IP Library › Granted Patent US 12,309,289
Granted Patent B2
US 12,309,289 · App. 18/737,353 · Granted May 20, 2025

Scalable, secure, and broad-spectrum mechanism for enforcement of protocols over multi-agent systems

Inventors: Naftaly H. Minsky (New York, NY); Chen Cong (Santa Clara, CA); David M. Zimmerman (South Orange, NJ)
Assignee: Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
H04L9/3247H04L9/0643H04L9/3236H04L9/50H04L2209/56
View Patent ↗
Loading inventors, assignments & file history…
Monitor This Case
Get email alerts when status or documents change.
Order Certified Copies
Most orders are placed with the USPTO same day — all within 24 business hours.
Order via The Patent Place →
Pre-filled with this patent's details
Quick Facts
Patent No.
US 12,309,289
App. No.
18/737,353
Granted
May 20, 2025
Kind
B2
Abstract

Systems and methods for enforcing contract/protocol/law execution have a wide range of applicability. Embodiments have very low latency between a transaction and its validation and have strong scalability. An embodiment is a system for enforcing execution of a protocol among a plurality of parties. The example system includes (i) a controller provider configured to manage a plurality of automated controllers, (ii) a ledger, and (iii) an inspector. The controllers correspond to the plurality of parties. Each controller is configured to enforce execution of the protocol using a computer program integrated with the controller. The controller provider intercepts messages sent or received by the controllers and stores them in the ledger, representing history of events or operations between the parties, and the treatment of those events or operations by the controllers. The inspector accesses the ledger and evaluates whether representations of events or operations stored therein comply with the protocol.

Claims (29)

1. A system for enforcing execution of a protocol among a plurality of parties, the system comprising:

a processor; and

a memory with computer code instructions stored thereon, the memory operatively coupled to said processor such that the computer code instructions configure the processor to implement:

a controller provider configured to manage a plurality of automated controllers corresponding to the plurality of parties, each automated controller configured to enforce execution of the protocol using a computer program integrated with the automated controller;

a ledger configured to be accessible by the controller provider and to store representations of events or operations handled by the automated controllers; and

an inspector configured to access the ledger and evaluate whether representations of events or operations stored in the ledger are in accordance with the protocol.

2. A system as in claim 1 wherein the controller provider is configured to provide to the ledger time-ordered representations of events or operations handled by the automated controllers.

3. A system as in claim 1 wherein the ledger is implemented as a blockchain.

4. A system as in claim 1 wherein the inspector is configured to create model controllers corresponding to the automated controllers to track a state of each of the automated controllers.

5. A system as in claim 4 wherein a model controller includes a data structure that represents a current state of a corresponding automated controller.

6. A system as in claim 4 wherein the inspector is configured to use the state of a given model controller to predict a proper response of a corresponding automated controller to a next event to occur at the corresponding automated controller.

7. A system as in claim 6 wherein the inspector is configured to determine that the automated controller corresponding to the given model controller has malfunctioned if an entry added to the ledger by the corresponding automated controller does not match the response predicted by the inspector.

8. A system as in claim 7 wherein the inspector is configured to cause the malfunctioned automated controller to be reconstructed and its operation resumed with a last state before its malfunction.

9. A system as in claim 7 wherein the inspector is configured to report the malfunctioned automated controller and at least one operation it carried out before its reconstruction.

10. A system as in claim 1 wherein the computer code instructions further configure the processor to implement a plurality of inspectors, each inspector configured to evaluate representations of events or operations associated with a subset of the automated controllers.

11. A system as in claim 1 wherein the controller provider manages a plurality of automated controllers corresponding to a plurality of parties of different communities, each community of automated controllers operating subject to a different protocol.

12. A method of enforcing execution of a protocol among a plurality of parties, the method comprising:

accessing, via a controller provider, a plurality of automated controllers corresponding to the plurality of parties;

integrating the protocol with the automated controllers as a computer program executable by the automated controllers to enforce execution of the protocol;

storing, in a ledger, representations of events or operations handled by the automated controllers; and

inspecting a given representation of a given event or operation handled by a given automated controller to determine whether the given event or operation stored in the ledger is in accordance with the protocol.

13. A method as in claim 12 wherein the controller provider provides to the ledger time-ordered representations of events or operations handled by the automated controllers.

14. A method as in claim 12 wherein storing the representations in the ledger includes storing the representations in a blockchain.

15. A method as in claim 12 further comprising creating model controllers corresponding to the automated controllers to track a state of each of the automated controllers.

16. A method as in claim 15 further comprising predicting, based on a state of a given model controller, a proper response of a corresponding automated controller to a next event to occur at the corresponding automated controller.

17. A method as in claim 16 further comprising determining that the corresponding automated controller has malfunctioned if an entry added to the ledger by the corresponding automated controller does not match the predicted response.

18. A method as in claim 17 further comprising reconstructing the malfunctioned automated controller and resuming its proper operation.

19. A method as in claim 17 further comprising reporting the malfunctioned automated controller and at least one operation it carried out before it was reconstructed.

20. A method as in claim 12 wherein the controller provider manages a plurality of automated controllers corresponding to a plurality of parties of different communities, each community of automated controllers operating subject to a different protocol.

Assignments (1)
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Jun 11, 2024
From: MINSKY, NAFTALY H.; CONG, CHEN; ZIMMERMAN, DAVID
To: RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY
Reel/Frame 067687/0478 →
Continuity (3)
Continuation 17291241
Provisional Application 62768190 · Nov 16, 2018
Related Publication 20240333522A1 · Oct 3, 2024
References Cited (29)
US 11663609B2 · Christidis · 2023 [cited by examiner]
US 12041178B2 · Minsky · 2024 [cited by examiner]
US 20170039330A1 · Tanner et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20180089638A1 · Christidis et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20180096360A1 · Christidis · 2018 [cited by examiner]
US 20180113752A1 · Derbakova et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20210391998A1 · Minsky et al. · 2021 [cited by applicant]
WO 2020101869A1 · 2020 [cited by applicant]
Ao, X., et al., “Flexible regulation of distributed coalitions”, Computer Security—ESORICS 2003, pp. 39 60. Springer, 2003. [cited by applicant]
Blakstad S., et al., “FinTech Revolution: Universal Inclusion in the New Financial Ecosystem”, Springer, Jun. 27, 2018. [cited by applicant]
Castro, M., et al.“Proactive recovery in a byzantine-fault-tolerant system”, In osdi00, Oct. 2000. [cited by applicant]
Chen, Q., “In the World of Cryptocurrency buzz, blockchain is the real winner”, Jan. 11, 2018. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/10/in-the-world-of-cryptocurrency-buzz-blockchain-is-the-real-winner.html. [cited by applicant]
International Preliminary Report on Patentability for PCT/US2019/058277 dated May 27, 2021 titled “Scalable, Secure, And Broad-Spectrum Mechanism For Enforcement Of Protocols Over Multi-Agent Systems”. [cited by applicant]
International Search Report and Written Opinion received for PCT Patent Application No. PCT/US2019/058277, mailed on Jan. 17, 2020, 9 pages. [cited by applicant]
Ionescu, M., et al., “Enforcement of communal policies for peer-to-peer systems”, Proc. of the Sixth International Conference on Coordination Models and Languages, Pisa Italy, Dec. 2003. [cited by applicant]
Kasireddy, P., “Blockchains don't scale. Nol today, at least. But there's hope”. Aug. 22, 2017 https://hackernoon.com/blockchains-dont-scale-not-today-at-least-but-there-s-hope-2cb43946551a. [cited by applicant]
Merkel. D, “Docker: Lightweight linux containers for consistent development and deployment”, Linux Journal, (239):2, 2014. [cited by applicant]
Minksy, N.H., et al., “About LGI*”, Rutgers University, Apr. 15, 2018. LGI (Law Governed Interactions—http://www.moses.rutgers.edu/documentation/manual.pdf). [cited by applicant]
Minsky, N.H. “Law Governed Interaction {LGI): A Distributed Coordination and Control Mechanism {An Introduction, and a Reference Manual)”, Rutgers, Feb. 2006. (available at http://www.moses.rutgers.edu/). [cited by applicant]
Minsky, N.H., “On the dependability of highly heterogeneous and open distributed systems”, Journal of Software Engineering and Applications, 11, 28-68, 2018. [cited by applicant]
Minsky, N.H., et al., “Law-governed interaction: a coordination and control mechanism for heterogeneous distributed systems”, TOSEM, ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 27 pages, Jul. 2000. [cited by applicant]
Pearson, J., “WTF Is the Lighting Network and Will ii Save Bilcoin?”, Jan. 23, 2018. The Bitcoin Lightning Network—https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/gyw9aq/wll-is-the-lightning-network-and-will-it-save-bitcoin. [cited by applicant]
Peters, G.W., et al., “Understanding modem banking ledgers through blockchain technologies: Future of transaction processing and smart contracts on the internet of money,” Banking Beyond Banks and Money, 33 pages, Nov. … [cited by applicant]
Poon, J. et al., “The Bilcoin Lighting Network: Scalable Off-Chain Instant Payments”, 2016.https://lightning.network/ lightning-network-paper.pdf. [cited by applicant]
Poon, J., et al. “Plasma: Scalable Autonomous Smart Contracts”, Aug. 11, 2017. https://plasma.io/plasma.pdf. [cited by applicant]
ReportBuyer, “The global blockchain market size is expected to grow to USD 7,683.7 million by 2022”, PRNewswire, Dec. 26, 2017. https://www.pmewswire.com/news-releases/the-global-blockchain-market-size-is-expected-to-gr… [cited by applicant]
Smart Contracts Markel Report—Forecast 2027 MFRF—https://www.marketresearchfuture.com/reports/smart-contracts-market-4588)retrieved from Internet May 12, 2021. [cited by applicant]
Szabo, N., “Formalizing and securing relationships on public networks”, First Monday, 2(9), 1997. [cited by applicant]
Vukolic, M., “Rethinking permissioned blockchains”, Proceedings of the ACM Workshop on Blockchain, Cryptocurrencies and Contracts, pp. 3-7, 2017. [cited by applicant]