaction.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, the ‘650 patent does not explicitly disclose receiving an adjustment to the first plurality of transaction attributes or the second plurality of transaction attributes that corresponds to the difference from the first computing device or the second computing device.
However, Aggarwal, an analogous art of processing blockchain transactions, discloses receiving an adjustment to the first plurality of transaction attributes or the second plurality of transaction attributes that corresponds to the difference from the first computing device or the second computing device. (See paragraph [0044], “[i]f the transaction was not successfully validated (e.g., confirmation failed), such as due to prior use of a transaction output or a failed validation of the digital signature, then, in step 316, the transmitting device 220 of the blockchain node 102 may electronically transmit a notification message to the sender device 106 using a suitable communication network and method to notify a user thereof that the transaction's validation failed. In such cases, the sender device 106 may be provided with an opportunity to update the transaction data and re-submit the new blockchain transaction, such as by adjusting the transaction amounts or changing the transaction outputs being submitted.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Aggarwal in the ‘650 patent system. Moreover, in order to improve the transaction verification process of the ‘650 patent system, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to resubmit a transaction with the corrected attributes, so that the pending transaction event can be effectively processed.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, the ‘650 patent does not explicitly disclose wherein the first plurality of transaction attributes and the second plurality of transaction attributes each comprise at least two of a second transaction type, a second length, a second start date, a second end date, a second amount, or a second maturity date of the pending transaction.
However, Antonopoulos, an analogous art of processing blockchain transactions, discloses wherein the plurality of transaction attributes comprise at least two of a second transaction type, a second length, a second start date, a second end date, a second amount, or a second maturity date of the pending transaction. (See pages 157-164, which disclose a timelock as a maturity date included in a transaction. Additionally, pages 121-122 disclose a transaction including one or more amounts.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Antonopoulos in the ‘650 patent system. Moreover, in order to improve the transaction verification process of the ‘650 patent system, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include different types of transaction attributes in a transaction, so that the pending transaction event can be effectively validated based on these different types of attributes.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In this instance, claims 1-10 are directed to a system, and claims 11-20 are directed to a method. Therefore, claims 1-20 fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 1 as a whole is directed to processing a pending transaction. In particular, the claim recites receiving a first transaction request corresponding to the pending transaction, appending an instance of the first transaction request, retrieving the instance responsive to receiving a second transaction request corresponding to the pending transaction, generating an alert responsive to not matching attributes, receiving an adjustment of the attributes, and appending more instances. Processing a transaction is related to fundamental economic practices and/or commercial interactions. Additionally, the steps of determining “match and/or not match” could be performed in the human mind. Therefore, these cited steps of the claim fall under the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” and/or “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas in Step 2A Prong One (MPEP 2106.04(a)(d)). More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite the abstract idea while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
Claim 1 recites “[a] system comprising: a plurality of nodes each corresponding to a computing device having a processor and memory to store data, wherein one or more computing devices of the plurality of nodes is configured to: receive a first transaction request from a first computing device, the first transaction request corresponding to a pending transaction between the first computing device and a second computing device and comprising a first plurality of transaction attributes; append a first block instance comprising the first plurality of transaction attributes to a blockchain of the second computing device; responsive to receiving, from the second computing device, a second transaction request corresponding to the pending transaction between the first computing device and the second computing device, the second transaction request comprising a second plurality of transaction attributes corresponding to the pending transaction, retrieve the first plurality of transaction attributes from the first block instance; responsive to determining that the first plurality of transaction attributes do not match the second plurality of transaction attributes, generate an alert to the first computing device or the second computing device indicating a difference between the first plurality of transaction attributes and the second plurality of transaction attributes; receive an adjustment to the first plurality of transaction attributes or the second plurality of transaction attributes that corresponds to the difference from the first computing device or the second computing device; and responsive to the adjusted first plurality of transaction attributes or second plurality of transaction attributes matching the other of the first plurality of transaction attributes or the second plurality of transaction attributes, append a second block instance to a blockchain of the first computing device and a third block instance to the blockchain of the second computing device, the second block instance and the third block instance comprising data corresponding to the second transaction request.”
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two (MPEP 2106.04(d)), the non-underlined additional elements of a plurality of nodes, one or more computing devices, a processor, a memory, a first computing device, a second computing device, and blockchains of claim 1 are used to perform processing a pending transaction. A protocol is a computer application/program that can be automatically executed. These additional elements of a plurality of nodes, one or more computing devices, a processor, a memory, a first computing device, and a second computing device are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The additional elements of blockchains generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 as a whole, judging from the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; the claim does not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine; and the claim does not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful ways beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claim as a whole fails to recite a practical application of the abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under Step 2B (MPEP 2106.05), using of a plurality of nodes, one or more computing devices, a processor, a memory, a first computing device, a second computing device, and blockchains to perform processing transaction requests of a pending event amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The additional elements of blockchains generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept beyond the recited abstract idea. As discussed above, taking the additional elements separately, these additional elements perform the steps or functions that correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional claim elements, when considered individually and in combination, fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected as being directed toward patent-ineligible subject
matter.
Claim 11 recites the abstract idea similar to that discussed above in connection with claim 1. No new additional elements are identified.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 have also been considered for subject-matter eligibility. However, these claims fail to recite patent-eligible subject matter for the following reasons:
Claims 2 and 12 recite the step of communicating the pending transaction via a private channel, which falls under the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of the abstract ideas, and further limits the abstract idea noted in claims 1 and 11, respectively. The additional elements of the first computing device, the second computing device, and other computing devices fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 3 and 13 recite the step of appending a fourth block instance comprising the first plurality of transaction attributes in response to the first transaction request, which falls under the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of the abstract ideas, and further limits the abstract idea noted in claims 1 and 11, respectively. The additional elements of the one or more computing devices of the plurality of nodes and the blockchain of the first computing device fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 4 and 14 recite an additional element of wherein the alert comprises a list of differences between the first set of transaction attributes and the second set of transaction attributes. The additional element fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter as it simply recites information included in the abstract idea. The additional element is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element does not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. The additional element does not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional element merely describes information included in the abstract idea.
Claims 5 and 15 recite the step of performing the identification based on an identifier, which falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of the abstract ideas, and further limits the abstract idea noted in claims 1 and 11, respectively. The additional elements of the one or more computing devices of the plurality of nodes and a second blockchain of the first computing device fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 6 and 16 recite the steps of comparing the plurality of transaction attributes with the set of rules and appending block instances, which falls under the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities” and/or “Mental Processes” groupings of the abstract ideas, and further limits the abstract idea noted in claims 1 and 11, respectively. The additional elements of one or more computing devices and a second protocol amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The additional elements of blockchains generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements do not pertain to improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. The additional elements do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on the computer components and/or generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claims 7 and 17 recite the step of comparing the plurality of transaction attributes with the set of rules stored in a regulation block, which falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of the abstract ideas, and further limits the abstract idea noted in claims 1 and 11, respectively. The additional elements of one or more computing devices and a second protocol amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The additional element of wherein the set of rules is stored in a regulation block of the second blockchain merely describes the characteristics of the set of rules. The additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements do not pertain to improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. The additional elements do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on the computer components.
Claims 8 and 18 recite the steps of determining attribute types for each attribute of the first plurality of transaction attributes and the second plurality of transaction attributes and determining whether the attributes of the first plurality of transaction attributes match corresponding attributes of the second plurality of transaction attributes based on the determined attribute types, which falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of the abstract ideas, and further limits the abstract idea noted in claims 1 and 11, respectively. The additional elements of one or more computing devices amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements do not pertain to improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. The additional elements do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on the computer components.
Claims 9 and 19 recite an additional element of wherein the first plurality of transaction attributes and the second plurality of transaction attributes each comprise at least two of a second transaction type, a second length, a second start date, a second end date, a second amount, or a second maturity date of the pending transaction. The additional element fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter as it simply recites information included in the abstract idea. The additional element is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element does not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. The additional element does not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional element merely describes information included in the abstract idea.
Claims 10 and 20 recite an additional element of wherein each of the second block instance and the third block instance comprises a hash of at least data of the pending transaction. The additional element fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter as it simply recites information included in the abstract idea. The additional element is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element does not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. The additional element does not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional element merely describes information included in the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 1-3, 8-13, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (US 20210150515 A1) in view of Aggarwal et al. (US 20210174343 A1), and further in view of Antonopoulos (“Mastering Bitcoin,” July 2017).
Claims 1 and 11:
Lu discloses the following:
a plurality of nodes each corresponding to a computing device having a processor and memory to store data, wherein one or more computing devices of the plurality of nodes is configured to. (See Figs.1-2; paragraphs [0076]-[0080], “[i]n the depicted example, the computing systems 106, 108 can each include any appropriate computing device that enables participation as a node in the consortium blockchain network 102”; and paragraphs [0336]-[0337], “[t]he system includes one or more processors, and a computer-readable storage medium coupled to the one or more processors having instructions stored thereon which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations in accordance with embodiments of the methods provided herein.”)
receive a first transaction request from a first computing device, the first transaction request corresponding to a pending transaction between the first computing device and a second computing device and comprising a first plurality of transaction attributes. (See Fig. 12; paragraph [0164], “[t]he participants of the process 1200 can include an applicant 702, an issuing bank 704, a blockchain network 1 703, a relay 705, a blockchain network 2 707, and a beneficiary bank 708. Cross-chain technology is developed to facilitate interactions and interoperability between different blockchains”; and paragraphs [0167]-[0170], “[a]fter approval of the SBLC, the issuing bank 704 can finalize the SBLC source code, encrypt the SBLC source code, generate proofs, and include the encrypted SBLC and the proofs in a cross-chain request to the blockchain network 2 707…. For example, a blockchain node (e.g., a cloud node) connected to the issuing bank's 704 internal system can submit the cross-chain request for consensus. After the blockchain nodes verify the proofs that prove the legitimacy of the SBLC, the blockchain nodes can perform consensus and store the encrypted SBLC in one or more blocks to be appended to the first blockchain.”)
appending a first block instance comprising the first plurality of transaction attributes to a blockchain of the second computing device. (See Fig. 12 and paragraph [0171], “[a]t 1220, the blockchain network 2 707 records the cross-chain request through consensus and delivers the encrypted SBLC to the beneficiary bank 708.”)
responsive to receiving, from the second computing device, a second transaction request corresponding to the pending transaction between the first computing device and the second computing device, the second transaction request comprising a second plurality of transaction attributes corresponding to the pending transaction, […] (verify the second transaction request). (See paragraph [0123], “[o]ne of bank A 602 and bank B 604 can send the cyphertext of the encrypted SBLC 622 to the blockchain network 624, e.g., by calling a smart contract on a blockchain associated with the blockchain network 624. After the blockchain nodes verify the ZKPs to confirm that the SBLC 620 is legitimate, they can perform consensus and record the cyphertext of the encrypted SBLC 622 on the blockchain”; Fig. 12; and paragraphs [0171]-[0173], “[t]he beneficiary bank 708 can then confirm the acceptance of the SBLC at 1222 and request the blockchain network 2 707 to record the updated SBLC status on a second blockchain associated with the blockchain network 2 707 through consensus…. At 1224, the blockchain network 2 707 can update the SBLC status on the second blockchain as ‘issued’ through consensus and deliver the confirmation to the relay 705.” These citations indicate that the consensus is performed in order to update the blockchain and deliver the transaction request. One of ordinary skill knows that the consensus is reached based on the attributes in the transaction and the data stored on the blockchain. The data stored on the blockchain must be accessed and retrieved in order to perform validation.)
[…] appending a second block instance to a blockchain of the first computing device and a third block instance to the blockchain of the second computing device, the second block instance and the third block instance comprising data corresponding to the second transaction request. (See Fig. 12; paragraph [0172], “[a]t 1224, the blockchain network 2 707 can update the SBLC status on the second blockchain as ‘issued’ through consensus and deliver the confirmation to the relay 705. At 1226, the relay 705 can verify that the SBLC is issued on the second blockchain, provide proof of the verification, and relay the confirmation of acceptance to the blockchain network 1 703”; and paragraph [0174], “[t]his is to ensure that only one issued SBLC is effective, so that the beneficiary cannot obtain double payment from SBLCs stored on both the first and the second blockchains. At 1232, the blockchain network 1 703 can update the SBLC status on the first blockchain as ‘void.’” One of ordinary skill in the art knows that immutability is one of the important features of the blockchain. Updating the SBLC status to ‘issued’ or ‘void’ means appending to the blockchain another block instance associated with the updated status.)
Lu does not explicitly disclose the following:
responsive to receiving, from the second computing device, a second transaction request, retrieve the first plurality of transaction attributes from the first block instance;
responsive to determining that the first plurality of transaction attributes do not match the second plurality of transaction attributes, generate an alert to the first computing device or the second computing device indicating a difference between the first plurality of transaction attributes and the second plurality of transaction attributes;
receive an adjustment to the first plurality of transaction attributes or the second plurality of transaction attributes that corresponds to the difference from the first computing device or the second computing device; and
responsive to the adjusted first plurality of transaction attributes or second plurality of transaction attributes matching the other of the first plurality of transaction attributes or the second plurality of transaction attributes, append a block instance.
Aggarwal, an analogous art of processing blockchain transactions, discloses the following:
responsive to determining that the first plurality of transaction attributes do not match the second plurality of transaction attributes, generate an alert to the first computing device or the second computing device indicating a difference between the first plurality of transaction attributes and the second plurality of transaction attributes; receive an adjustment to the first plurality of transaction attributes or the second plurality of transaction attributes that corresponds to the difference from the first computing device or the second computing device. (See paragraphs [0043]-[0044], “[i]n step 312, the validation module 218 of the blockchain node 102 may attempt to confirm the blockchain transaction as validation thereof … and analysis of all identified blocks (e.g., as identified in step 308 for optimized validation, if applicable) … to ensure each unspent transaction output has not been used in a prior transaction, and to ensure that the currency associated with each unspent transaction output is sufficient to cover the transaction amounts to be used in the transfers in the new blockchain transaction…. If the transaction was not successfully validated (e.g., confirmation failed), such as due to prior use of a transaction output or a failed validation of the digital signature, then, in step 316, the transmitting device 220 of the blockchain node 102 may electronically transmit a notification message to the sender device 106 using a suitable communication network and method to notify a user thereof that the transaction's validation failed. In such cases, the sender device 106 may be provided with an opportunity to update the transaction data and re-submit the new blockchain transaction, such as by adjusting the transaction amounts or changing the transaction outputs being submitted.” The notification message must include information associated with the failure so that the transaction can be adjusted based on the information. One of ordinary skill in the art knows that an unspent transaction output must be validated against a previous transaction to make sure that the unspent transaction output exists and is not spent yet.)
responsive to the adjusted first plurality of transaction attributes or second plurality of transaction attributes matching the other of the first plurality of transaction attributes or the second plurality of transaction attributes, append a block instance. (See paragraph [0044], “[i]n such cases, the sender device 106 may be provided with an opportunity to update the transaction data and re-submit the new blockchain transaction, such as by adjusting the transaction amounts or changing the transaction outputs being submitted”; paragraphs [0046]-[0047], “[i]n step 408, the new blockchain transaction may be validated by the processor (e.g., validation module 218) of the blockchain node by validating at least the one or more unspent transaction outputs based on blockchain data values included in the identified subset of blocks. If validation of the new blockchain transaction is successful, then, in step 410, the processor (e.g., generation module 216) of the blockchain node may generate a new block including a new block header and one or more new data values, the one or more new data values including the new blockchain transaction, and a transmitter (e.g., the transmitting device 220) of the blockchain node may transmit the new block to a plurality of additional nodes (e.g., blockchain nodes 102) in the blockchain network.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Aggarwal in the Lu system. Moreover, in order to improve the accuracy and flexibility of the Lu system, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to alert the user device if the validation fails, to submit an adjusted transaction for validation, and to append a block instance if the validation of the adjusted transaction is successful, so that the transaction can be adjusted and validated effectively.
The combination of Lu and Aggarwal discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose responsive to receiving, from the second computing device, a second transaction request, retrieve the first plurality of transaction attributes from the first block instance.
Antonopoulos, an analogous art of processing blockchain transactions, discloses responsive to receiving, from the second computing device, a second transaction request, retrieve the first plurality of transaction attributes from the first block instance. (See pages 217-219, “Bitcoin’s decentralized consensus emerges from the interplay of four processes that occur independently on nodes across the network: Independent verification of each transaction, by every full node, based on a comprehensive list of criteria…. Each node verifies every transaction against a long checklist of criteria … A matching transaction in the pool, or in a block in the main branch, must exist…. For each input, look in the main branch and the transaction pool to find the referenced output transaction… For each input, the referenced output must exist and cannot already be spent.” These citations indicate that a pervious transaction is retrieved from the blockchain in order to validate the newly received transaction.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Antonopoulos in the Lu system as modified. Moreover, in order to improve the validation process of the Lu system as modified, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to retrieve the previous transaction related to the new transaction from the blockchain, so that the new transaction can be effectively and accurately validated based on the previous transaction.
Claims 2 and 12:
Lu in view of Aggarwal and Antonopoulos discloses limitations shown above.
Lu further discloses wherein the first computing device communicates with the second computing device via a private channel that is not accessible to other computing devices. (See paragraphs [0094]-[0095], “[f]or example, in response to the verification, the KMS (as challenger) can issue asymmetric encryption keys (e.g., a public-key and private-key pair) to the node executing the TEE (e.g., through a key exchange process, such as elliptical curve Diffie-Hellman (ECDH)) to enable the node to securely communicate with other nodes, and/or clients.”)
Claims 3 and 13:
Lu in view of Aggarwal and Antonopoulos discloses limitations shown above.
Lu further discloses appending a fourth block instance comprising the first plurality of transaction attributes to the blockchain of the first computing device in response to the first transaction request. (See paragraphs [0167]-[0170], “[a]s discussed in the description of FIG. 7, the applicant 702 and the beneficiary can agree on the terms of the SBLC, such as the guaranteed amount of loan in the SBLC…. After approval of the SBLC, the issuing bank 704 can finalize the SBLC source code, encrypt the SBLC source code, generate proofs, and include the encrypted SBLC and the proofs in a cross-chain request to the blockchain network 2 707…. For example, a blockchain node [e.g., a cloud node] connected to the issuing bank's 704 internal system can submit the cross-chain request for consensus. After the blockchain nodes verify the proofs that prove the legitimacy of the SBLC, the blockchain nodes can perform consensus and store the encrypted SBLC in one or more blocks to be appended to the first blockchain.”)
Claims 8 and 18:
Lu in view of Aggarwal and Antonopoulos discloses limitations shown above.
Lu discloses determine attribute types for each of the attributes of the first set of transaction attributes and the second set of transaction attributes; and determine whether the attributes of the first set of transaction attributes match corresponding attributes of the second set of transaction attributes based on the determined attribute types. (See Fig. 12 and paragraphs [0171]-[0174]. These citations indicate that the transaction type of SBLC is validated.)
Claims 9 and 19:
Lu in view of Aggarwal and Antonopoulos discloses limitations shown above.
Antonopoulos discloses wherein the plurality of transaction attributes comprise at least two of a second transaction type, a second length, a second start date, a second end date, a second amount, or a second maturity date of the pending transaction. (See pages 157-164, which disclose a timelock as a maturity date included in a transaction. Additionally, pages 121-122 disclose a transaction including one or more amounts.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Antonopoulos in the Lu system. Moreover, in order to improve the transaction verification process of the Lu system, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include different types of transaction attributes in a transaction, so that the pending transaction event can be effectively validated based on these different types of attributes.
Claims 10 and 20:
Lu in view of Aggarwal and Antonopoulos discloses limitations shown above.
Lu discloses wherein each of the third block instance and the fourth block instance comprises a hash of at least the data of the pending transaction. (See paragraph [0072]; paragraphs [0082]-[0083], “[t]ransaction data of multiple transactions are hashed and stored in a block. For example, hash values of two transactions are provided, and are themselves hashed to provide another hash. This process is repeated until, for all transactions to be stored in a block, a single hash value is provided”; and paragraph [0106], “[f]or example, the trusted computing module 420 can generate a hash value of the record, and adds a block that includes the record and the hash value to the blockchain associated with the blockchain network 409 that stores records associated with the guarantee.”)
Claim 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (US 20210150515 A1) in view of Aggarwal et al. (US 20210174343 A1), and further in view of Antonopoulos (“Mastering Bitcoin,” July 2017) and Harris (US 20200051129 A1).
Claims 4 and 14:
Lu in view of Aggarwal and Antonopoulos discloses limitations shown above.
Aggarwal discloses generating an alert. (See paragraph [0044].)
None of Lu, Aggarwal, and Antonopoulos explicitly discloses wherein the alert comprises a list of differences between the first set of transaction attributes and the second set of transaction attributes.
However, Harris, an analogous art of validating transactions, discloses wherein the alert comprises a list of differences between the first set of transaction attributes and the second set of transaction attributes. (See paragraph [0044], “[a]ccording to the present example, when the value of an attribute of the transaction that is identified by the given record 402 does not match the value for the same attribute of the same transaction that is provided (or otherwise indicated) by the corresponding records 502, the given record 402 is said to contain an error”; paragraphs [0082]-[0083], “[i]n some implementations, the indication may include one or more of: an identifier of the record that contains the error (i.e., the selected record 402), an indication of the attribute whose value is incorrect, an indication of the correct value, at least some of the information obtained from the records 502 that is used in calculating the correct value, etc. In some implementations, the indication may be transmitted, at step 912, to the advertising platform 108 or another entity in order to prevent the advertiser from being overcharged as a result of the error.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Harris in the Lu system as modified. Moreover, in order to improve the practicality of the Lu system as modified, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the differences between the two sets of the transaction attributes in the alert, so that the entities will be aware of the errors associated with the transaction and prevent more incorrect actions.
Claims 5-7 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (US 20210150515 A1) in view of Aggarwal et al. (US 20210174343 A1), and further in view of Antonopoulos (“Mastering Bitcoin,” July 2017), Guo et al. (US 20190347657 A1), and Kwon et al. (US 20210357369 A1).
Claims 5 and 15:
Lu in view of Aggarwal and Antonopoulos discloses limitations shown above.
None of Lu, DENG, and Antonopoulos explicitly discloses wherein the first plurality of transaction attributes comprises a blockchain identifier or block instance identifier and the one or more computing devices are configured to identify a second blockchain of the first computing device based on the blockchain identifier or the block instance identifier.
However, Guo, an analogous art of processing transactions, discloses wherein the one or more computing devices are configured to identify a second blockchain of the first computing device based on the blockchain identifier or the block instance identifier. (See paragraphs [0039]-[0043], “[i]n this step, the logical node device may determine whether a first block chain system identifier and a second block chain system identifier are the same. If the two are different, it indicates that the two accounts are served by different block chain systems, and can be processed by node devices on two block chain systems. Therefore, the logical node device may generate a cross-chain resource transfer request based on the first block chain system identifier, the second block chain system identifier, and the first account, the second account, and the quantity of to-be-transferred resources in the resource transfer request, and send the cross-chain resource transfer request to the first node device…. In an actual application scenario, when the first block chain system and the second block chain system are configured in same computer device, functions of the first node device, the second node device, and the logical node device may all be integrated into the computer device. Then in a scenario in which this step is performed by the computer device, when receiving the resource transfer request of the first account, the computer device may determine whether the first block chain system serving the first account and the second block chain system serving the second account are the same, and if not, trigger a cross-chain resource transfer request; or if yes, store the resource transfer request to the first block chain system.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Guo in the Lu system as modified. Moreover, in order to improve the practicality of the Lu system as modified, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the blockchain identifier as one of the transaction attributes and to identify a second blockchain based on the blockchain identifier, so that the cross-chain transaction can be transferred to the corresponding blockchain and that the cross-chain transaction can be processed accordingly.
Kwon, an analogous art of processing transactions, discloses wherein the first plurality of transaction attributes comprise a blockchain identifier or a block instance identifier. (See paragraph [0072], “[t]he stored interconnecting transaction information may include metadata such as the chain ID of the interconnecting transaction, the chain code ID, the name or identifier of the blockchain network to be interconnected, the time stamp related to the interconnecting transaction, and the transaction ID, and a backup of the data to be interconnected with a plurality of blockchain networks.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Kwon in the Lu system as modified. Moreover, in order to improve the efficiency of the Lu system as modified, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the blockchain identifier as one of the transaction attributes, so that the corresponding blockchain network can be easily identified and that the cross-chain transaction can be efficiently processed.
Claims 6 and 16:
Lu in view of Aggarwal, Antonopoulos, and Guo, and Kwon discloses limitations shown above.
Lu discloses wherein the identified blockchain comprises a set of rules; wherein the one or more computing devices are further configured to automatically execute a protocol to compare the second plurality of transaction attributes with the set of rules; and wherein the one or more computing devices are further configured to append the second blockchain instance to the blockchain of the first computing device or the third block instance to the blockchain of the second computing device responsive to determining the second plurality of transaction attributes complies with the set of rules. (See paragraph [0114], “[f]or example, the functions performed by the blockchain node 410 can be defined in a smart contract, in which mining nodes of the blockchain network execute the functions in the smart contract and consensus full nodes of the blockchain network verify the transactions”; paragraph [0116]; paragraph [0123], “[o]ne of bank A 602 and bank B 604 can send the cyphertext of the encrypted SBLC 622 to the blockchain network 624, e.g., by calling a smart contract on a blockchain associated with the blockchain network 624. After the blockchain nodes verify the ZKPs to confirm that the SBLC 620 is legitimate, they can perform consensus and record the cyphertext of the encrypted SBLC 622 on the blockchain”; paragraphs [0134]-[0136], “[i]n some embodiments, the cloud node can further define rules in the smart contract templates for updating different aspects of the SBLC or issue authorizations to different entities for updating the SBLC or its status. The cloud node can further add more templates to the smart contract upon request by entities that are authorized to invoke the smart contract. In some templates, the rules in the templates include rules that associate a date, time, location, and/or entity name associated with a SBLC updating event”; and paragraphs [0171]-[0174].)
Guo discloses wherein the first computing device corresponds to a second blockchain. (See paragraph [0043], “[i]n an actual application scenario, when the first block chain system and the second block chain system are configured in same computer device, functions of the first node device, the second node device, and the logical node device may all be integrated into the computer device. Then in a scenario in which this step is performed by the computer device, when receiving the resource transfer request of the first account, the computer device may determine whether the first block chain system serving the first account and the second block chain system serving the second account are the same, and if not, trigger a cross-chain resource transfer request; or if yes, store the resource transfer request to the first block chain system.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Guo in the Lu system as modified. Moreover, in order to improve the flexibility of the Lu system, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to associate a computing device with multiple blockchains, so that the computing device can be integrated with the functions of other devices and that the cross-chain transaction can be processed by the same computing device.
Claims 7 and 17:
Lu in view of Aggarwal, Antonopoulos, and Guo, and Kwon discloses limitations shown above.
Lu further discloses wherein the set of rules is stored in a regulation block of the second blockchain and wherein one or more computing devices are configured to automatically execute the protocol to compare the second plurality of transaction attributes with the data stored in the regulation block. (See paragraph [0114], “[f]or example, the functions performed by the blockchain node 410 can be defined in a smart contract, in which mining nodes of the blockchain network execute the functions in the smart contract and consensus full nodes of the blockchain network verify the transactions”; paragraph [0123], “[o]ne of bank A 602 and bank B 604 can send the cyphertext of the encrypted SBLC 622 to the blockchain network 624, e.g., by calling a smart contract on a blockchain associated with the blockchain network 624. After the blockchain nodes verify the ZKPs to confirm that the SBLC 620 is legitimate, they can perform consensus and record the cyphertext of the encrypted SBLC 622 on the blockchain”; paragraphs [0134]-[0136], “[i]n some embodiments, the cloud node can further define rules in the smart contract templates for updating different aspects of the SBLC or issue authorizations to different entities for updating the SBLC or its status. The cloud node can further add more templates to the smart contract upon request by entities that are authorized to invoke the smart contract. In some templates, the rules in the templates include rules that associate a date, time, location, and/or entity name associated with a SBLC updating event”; and paragraphs [0171]-[0174].)
Guo discloses the second blockchain. (See paragraph [0043], “[i]n an actual application scenario, when the first block chain system and the second block chain system are configured in same computer device, functions of the first node device, the second node device, and the logical node device may all be integrated into the computer device. Then in a scenario in which this step is performed by the computer device, when receiving the resource transfer request of the first account, the computer device may determine whether the first block chain system serving the first account and the second block chain system serving the second account are the same, and if not, trigger a cross-chain resource transfer request; or if yes, store the resource transfer request to the first block chain system.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Guo in the Lu system as modified. Moreover, in order to improve the flexibility of the Lu system, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to associate a computing device with multiple blockchains, so that the computing device can be integrated with the functions of other devices and that the cross-chain transaction can be processed by the same computing device.
Conclusion
The prior art, made of record and not relied upon, is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Qiu (US 20210160252 A1) discloses a system that processes cross-chain requests between different blockchain networks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUNLING DING, whose telephone number is (571)270-3605. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 7:30 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, an 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.
/CHUNLING DING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699