DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s response/application filed on 09/22/2026.
The Examiner notes that citations to United States Patent Application Publication paragraphs are formatted as [####], #### representing the paragraph number.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 12, and 20 have been amended.
No claims have been added or canceled.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7, 12, 16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gluck (US 20200076827), in view of Fay (US 20160292672), further in view of Awasthy (US 11501365).
Regarding claim(s) 1, 12, and 20, discloses:
a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing processor-executable instructions ([0049], [0050] of Gluck);
one or more processors ([0049], [0050] of Gluck);
memory ([0049], [0050] of Gluck);
computer-executable instructions stored in the memory ([0049], [0050] of Gluck) that, when executed by the one or more processors, are to cause the one or more processors to:
receive, at a first mining node, a message providing an ordered set of transactions associated with a candidate block being mined by a second mining node, and receive an encrypted list associated with the ordered set of transactions; (By disclosing, a blockchain node receives a block of transactions ([0053]-[0055] of Gluck));
the block solution identifies one or more invalid transactions within the ordered set of transactions (By disclosing, “If verification of the block succeeds, the block and the distributed blockchain are then checked at 210 for fraud. The check for fraud may, for example, be performed manually or automatically. In some embodiments, the check for fraud looks for fraud patterns in any update to the distributed blockchain that result from the block. In some embodiments, the check for fraud looks at whether the block is received from a node having a local copy of the distributed blockchain that is abnormally long compared to other nodes. If no fraud is detected, the block is stored at 212. By storing the block, the state of the distributed blockchain over time may, for example, be tracked. Storing the state of the distributed blockchain over time may, for example, aid in detecting fraud patterns at 210. If fraud is detected, a responsible party is notified at 214” ([0055] of Gluck));
modify the ordered set to remove the one or more invalid transactions; (By disclosing, “supposing the payload of the illegitimate block includes fraudulent transactions, the fraudulent transactions may be removed.” ([0037] of Gluck));
assemble a block header using the block solution and the ordered set modified to remove the one or more invalid transactions (By disclosing, “In some embodiments, a corrective block is generated at the same location in the distributed blockchain 108 as a corresponding illegitimate block. In some embodiments, the corrective block includes the payload of the illegitimate block less any illegitimate data. For example, supposing the payload of the illegitimate block includes fraudulent transactions, the fraudulent transactions may be removed.” ([0037] of Gluck); blockchain blocks contain headers ([0108], [0030] of Gluck)); and
validate the block solution by hashing the block header to validate the proof-of-work (By disclosing, “With each block mined, the nodes independently verify the block and vote by consensus on whether the block should be added to the distributed blockchain. Typically, voting is performed with the mining power of the nodes, such that the present state of the distributed blockchain is the state having the most proof of work (PoW).” ([0030] of Gluck); and “At 206, the block is verified. The verification may, for example, comprise verifying: 1) a data structure of the block is properly formatted; 2) the header hash of the block meets a difficulty target; 3) the size of the block is within predefined limits; 4) transactions in the block are valid; 5) other suitable parameter(s) of the block; or 6) or any combination of the foregoing.” ([0055] of Gluck)).
Gluck does not disclose:
subsequent to receiving the message, receive a block solution from the second mining node, wherein the block solution indicates successful completion of a proof-of-work with regard to the candidate block;
a block solution including a decryption key; and
decrypt the encrypted list using the decryption key to obtain a decrypted list.
However, Fay teaches:
subsequent to receiving the message, receive a block solution from the second mining node, wherein the block solution indicates successful completion of a proof-of-work with regard to the candidate block (By disclosing, “In step 260, the transactions submitted by computing device A 120A and computing device B 120B are “mined” by individual nodes that make up the blockchain computer system 214 to validate the submitted transactions and are eventually written to the blockchain 116 (e.g., the public or private ledger). Generally, once a blockchain transaction is submitted for verification it is received by one or more of the computer nodes (e.g., individual computers that may each correspond to the architecture shown in FIG. 5) within the blockchain computer system 214. Once received by a node, that node will propagate the blockchain transaction to other nodes within the blockchain computer system. Each node then performs a mining process on the transaction (or a group of transactions called “blocks”). The mining process is a process for solving a computationally difficult problem that is also easy to verify. In some embodiments, this includes solving a cryptographic hash algorithm or function. The solution to the problem is generally called a proof of work and is included with the transaction or block of transactions as a record that transaction has been “solved” or verified. Accordingly, once a new block for the submitted transactions is generated and verified into the blockchain it is part of the blockchain.” ([0055], [0031] of Fay)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the invention of Gluck in view of Fay to include a block solution including techniques of subsequent to receiving the message, receive a block solution from the second mining node, wherein the block solution indicates successful completion of a proof-of-work with regard to the candidate block. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would allow the block to be verified by other participants of the blockchain network.
And Awasthy teaches:
a block solution including a decryption key; and decrypt the encrypted list using the decryption key to obtain a decrypted list. (By disclosing, “In some embodiments, a block may include and/or otherwise provide access to a public key that enables decryption of encrypted data stored in the block.” (Col 6 lines 49-58 of Awasthy)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the invention of Gluck and Fay, in view of Awasthy to include a block solution including a decryption key; and decrypt the encrypted list using the decryption key to obtain a decrypted list. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would improve the security of the transmitted information by using encryption/decryption techniques.
Regarding claim(s) 5, Gluck discloses:
wherein receiving the block solution includes receiving a coinbase transaction and block header information, wherein the block header information includes at least a timestamp and a nonce. (By disclosing, cryptocurrency transactions ([0036], [0037] of Gluck); and “The header 910 comprises a version 914, a parent block hash 806, a Merkle root 916, a timestamp 918, a difficulty target 920, a nonce 922, an override 808, one or more override secrets, some other suitable parameter(s), or any combination of the foregoing.” ([0109] of Gluck)).
Regarding claim(s) 7 and 16, Gluck discloses:
wherein receiving the message occurs while the first mining node is hashing its own candidate block header in search of a proof-of-work. (By disclosing, “At 202, a block is received from the distributed blockchain system. The block may, for example, be a newly generated block propagating across the distributed blockchain system.” ([0053] of Cluck)).
Claim(s) 2, 3, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gluck (US 20200076827), in view of Fay (US 20160292672), further in view of Awasthy (US 11501365), and Ivanov (US 20190236881).
Regarding claim(s) 2 and 13, Gluck does not disclose, but Ivanov teaches:
replacing the one or more in valid transactions with one or more respective valid transactions (By disclosing, “In some implementations, that voter may have an opportunity to correct an invalid transaction responsive to an indication of non-validity. For example, corrections may be allowed before the election is ended. The ACVL 200 may request a new transaction that references the old transaction. The new transaction may redistribute the voter token (or other source token) in a different manner to attempt to achieve validity.” ([0081] of Ivanov)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the invention of Gluck, Fay and Awasthy, in view of Ivanov to include techniques of replacing the one or more in valid transactions with one or more respective valid transactions. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would improve the accuracy of the encrypted list of transactions.
Regarding claim(s) 3, 14, Gluck discloses:
a block includes one or more respective valid transactions (By disclosing, “The corrective blockchain represents the corrected state of the distributed blockchain 108. In some embodiments, a corrective block is generated at the same location in the distributed blockchain 108 as a corresponding illegitimate block. In some embodiments, the corrective block includes the payload of the illegitimate block less any illegitimate data. For example, supposing the payload of the illegitimate block includes fraudulent transactions, the fraudulent transactions may be removed.” ([0037] of Gluck)).
And Awasthy teaches:
decrypt an encrypted list using the decryption key in a block to obtain a decrypted list. (By disclosing, “In some embodiments, a block may include and/or otherwise provide access to a public key that enables decryption of encrypted data stored in the block.” (Col 6 lines 49-58 of Awasthy)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the invention of Gluck, Fay and Ivanov in view of Awasthy to include techniques of “wherein the decrypted list includes the one or more respective valid transactions”. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would improve the security of the transmitted information by using encryption/decryption techniques.
Claim(s) 4 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gluck (US 20200076827), in view of Fay (US 20160292672), further in view of Awasthy (US 11501365), Ivanov (US 20190236881), and Koorella (US 11487886).
Regarding claim(s) 4 and 15, Gluck does not disclose, but Koorella teaches:
wherein receiving the block solution includes receiving data identifying the one or more respective valid transactions (By disclosing, “The blocks of the transaction are delivered from the ordering node 284 to all peer nodes 281-283 on the channel. .... Transactions in the block are tagged as being valid or invalid.” (Col 9 line 63 – Col 10 line 9 of Koorella)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the invention of Gluck, Fay, Awasthy, and Ivanov, in view of Koorella to include techniques of “wherein receiving the block solution includes receiving data identifying the one or more respective valid transactions”. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would allow the transactions to be classified by the identified transaction status.
Claim(s) 6, 10, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gluck (US 20200076827), in view of Fay (US 20160292672), further in view of Awasthy (US 11501365), and Koorella (US 11487886).
Regarding claim(s) 6, Gluck does not disclose, but Koorella teaches:
wherein the one or more invalid transactions includes a transaction that violates at least one validity criteria prescribed by a blockchain protocol for the blockchain network. (By disclosing, “a committer of the block (such as blockchain node 712) may add validity/invalidity information based on an endorsement policy, verification of read/write sets, and the like” (Col 16 lines 42-56 of Koorella)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the invention of Gluck, Fay and Awasthy, in view of Koorella to include techniques of “wherein the one or more invalid transactions includes a transaction that violates at least one validity criteria prescribed by a blockchain protocol for the blockchain network”. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would allow the transactions to be validated based on blockchain criteria.
Regarding claim(s) 10 and 18, Gluck does not disclose, but Koorella teaches:
wherein the message includes a list of TxIDs specifying the ordered set of transactions. (By disclosing, “The block data 750 may store transactional information of each transaction that is recorded within the new data block 730. For example, the transaction data may include one or more of a type of the transaction, a version, a timestamp, a channel ID of the distributed ledger 720, a transaction ID,…” (Col 16 lines 15-29 of Koorella)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the invention of Gluck, Fay and Awasthy, in view of Koorella to include techniques of “wherein the message includes a list of TxIDs specifying the ordered set of transactions”. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would allow the transactions to be retrieved easily based on the transaction ID.
Claim(s) 8, 9, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gluck (US 20200076827), in view of Fay (US 20160292672), further in view of Awasthy (US 11501365), Koorella (US 11487886), and Navaranjan (EP 3605945 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 8 and 17, Gluck discloses:
at the first mining node, while hashing its own candidate block header, validating the ordered set of transactions obtained in the message ([0037], [0053]-[0055] of Gluck).
Gluck does not disclose, but Koorella teaches:
identifying the one or more invalid transactions (By disclosing, “The blocks of the transaction are delivered from the ordering node 284 to all peer nodes 281-283 on the channel. .... Transactions in the block are tagged as being valid or invalid.” (Col 9 line 63 – Col 10 line 9 of Koorella)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the invention of Gluck, Fay, Awasthy, and Ivanov, in view of Koorella to include techniques of “identifying the one or more invalid transactions”. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would allow the transactions to be classified by the identified transaction status.
And Navaranjan teaches:
confirming that the one or more data identified by the first mining match the one or more data in the decrypted list. (By disclosing, “The recipient apparatus 105 then compares the decrypted received subject data to the subject data identified in the data structure 300.” ([0114] of Navaranjan)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the invention of Gluck, Fay, Awasthy, Ivanov, and Koorella, in view of Navaranjan to include techniques of “confirming that the one or more invalid transactions identified by the first mining node in the ordered set match the one or more invalid transactions in the decrypted list”. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would allow the data to be validated based on the discrepancy.
Regarding claim(s) 9, Gluck discloses:
determining that the first mining node is using a poisoned transaction block propagation protocol ([0055], [0037] of Gluck).
Claim(s) 11, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gluck (US 20200076827), in view of Fay (US 20160292672), further in view of Awasthy (US 11501365), and Geckle (US 20150170147).
Regarding claim(s) 11 and 19, Gluck does not disclose, but Geckle teaches:
transaction data includes indices of the one or more invalid transactions. (By disclosing, “The transaction fraudrisk attributes may include summaries of other attributes associated to the transaction or other indicators of fraudrisk. For example, the database server 125 may have fields that are indicators of fraudrisk transactions, specifically results of fraud models 120 that indicate that a transaction had the order attributes, retailer attributes, or network attributes that match a particular fraud model's filter criteria. Other indicators of fraud risk may be customer complaints, customer disputes, an ordered apparatus such as a mobile phone that is never activated and indicators of no intent to pay (such as not paying the bill on time or being 30 days late etc.), Police reports, or any information found to correlate with fraud-transactions.” ([0022] of Geckle)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the invention of Gluck, Fay and Awasthy, in view of Geckle to include indices of the one or more invalid transactions. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would allow the users to know the reasons for identifying the transactions to be fraudulent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection initiated by applicant’s amendment to the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20220270102 to Nishida for disclosing:
A controlling method is executed by one device among a plurality of devices each including a distributed ledger in an illicit transaction reporting system that reports an illicit transaction in electronic transactions, and the controlling method includes obtaining report transaction data that includes report information indicating a report that one transaction is suspected of being illicit, transferring the report transaction data obtained to other devices among the plurality of devices and storing the report transaction data into the distributed ledger of the one device, obtaining approving or disapproving transaction data that includes approving or disapproving information with regard to the report, transferring the approving or disapproving transaction data obtained to the other devices and storing the approving or disapproving transaction data into the distributed ledger of the one device, and determining whether the report is correct based on the approving or disapproving information in the approving or disapproving transaction data.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4642. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10 AM-5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Neha Patel can be reached at 571-270-1492. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DUAN ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
