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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the original filing of 09/01/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered below.
Priority
19315838 filed 09/01/2025 is a continuation of PCT/CN2023/137307, filed 12/08/2023; claims foreign priority to 202310785769.8, filed 06/29/2023.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 09/01/2025 are accepted.
Specification
The specification filed on 07/01/2025 is accepted.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/01/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “in reponse to the verification of the signature succeeds” is not grammatically correct. The examiner suggest amending the limitations as follow” “in reponse to successfuldetermining that the verification of the signature succeeds” . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: “in response to a computing result for the computing task by each computing node in a computing node set participating in the execution of the computing task is received” is not grammatically correct. The examiner suggest amending the limitations as follow” “in response to receiving a computing result for the computing task by each computing node in a computing node set participating in the execution of the computing task. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 10, 13, 16-17 and 19-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: “the claims are device, and CRM claims the examiner kindly request the applicant to amend the claims in independent form. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2 and 11: Independent claims 2 and 11, each claim recites three architectural clauses, separated as [A]; [B]; or [C]. It is unclear whether: 1 clauses A and B are cumulative and together form one alternative to C; 2 A, B, and C are three independent alternatives. The specification teaches describe A and B together as at Fig.3A [0053] and C as Fig.3B [0056], which suggest reading (1). The punctuation, however, supports (2) because the scope differs materially between the two readings, a person of ordinary skill cannot determine the metes and bounds. For examination purpose only reading (2) is applied under BRI.
Claim 15: is rejected because of the following;
Claim 15 recites the limitation ““adding the computing device to the computing node cluster” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
”updating a node state table through the computing device” it is unclear as to which entity performs the update and what “through” requires.
“a node state of each computing node connected to the target computing device” it is unclear in the disclose architecture to a schedule node not to one another[0053], [0175], “each computing node connected to the node state table”. It is unclear which set of nodes the table must track.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 10, 13-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manevich U.S. 2021/0135847 A1 in view of Davies U.S. 2022/0410017 A1.
Claim 1: Manevich teaches a data processing method, performed on a verification node in a verification node cluster of a computing system (Manevich: ¶[0070] committing peer node 281-283 maintain and validate the ledger, “before committal to the blockchain, each peer 281-283 may verify that the endorser peer node selection process was indeed random, and validate the transaction” ¶[0052] “each of the N peer nodes 110 may include the random selection process built therein so that when it comes time to commit a transaction (and its corresponding block) to the blockchain, the N peer nodes 110 can also validate the random selection process”), comprising:
obtaining task event information and a signature for the task event information from a scheduling node in a scheduling node cluster of the computing system (Manevich: ¶[0052] the selecting entity is the client 260 or, alternatively ”a trusted peer that the SDK can query, and acts as a service that computes the selection for the client” see also ¶[0087] “ the random organization selection process may be performed by a peer node or other service instead of the client 420.” That entity assembles the endorsements “into a transaction payload 293” see ¶[0070]), the task event information including a first computing node set participating in execution of a computing task (Manevich: ¶[0074], “The transaction may contain the read/write sets, the randomly selected endorsing peers signatures and a channel ID” [0114] “ identities of endorsers, endorser signatures,” The endorsing peers executed the chaincode, i.e., the computing task);
performing verification on the signature (Manevich: ¶[0070],committing peers “authenticated the signatures against the transaction payload 293.” ¶[0004] “the committing nodes may verify the signatures of the endorser nodes “ ¶[0072] endorser very that “the signature is valid”.);
deriving a random number set based on the random seed in response to the verification of the signature succeeds (Manevich: ¶[0058], “ the peer nodes in the blockchain network can retrieve the same block hash and perform the same binary random number generation” ¶[0070], “the peers may perform their own random selection process based on the same block hash” [0115],Manevich performs signature authentication and selection re-derivation together at validation[0064].Only a transaction that passes validation is added);
selecting, for the computing task, a second computing node set associated with the random number set from a computing node cluster of the computing system (Manevich:¶[0058], “each of the peers can segment the block hash and map the segments to unique organization IDs”¶[0089]-¶[0091], The IDs entity endorser peers among the N peer nodes);
verifying validity of the first computing node set by using the second computing node set, to obtain a verification result (Manevich:¶[0058], “to unique organization IDs to ensure that the same organization IDs are selected by the client, thereby validating that the correct endorser nodes were selected based on their corresponding organizations derived from the binary random number.”¶[0070], “ to verify the correct endorser nodes were selected” ¶[0076]” check whether the transaction included in the block was simulated and endorsed by peers according to the random selection”); and
adding a block including the verification result to a blockchain of the verification node cluster (Manevich:¶[0075], “Transactions in the block are tagged”; ¶[0076], “if the random selection is verified successfully, in step 296 each peer node 281-283 appends the block to the channel's chain, and for each valid transaction the write sets are committed to current state database”; ¶[0098], “If the check is successful, the transaction is added to the ledger by the committing peers, otherwise the transaction is not added.”).
Manevich fails to teach, however Davies et al in the same field of endeavor teaches
and a random seed provided by a task submission end of the computing task (Davies et al: teaches a seed provided by a requesting user and recorded in a signed transaction: ¶[0011], “the oracle … obtains a user seed data item from a current user … which is used to generate a pseudorandom number… Since the current user provides their own seed, s/he can be confident that the pseudorandom number has been generated fairly” [0188], “the user seed … may be included in a blockchain transaction” [0189], “The user may … add their user seed …. to the commitment transaction … the oracle 502 may sign the commitment transaction as a whole”);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Manevich so that the seed used for endorser/computing node selection is supplied by the task submitter and carried in the signed transaction, as suggested by Davies et al ¶[0011], ¶[0188]-¶[0189].
Claim 10:Manevich teaches a computer device comprising:
a memory storing a computer program; and a processor configured to execute the computer program to implement the method according to claim 1 (Manevich teaches [0005] “a system that includes.. a processor configured to” [0162] “a computer system/server 902 “ with “ [0164]” one or more processors or processing units 904, a system memory 906, and a bus that couples various system components including system memory 906 to processor 904. “).
Claim 13: Manevich teaches non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program that, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to implement the method according to claim 1 (Manevich: ¶[0007]” a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions, that when read by a processor, cause the processor to perform”).
Claim 14: Manevich teaches a data processing method, performed on a scheduling node in a scheduling node cluster of a computing system (Manevich: ¶ [0052], The trusted peer service “ that computes the selection for the client” or the client SDK logic that “fetches a latest block … and then uses the information to compute the randomized selection “; ¶[0087], “a peer node or other service instead of the client 420”) comprising:
receiving a computing request transmitted by a task submission end, the computing request including a computing task (Manevich: ¶[0071],the client application task submission end) generates the transaction, “a request to invoke a chaincode function” the SDK” The SDK may serve as a shim to package the transaction proposal “);
deriving a random number set based on the random seed (Manevich: ¶[0054], “ the block hash may act as a seed value to the PRNG which converts the hash value into a binary random number”;¶[0055], bit segment are converted to decimal values);
selecting, for the computing task, a computing node set associated with the random number set from a computing node cluster of the computing system (Manevich:¶[0070], “the application client node 260 may randomly select endorsing peer organizations based on a hash”; [0049] decimal values map to unique to organization IDs until K are found);
dispatching the computing task to the computing node set, so that the computing node set executes the computing task (Manevich:¶[0070],” The application client node 260 may identify K endorser nodes and transmit the transaction proposal 291 to the endorsing peer nodes“ the endorsers “chaincode function”);
updating the computing task to a completed state in response to receiving a computing result of each computing node in the computing node set for the computing task (Manevich: ¶[0073], ”the application of the client 260 inspects/verifies the endorsing peers signatures and compares the proposal responses“; “the application determines if the specified endorsement policy has been fulfilled before submitting (i.e., did all peer nodes necessary for the transaction endorse the transaction”). ¶[0074], After “successful inspection,” client assembles and submits the transaction);
generating task event information and a signature for the task event information, the task event information including the computing node set and the random seed (Manevich: ¶[0074], The client “assembles endorsements into a transaction” containing “the randomly selected endorsing peers signatures”, signed with the client’s credentials. The transaction carries the integrity value identifying the seed block); and
transmitting the task event information and the signature for the task event information to a verification node, connected to the scheduling node, in a verification node cluster of the computing system, so that the verification node verifies validity of the computing node set (Manevich: ¶[0074], ¶[0075], ¶[0076], The client “broadcasts the transaction proposal and response within a transaction message to the ordering node 284”; blocks are “ delivered from the ordering node 284 to all peer nodes 281-283”. The peers “verify the random endorser organization selection process performed by the client”).
Manevich fails to teach, however Davies et al in the same field of endeavor teaches
and a random seed provided for the computing task (Davies et al: teaches a seed provided by a requesting user and recorded in a signed transaction: ¶[0011], “the oracle … obtains a user seed data item from a current user … which is used to generate a pseudorandom number… Since the current user provides their own seed, s/he can be confident that the pseudorandom number has been generated fairly” [0188], “the user seed … may be included in a blockchain transaction” [0189], “The user may … add their user seed …. to the commitment transaction … the oracle 502 may sign the commitment transaction as a whole”, ¶[0210], “the user sends the user seed… to oracle ‘s pseudorandom number generator”);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Manevich so that the seed used for endorser/computing node selection is supplied by the task submitter and carried in the signed transaction, as suggested by Davies et al ¶[0011], ¶[0188]-¶[0189].
Claim 16: Manevich teaches computer device comprising:
a memory storing a computer program; and a processor configured to execute the computer program to implement the method according to claim 14. (Manevich teaches [0005] “a system that includes.. a processor configured to” [0162] “a computer system/server 902 “ with “ [0164]” one or more processors or processing units 904, a system memory 906, and a bus that couples various system components including system memory 906 to processor 904. “).
Claim 17: Manevich teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program that, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to implement the method according to claim 14. (Manevich: ¶[0007]” a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions, that when read by a processor, cause the processor to perform”).
Claim 18: Manevich teaches a data processing method, performed on a computing node in a computing node cluster of a computing system (Manevich: ¶[0070], Endorsing peer nodes 281, 283), comprising:
receiving a computing request transmitted by a scheduling node connected to the computing node, the computing request instructing to execute a computing task submitted by a task submission end (Manevich: ¶[0070], ¶[0071], The client/peer service transmits “the transaction proposal 291 to the endorsing peer nodes”. The proposal “is a request to invoke a chaincode function”);
executing the computing task to obtain a computing result (Manevich: ¶[0072], “The endorsing peer nodes 281 and 283 may take the transaction proposal inputs as arguments to the invoked chaincode function. The chaincode is then executed against a current state database to produce transaction results including a response value, read set, and write set”), and signing the computing result based on a digital certificate of the computing task to obtain signature information (Manevich: ¶[0070], ¶[0078], ¶[0046], “The set of values, along with signatures of the respective endorsing peer nodes 281 and 283 is passed back as a proposal response”; “endorsement signature”. Signatures are made under the peers’ enrollment certificates: “enrollment and transaction certificates from a certificate authority”; “the entire x509 certificate” is carried in the transaction.); and
transmitting the computing result and the signature information to the scheduling node, to (Manevich: ¶[0072], “…passed back as a proposal response 292 to the SDK of the client 260”),
cause the scheduling node to:
update the computing task to a completed state in response to a computing result for the computing task by each computing node in a computing node set participating in the execution of the computing task is received (Manevich: ¶[0073], ”the application of the client 260 inspects/verifies the endorsing peers signatures and compares the proposal responses“; “the application determines if the specified endorsement policy has been fulfilled before submitting (i.e., did all peer nodes necessary for the transaction endorse the transaction”). ¶[0074], After “successful inspection,” client assembles and submits the transaction);
generate task event information and a signature for the task event information, the task event information including the computing node set (Manevich: ¶[0074], The client “assembles endorsements into a transaction” containing “the randomly selected endorsing peers signatures”, signed with the client’s credentials. The transaction carries the integrity value identifying the seed block) and a random seed provided by the task submission end; and
transmit the task event information and the signature for the task event information to a verification node, connected to the scheduling node, in a verification node cluster of the computing system, so that the verification node verifies validity of the computing node set (Manevich: ¶[0074], ¶[0075], ¶[0076], The client “broadcasts the transaction proposal and response within a transaction message to the ordering node 284”; blocks are “ delivered from the ordering node 284 to all peer nodes 281-283”. The peers “verify the random endorser organization selection process performed by the client”).
and a random seed provided by the task submission end (Davies et al: teaches a seed provided by a requesting user and recorded in a signed transaction: ¶[0011], “the oracle … obtains a user seed data item from a current user … which is used to generate a pseudorandom number… Since the current user provides their own seed, s/he can be confident that the pseudorandom number has been generated fairly” [0188], “the user seed … may be included in a blockchain transaction” [0189], “The user may … add their user seed …. to the commitment transaction … the oracle 502 may sign the commitment transaction as a whole”, ¶[0210], “the user sends the user seed… to oracle ‘s pseudorandom number generator”);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Manevich so that the seed used for endorser/computing node selection is supplied by the task submitter and carried in the signed transaction, as suggested by Davies et al ¶[0011], ¶[0188]-¶[0189].
Claims 19 and 20: claims 19 and 20 are rejected on the same basis as claim 18 (processor/memory and CRM (Manevich: ¶[0005], ¶[0007], ¶[0162]).
Claims 3-4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manevich U.S. 2021/0135847 A1 in view of Davies U.S. 2022/0410017 A1 in further view of Bentov Proof of Activity: Extending Bitcoin’s Proof of work via Proof of Stake, Performance Evaluation Review, Vol. 42, No. 3. December 2014 and Mutnuru U.S. 9,571,570 B1.
Claims 3 and 12: the combination teaches wherein selecting the second computing node set includes:
selecting a candidate computing node set from the computing node cluster (Manevich: ¶[0055], “each of the N organizations can be assigned a unique identifier from 0 to N−1”, i.e., the candidate endorsers eligible for selection);
The combination fails to teach, however Bentov in the same field of endeavor teaches
determining, for various candidate computing nodes in the candidate computing node set, random number ranges corresponding to the various candidate computing nodes, respectively, based on evaluation values of the various candidate computing nodes (Bentov: page 36 section 3 “follow-the-satoshi, whereby we transform some pseudoran dom value into a satoshi (smallest unit of the cryptocurrency) that is picked uniformly among all the satoshis that have been minted thus far. This is done by selecting a pseudorandom index between zero and the total number of satoshis in existence up to the last block, inspecting the block in which this satoshi was minted, and following each transaction that transferred this satoshi to a subsequent ad dress until reaching the address that currently controls this satoshi. Note that this process can be regarded as picking a pseudorandom stakeholder in a uniform fashion, e.g. if Alice has 2 coins and Bob has 6 coins then Alice is 3 times less likely to be picked compared to Bob”.),
for a random number in the random number set, adding a candidate computing node corresponding to a random number range in which the random number is located to the second computing node set (Bentov: page 36 section 3 the pseudorandom index is resolved to the holder of that index.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Manevich’s uniformly selection among N organizations to replace uniform mapping with bentov’s weight proportional (following the Satoshi) mapping so that more capable participant are proportionality more likely to be chosen, as suggested by Bentov page 36,section step 3.
The combination fails to teach, however Mutnuru in the same field of endeavor teaches
respectively, based on evaluation values of the various candidate computing nodes each representing an availability degree of a computing resource, the random number ranges corresponding to the various candidate computing nodes not overlapping with each (Mutnuru: col.6,ll.23-65,supplies the resource-based weight: “Load balancing server 220 may set a weight for a backend server 210 based on the properties of a backend server 210. For example, a first backend server 210 having a greater processing capability and/or more storage may be given a greater weight” col.3, ll.25-40, “the probability that a particular backend server will be selected to store the object may be proportional to the weight of the backend server”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Manevich with the additional feature of Mutnuru in order to provide load balancing across the backend servers in a weighted manner., as suggested by Mutnuru col.3, ll.30-38.
Claim 4: the combination teaches wherein selecting the candidate computing node set includes:
selecting the candidate computing node set from a plurality of computing nodes in the computing node cluster that are connected to the scheduling node( connected to the scheduling node ( Mutnuru col.6, ll.55-57,teaches load-balancing servers that select only among “ the same group of backend servers 210” to which they “are connected and/or control” Manevich’s client/peer service selects among the peers with which it communicates on the channel ([0070], [0072]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manevich U.S. 2021/0135847 A1 in view of Davies U.S. 2022/0410017 A1 in further view of He U.S. 2017/0244562 A1.
Claim 8: the combination teaches wherein performing verification on the signature includes:
decrypting the signature through a public key of the scheduling node, to obtain first digest information of the task event information generated by the scheduling node; performing digest extraction on the task event information to obtain second digest information (Manevich:[0118]; [0114]” a client (creator) identify such as a public key and certificate, a signature of the client,”); and
the combination fails to teach, however He in the same field of endeavor teaches
determining whether the verification of the signature succeeds based on the first digest information and the second digest information (He:[0031], [0064]” if the first digest information and the second digest information are the same, confirming, by the SoC, that security verification of the target). software succeeds”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Manevich with the additional feature of He in order to provide the ability to provide a security information configuration method, so as to reduce costs, simplify a security information configuration process, and improve security and reliability of security information configuration, as suggested by He abstract.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manevich U.S. 2021/0135847 A1 in view of Davies U.S. 2022/0410017 A1 in further view of Lima U.S. 2022/0006860 A1.
Claim 15: the combination teaches further comprising:
issuing a digital certificate to the target computing device, and returning deployment success indication information to the target computing device, the deployment success indication information carrying the digital certificate (Manevich:[0078], “blockchain users must possess these digital certificates in order to transact on the permissioned blockchain” issued by “certificate authority 316:)
the combination fails to teach, however Luma in the same field of endeavor teaches
receiving a computing node deployment request, the computing node deployment request carrying identity information of a target computing device and resource configuration information (Lima:¶[0080], “ Illustrated processing block 410 notifies the managing node of the addition of the compute node and any relevant features of the compute node (e.g., available resources, pricing requests, etc.). For example, the compute node may register itself with the managing node. The registration information may be in a form of a tuple (e.g., IP address, time interval of availability, resources available, etc.)”; ¶[0075] Identity:” P2P network id=hash (Blockchain and/or DLP public address, IP address, country code)” ;
determining whether the target computing device satisfies a configuration need of the computing node based on the resource configuration information in response to success of validity verification of the identity information (Lima:¶[0077], “determines whether the selected resource requirement for the tier meet the historical record for the compute node…. the historical resource usage … of the compute node should meet the minimum requirements… for the tier.”; ¶[0077], tier selection “based on processing power”; Manevich : ¶[0078] identities are verified before a member may transact” the peer node 314 retrieves the user's enrollment and transaction certificates from a certificate authority 316, which manages user roles and permissions.”);
adding the computing device to the computing node cluster in response to the computing device satisfying the configuration need, and updating a node state table through the computing device, the node state table being configured for storing a node state of each computing node connected to the target computing device (Lima: [0078]-[0080]; “if resource requirements are met”, the node is added to the managing node’s list for the tier; the managing node “and “The copy of this registration may also be stored in a Blockchain and/or DLT for auditing purposes.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Manevich with the additional feature of Lima in order to provide the ability to determine whether the selected resource requirement for the tier meet the historical record for the compute node, as suggested by Lima [0078].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 5-7, 9 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 11,784789 Distributed platform For Computation and Trusted Validation.
2023/0318857 A1 Method and Apparatus for Producing Verifiable Randomness within a Decentralized Computing Network.
2021/0099312 A1 Systems AND Methods for Selecting and Utilizing a Committee of Validator Nodes in a Distributed System.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FATOUMATA TRAORE whose telephone number is (571)270-1685. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30-3:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SHEWAYE GELAGAY can be reached at 5712724219. 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.
Thursday, September 24, 2026
/FATOUMATA TRAORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2436
Prosecution Insights