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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on pages 18-19 of the response, “The Grube reference fails to teach delegate encryption fracture nodes as Grube’s DS processing module 16 of Figure 1 and Figure 3 of Grube never delegate to other nodes. It stores in DS storage units 36, but the DS storage units are not delegates. They are not capable of delegation and in fact, relies on the grid module 82 which is part of the DS processing 34 computing core 26 while the DS units 36 are part of basically network storage memory 22. As such the DS units are incapable of delegation as noted below in Figures 1, 3, paragraphs 35 and 67 of Grube.” In response, the claims do not require the claimed delegate encryption fracture nodes to perform any actual delegation. In other words, the claims do not include a functional delegation step that is required by the claims to be performed by the claimed delegate encryption fracture nodes. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim scope is limited by claim language that requires functional steps to be performed and by claim language that limits a claim to particular structure (MPEP 2111.04). Here, the “delegate encryption fracture” limitation specific to the claimed delegate encryption fracture nodes fails to limit the claimed nodes to any particular structure and fails to require functional steps to be performed. Therefore, the “delegate encryption fracture” limitation would simply be considered the name of the claimed nodes, which represents non-functional descriptive material that is not given patentable weight (MPEP 2111.05).
Applicant argues on pages 20-21 of the response, “In fact, Julien teaches away from delegation as it notes it does not want its intermediary network nodes having to ‘repeatedly to defragment and re-fragment’ datagrams inside the node/network’ and that it would leave such a task as being ‘preferable only to have to defragment in the ‘end host’’.” In response, Julien was not relied upon to disclose the claimed delegate encryption fracture nodes. Instead, the DS storage units of Grube are relied upon to teach the claimed delegate encryption fracture nodes (See page 13 of the Non-Final rejection mailed 30 May 2025, “Non-Final”). The Non-Final did not include any proposed modification of Grube in view of the teachings of Julien in order to teach the claimed delegate encryption fracture nodes. Therefore, whether or not the secondary reference, Julien, teaches away from delegation is moot, since the Julien reference was never relied upon in the Non-Final to modify the primary reference, Grube, to disclose delegation as alleged.
Applicant argues on page 23 of the response, “In essence, the Office Action is engaged redefining Applicant’s claims, specification, asserting that Applicant’s provision of ‘swarm effect’ arguing that somehow a gateway is apparently somehow to be interpreted to be serial execution in its nature…that somehow means a ‘swarm effect’ is not to be given its customary swarm…meaning, but that it somehow means bees are to be expected to line up single file in an orderly line when the ‘swarm’ around something.” In response, Applicant’s specification does not define “swarm effect”. “Swarm effect” is not a term of art in the field of electrical communications. To act as their own lexicographer, the applicant must clearly set forth a special definition of a claim term in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning it would otherwise possess. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366, 62 USPQ2d 1658, 1662 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The specification may also include an intentional disclaimer, or disavowal, of claim scope. In both of these cases, "the inventor’s intention, as expressed in the specification, is regarded as dispositive." Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). See also Starhome GmbH v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 743 F.3d 849, 857, 109 USPQ2d 1885, 1890-91 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that the term "gateway" should be given its ordinary and customary meaning of "a connection between different networks" because nothing in the specification indicated a clear intent to depart from that ordinary meaning); Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1367-68, 101 USPQ2d 1457, 1460 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (MPEP 2111.01).
Applicant argues on page 25 of the response, “In addition, the Office Action makes much of considering the specification, but completely ignores plain and explicit language in the specification further stating the vary same as the above dictional definition, namely from paragraph 00107 which explicitly states features of the specification ar enot [sic] limited to serial execution but simultaneous embodiments are contemplated:” In response, paragraph [0107] fails to disclose the use of the proxy hop parameter to dictate parallel transmission of data.
Applicant argues on page 26 of the response, “The Office Action seems to be attempting to take Official Notice without the required formalities, by asserting that a gateway that can handle multiple and simultaneous connections somehow necessitates a ‘swarm effect’ is serial in nature instead of its ordinary and common sense meaning and how that allows the Office to ignore literal support in the specification (e.g., paragraph 00107) allowing parallel/simultaneous activity, which is the epitome of impermissible hindsight and impermissibly reengineering a reference in hindsight.” This argument is not persuasive because the Final did not take Official Notice, nor was any Official Notice implied. Instead, the Non-Final clearly explains what Applicant’s specification actually supports as it pertains to the claim language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5-10, 15-20, 25-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification does not support the limitation that specifies the apparatus provide the encrypted fractured portions to plural delegate nodes based on a number found in the electronic resource transfer datastructure. Examiner contacted Walter G. Hanchuk on 26 March 2019 in order to request citations of support for the limitations in question. Mr. Hanchuk explained that the limitations in question are supported by paragraphs [0019], [0031], and [0038]. However, the cited paragraphs do not support the limitations as claimed. Paragraph [0019] suggests that a proxy can send transaction data to a plurality of other proxies, however, there is no suggestion that the number of proxies is determined based upon a number found in the transaction data.
Paragraph [0031] discloses a user setting fractured distribution parameters that are provided to the fractured distributor component. These fractured distribution parameters include a hop setting, which the specification later clarifies as the minimum number of proxy hops ([0034]). However, proxy hops is a sequential measure as explained in paragraph [0034]. Specifically paragraph [0034] describes a scenario with a minimum number of 2 proxy hops required. The user sends the request to a first proxy, which sends the request to a second proxy. This description is entirely different from the amended claims which requires a single device to transmit the fractured data to a plurality of delegates.
Paragraph [0038] discloses a similar sequential transmission scenario where the data is transmitted to proxies one at a time until the required number of hops is reached. Therefore, it is clear from the specification, that the amended claim limitations are not supported by the specification.
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 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.
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 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.
Claims 5-10, 15-20, 25-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grube, U.S. Publication No. 2013/0136258, in view of Julien, U.S. Publication No. 2009/0110003, in view of Gopal, U.S. Publication No. 2009/0109893, and further in view of Karame, U.S. Publication Nol. 2018/0191502. Referring to claims 5, 15, 25, 31, Grube discloses a dispersed storage network wherein a DS processing module (Figure 3, element 34) receives a data object having a defined size and obtains information that dictates how the data object should be segmented ([0062]: the defined size of the data object reads on the asset value), which meets the limitation of obtain [an electronic resource transfer datastructure, in which the electronic resource transfer datastructure] specifies: a target asset payload, an asset value, a number of fractures. The system includes a memory (Figure 2, 54 & [0057]) and a processor (Figure 2, 50 & [0057]) in communication with the memory through a memory controller (Figure 2) such that the processors executes operational instructions stored in the memory ([0145]: operations instructions would read on the claimed component collection), which meets the limitation of at least one memory, a component collection stored in the at least one memory, any of at least one processor disposed in communication with the at least one memory, the any of at least one processor executing processor executable instructions from the component collection, storage of the component collection structured with processor-executable instructions, means to process processor-executable instructions, means to issue processor-issuable instructions from a processor-executable component collection via the means to process processor-executable instructions. Each segment of the data object has a size that is a function of the data object size such that the combined sizes of the all segments would equal the size of the data object ([0062]: data object is 4,194,304 bytes and 131,072 segments each have a size of 32 bytes), which meets the limitation of in which each fractured portion of the number of fractures specified are structured as have a portioned sub-asset value, and in which all the portioned sub-asset values total the asset value. The DS processing module additionally obtains the number of DS storage units that will be sent data segments ([0067]), which meets the limitation of obtain a number of delegates. The access module segments the data object using the determined number of segments ([0062]), which meets the limitation of fracture the electronic resource transfer datastructure into portions, based on the number of fractures specified in the obtained [electronic resource transfer datastructure]. The grid module receives and encrypts the data segments ([0063]), which meets the limitation of encrypt the fracture portions into encrypted fractured portion messages. The encrypted data segments are then output to the DS storage units determined by the grid module ([0067]: Applicant’s specification does not define “swarm effect”. The only recitations of “swarm effect” are found in paragraphs [0019] and [0022] which give examples that describe multiple transmissions), which meets the limitation of provide the encrypted fractured portions to at least one delegate encryption fracture nodes, in which the provision of the encrypted fractured portions is provided via swarm effect transmission, in which the number of delegate encryption fracture nodes is the number of delegates specified in the obtained [electronic resource transfer datastructure]. The DS storage units each include a processor and memory ([0035]: processor/memory combination of the DC storage units read on the claimed fractured distributor component; Examiner notes that the limitation requiring the nodes to be structured as to include encrypting and fracturing…represents an intended use limitation. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, the DS storage units include a processor and memory and are therefore, capable of performing encryption/fracturing as claimed), which meets the limitation of in which the delegate encryption fracture nodes have a fractured distributor component structured as including encrypting and fracturing any of electronic resource transfer datastructures, fracture portions, fractured portion messages. The DS storage units can decrypt the received encrypted data segments (Figure 6D, element 162 & [0097] & [0060]: vault identifier identifies a particular memory space that maps to a set of DS storage units), which meets the limitation of in which the encrypted fracture portions are structured as decrypting upon receipt of fractured portions with a fractured portion decryption key at a destination of the destination user identifier.
Grube does not disclose that the number of segments, number of DS storage units, and the vault identifier are included as part of the data object. Julien discloses a packet header that includes fragment information, hop information, source information, and destination information (Figures 1, 2A & 2B), which meets the limitation of obtain an electronic resource transfer datastructure, in which the electronic resource transfer data structure specifies a target asset payload, an asset value, a number of fractures, a number of delegates, a source user identifier, and destination user identifier. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the number of segments, number of DS storage units, and the vault identifier of Grube to have been included as part of the data object in order to allow for devices to know how to treat the data objects as suggested by Julien ([0043]).
Grube, as modified in view of Julien, does not disclose that the data object includes delivery time information. Gopal discloses timestamping packets with the delivery time ([0044]), which meets the limitation of in which delivery timing for distribution of fractured portions delegating encryption fracture nodes include delivery time. Examiner notes that claim limitations specific to the retention policy need not be addressed since the retention policy claim elements represent an unselected element of a Markush grouping. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the data object to have additionally included delivery time information in order to provide optimized transmission of data as suggested by Gopal ([0045]).
Grube, as modified in view of Julien, does not disclose that the data object is stored on a blockchain such that the storage location for the encrypted data segments is also stored in the blockchain. Karame discloses a data storage system where a data object is stored on a blockchain ([0088]), which meets the limitation of in which the target asset payload is on a blockchain. The storage location for the object is also stored on the block chain ([0025]), which meets the limitation of in which the encrypted fractured portions are registered to the destination user identifier on the blockchain. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a blockchain that includes entries for data object information and the storage location for the data object in order to provide assurances that the data has not been modified as suggested by Karame ([0019] & [0025]).
Referring to claims 6, 16, 26, 32, Grube discloses that the encrypted data segments are output the DS storage units ([0067]) after being segmented ([0062]) and encrypted ([0063]), which meets the limitation of provision of the fractured portion to the delegate encryption fracture node is done at a time offset.
Referring to claims 7, 17, 27, 33, Grube discloses that the encrypted data segments are then output to the DS storage units determined by the grid module ([0067]), which meets the limitation of encrypted fractured portions are provided to multiple delegate encryption fracture nodes.
Referring to claims 8-10, 18-20, 28-30, 34-36, Examiner notes that the content of the claimed datastructure is not functionally utilized in the claims and would therefore be considered nonfunctional descriptive material that is not given patentable weight (MPEP 2111.05). Grube discloses that the data object is segmented into a number of segments specified by the segment number ([0062]), which meets the limitation of in which the number of fractures is a number of value fractures, and in which the fractured portions are value fractured portions.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BENJAMIN E LANIER whose telephone number is (571)272-3805. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 6:20-4:50.
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, Alexander Lagor can be reached at 5712705143. 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.
/BENJAMIN E LANIER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2437