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 .
Acknowledgements
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s response filed on September 17, 2025 (“September 2025 Response”). The September 2025 Response contained, inter alia, claim amendments (“September 2025 Claims”), and “REMARKS” (“September 2025 Remarks”).
Claims 1-12 and 21-28 are currently pending and have been examined.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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, 4, 7-8, 21, 24, and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Struttmann (US 2017/0364701 A1)(“Struttmann”) in view of Gabrick et al. (US 2004/0073443 A1)(“Gabrick”) and further in view of Choudhury (US 2016/0012082 A1)(“Choudhury”) and Kamath et al. (US 2017/0318020 A1)(“Kamath”).
As to Claims 1 and 21, Struttmann discloses
a system comprising: one or more processors (processors 1010a-1010n); and non-transitory computer-readable media ([0267]) storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:/a method comprising:
storing, in association with a trade registry, a first record (“the most-recent entry may be a last block written to the log or a last node within a component of a block…” [0172]) indicating:
a first document obfuscation value (“cryptographic hash value output.” [0176]) corresponding to a first document (“the document may be stored in a single node of the directed acyclic graph” [0097])(“inputs that are selected may include…document content stored” [0176]); and
a block value generated based at least in part on the first document obfuscation value, the block value representing a block in a blockchain of a distributed-ledger system (“new entry to the tamper-evident log that includes the hash value calculated in block 186 and the current record selected in block 178, as indicated by block 188,” [0178]);
receiving an indication that the first document represents a first version of the first document (“receiving a request to write a new version of a document,” [0243], a new version of a document necessitates a previous/“first” version, “the [write] request may include… a pointer to a previous version of the document stored in the client-side computer accessible directory or database. For example, the user may have previously read the previous version into local memory of the client computing device workload application, transformed the previous version, and then requested to store the new version” [0243], “the read command may reference an identifier of a document that indicates a most current version of the document is to be retrieved, or in some cases the read command may reference a particular version of the document” [0117]);
receiving a first entity identifier (“file names” [0242]) associated with first document (“documents stored with techniques like those described above, and some embodiments may intercept (e.g., receive directly, pass through, observe upon filtering, etc.) read or write access requests” “then, in response, effectuate the corresponding operations on documents stored in a tamper-evident, immutable data repository, like those described above or other types of remote storage. In some cases, this may include creating new versions, updating pointers stored in the directory, and various other operations. Further, these techniques may similarly be applied to database read and write operations, for example, storing differences between previously stored values and databases that are relatively large and new versions of those values in databases” [0242]);
receiving, from an electronic device, input data requesting to register a second document in association with the registry (“receiving a write command requesting that a document associated with the write command be stored in an immutable data structure,…” [0093], wherein the document is another document other than the old document noted in the citation of the above limitation);
receiving, from the electronic device, a second document obfuscation value corresponding to the [valuation] data (“the hash digest is a cryptographic hash value based upon the content of the document, or a non-cryptographic hash value based upon the content of the document,” [0244], “calculating a new hash digest based on the new version” [0244]);
receiving a second entity identifier (“file names” [0242]) associated with [valuation] data (“documents stored with techniques like those described above, and some embodiments may intercept (e.g., receive directly, pass through, observe upon filtering, etc.) read or write access requests” “then, in response, effectuate the corresponding operations on documents stored in a tamper-evident, immutable data repository, like those described above or other types of remote storage. In some cases, this may include creating new versions, updating pointers stored in the directory, and various other operations. Further, these techniques may similarly be applied to database read and write operations, for example, storing differences between previously stored values and databases that are relatively large and new versions of those values in databases” [0242]);
determining, based at least in part on a comparison of i) the first document obfuscation value with the second document obfuscation value (“upon reading the data initially, hash digest (e.g., a MD5 hash) of the data may be calculated and held in memory. Upon a write, a new hash may be calculated based on the data to be re-written to memory, and that hash may be compared to the earlier hash to determine whether the file has changed.,” [0237]) and [ii) the first entity identifier and the second entity identifier], that the second document corresponds to [valuation] data of the first document rather than a new version of the first document(“upon reading the data initially, hash digest (e.g., a MD5 hash) of the data may be calculated and held in memory. Upon a write, a new hash may be calculated based on the data to be re-written to memory, and that hash may be compared to the earlier hash to determine whether the file has changed…” [0237]), [wherein the first entity identifier and the second entity identifier indicate a same entity]; and
generating a second record (“As the document is a revised, new records may be added with new versions of the document” [0114], “then store the set of changes in the tamper-evident, immutable data repository” [0248]):
indicating that an identifier of the second document has been registered in association with the trade secret registry (“the read command may reference an identifier of a document that indicates a most current version of the document is to be retrieved, or in some cases the read command may reference a particular version of the document” [0117]);
indicating [that the second document comprises a financial assessment of the first document,] and that the second document is related to one or more of the other documents associated with the trade secret registry (“storing a pointer to the previous version of the document in association with the set of changes, as indicated by block 272. In some embodiments, the pointer to the previous version of the document may be stored in the tamper-evident immutable data repository as metadata to the set of changes” [0249]).
Struttmann does not directly disclose:
the data in the document representing a trade secret;
a trade secret registry; and
wherein the second document comprises valuation data associated with a financial assessment of the trade secret and generated based on a predetermined valuation methodology, and wherein an indication that the second document is related to other documents associated with the trade secret registry is absent from the input data;
including a selectable link indicating a relationship between the first document and the second document that, when selected, causes display of the first record; and
modifying a first record to indicate that the first document is the first version of the second document and that the first document is related to the second document, wherein the selectable link is configured to, when selected from the first record, cause display of the second record; and
the determining, based at least in part on a comparison of i) the first document obfuscation value with the second document obfuscation value and ii) the first entity identifier and the second entity identifier, that the second document corresponds to a second version of the first document, wherein the first entity identifier and the second entity identifier indicate a same entity,
indicating that the second document comprises a financial assessment of the first document;
receiving an indication that the new version of the first document has been generated; and
in response to the indication, applying a linkage between a second record associated with the new version of the first document and the financial valuation provided in the second document.
Gabrick teaches:
the data in the document representing a trade secret (“trade secret archives” [0061]);
a trade secret registry (“trade secret archives” [0061], “It allows employees to enter their intellectual creations (documents, ideas, schematics, etc.)” [0055]); and
a second document comprises valuation data (“The manager enters information regarding the ownership, economic value, and key words to be associated with the trade secrets.” [0279]) associated with a financial assessment of the trade secret (See “Financial” in table of Fig.6, “click on the ‘Perform Analysis’ button to begin the process. You will be presented with a series of questions.” [0496]) and generated based on a predetermined valuation methodology (see Financial Analysis Factors in Fig.36, “This is a summary overview of all of the analyses that have been performed on a particular innovation. It includes a graphical representation of the total, along with information about the people who performed the analyses and their individual scores.” [0498]);
determining, based at least in part on a comparison of ii) the first entity identifier and the second entity identifier, wherein the first entity identifier and the second entity identifier indicate a same entity (“you can add new electronic documents to your innovation…even if the document name is the same.” “system automatically determines if the file names are the same, and if so, automatically creates a new version-without deleting the original” [0525]),
indicating that the second document comprises a financial assessment (See “Financial” in table of Fig.6, see “Proprietary Value =30” in “Event” categorize as “Analyzed” in the “Activity Log” depicted in Fig.1, “provides instant access to stored database information, such as trade secret archives, patent filings, computed valuations, user information and a variety of detailed reports,” Claim 1, “This is a summary overview of all of the analyses that have been performed on a particular innovation. It includes a graphical representation of the total, along with information about the people who performed the analyses and their individual scores.” [0846]) of the first document (“To get all of the details associated with an innovation including, status information, other inventors, comments, complete analysis results, attached electronic documents, attached paper/misc items, and innovation details use this function.” [0516]);
receiving an indication that a new version of the first document has been generated (“Click the ‘Update’ button when you are finished editing. This will save your changes to the database.” [0519], “you can add new electronic documents to your innovation…even if the document name is the same.” “system automatically determines if the file names are the same, and if so, automatically creates a new version-without deleting the original” [0525]); and
in response to the indication, applying a linkage between a second record associated with the new version of the first document and the financial valuation provided in the second document (“It allows employees to enter their intellectual creations (documents, ideas, schematics, etc.) and receive an immediate, time/date certification to discourage ‘borrowing’ by unethical employees. In addition to certification and registration, the System can provide automatic e-mail notifications to an immediate supervisor and the IP corporate department (all configurable), as well as entry and logging into the company-wide intranet. Others in a user company, with appropriate privilege levels, can search (by PTO key words, project descriptions, classifications, author, date, etc.) and instantly access archived innovations, increasing the level of inter-company collaboration.” [0055], “This is a summary overview of all of the analyses that have been performed on a particular innovation. It includes a graphical representation of the total, along with information about the people who performed the analyses and their individual scores.” [0498]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Struttmann by the features of Gabrick, and in particular, to include in the data of Struttmann, trade secret data as taught by Gabrick, and to include in Struttmann’s registry, a trade secret registry, as taught by Gabrick, because as noted in Applicant’s specification (see Claim Interpretation section below) “‘trade secret’ is used, it should be noted to include not only trade secrets, but any document and/or data and/or information including confidential information, know-how, and other information, and not necessarily documents, data, and/or information meeting a legal definition of the term ‘trade secret,’” and because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable; to include in the second document of Struttmann, valuation data associated with a financial assessment of the trade secret and generated based on a predetermined valuation methodology, as taught by Gabrick, because it would help to document important information regarding the trade secret, to include in the determining that the second document corresponds to a second version of the first document step of Struttmann, the feature of being based at least in part on a comparison of ii) the first entity identifier and the second entity identifier, wherein the first entity identifier and the second entity identifier indicate a same entity, as taught by Gabrick because it would facilitate updating the document by reducing user input or commands into the system, to include in Struttmann, the feature of indicating that the second document comprises a financial assessment of the first document, as taught by Gabrick, since it would help to record important information regarding the trade secret, and to include in Struttmann, the features of receiving an indication that the new version of the first document has been generated, and in response to the indication, applying a linkage between a second record associated with the new version of the first document and the financial valuation provided in the second document, as taught by Gabrick, because it would provide a complete and updated picture of the trade secret.
Choudhury teaches:
wherein an indication that the second document (“Document A,” [0038]) is related to other documents associated with the registry is absent from the input data (“the user command corresponds to a request to store a newly-created Document A in document repository 160. See reference numeral 1100 in FIG. 2. This may occur, for example, where a user authors a new document using resources available to client computing system 200” [0037], “Because Document A is processed as a newly-created document, at the outset of method 1100 it can be assumed that Document A is not included in an existing revision history timeline.” [0038], wherein a first document is “Document B”, note: “… this comparison provides a determination of whether newly-received Document A is nearly duplicative of existing Document B.” [0041]);
modifying a first record to indicate that the first document is the first version of the second document and that the first document is related to the second document (“when a new or modified document is received, timeline administration module 140 can be configured to add the document to an existing timeline or a new timeline” [0052], “A revision history timeline may also be represented by metadata” [0020], “A document may include not only the aforementioned content itself, but also metadata describing certain aspects of the content” [0016]),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Struttmann/Gabrick combination by the features of Choudhury, and in particular to include in the input data of Struttmann, wherein an indication that the second document is related to other documents associated with the registry [as applied to the trade secret registry of the Struttmann/Gabrick combination] is absent from the input data, as taught by Choudhury, because it would provide “a more reliable user experience than existing systems that require manual version control of documents” (Choudhury, [0014]), and to include in the Struttmann/Gabrick combination, the feature of modifying a first record to indicate that the first document is the first version of the second document and that the first document is related to the second document, as taught by Choudhury because it would “increase[s] content discoverability and allow[s] a more robust content history to be derived” (Choudhury, [0014]).
Kamath teaches
a selectable link (“a selectable link that is representative of a previous version of the file” [0084]) indicating a relationship between the first document and the second document that, when selected, causes display of a first record (“displaying the previous version of the file on the display of the client computing device responsive to receiving an indication that the selectable link has been selected.” [0084]); and
wherein the selectable link (“selectable links to versions of the hosted file 148.” [0067]) is configured to, when selected from the first record, cause display of the second record (“Responsive to the user selecting one of such links, the version of the hosted file 148 corresponding to the selected link can be presented on the display 128 of the client computing device 106, such that file content 1701 for the selected version (represented by a version identifier 1703) is presented.” [0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Struttmann/Gabrick/Choudhury combination by the features of Kamath, and in particular to include in the first and second records of Struttmann, the selectable link, as taught by Kamath, because it would provide “a more reliable user experience than existing systems that require manual version control of documents” (Choudhury, [0014]).
As to Claims 4 and 24, the Struttmann/Gabrick/Choudhury/Kamath combination discloses as discussed above.
Struttmann further discloses
wherein the block value comprises a first block value, the block comprises a first block (“new entry to the camper-evident log that includes the hash value calculated in block 186 and the current record selected in block 178, as indicated by block 188,” [0178]), and the operations further comprise:
receiving, from the electronic device, valuation data indicated to be relevant to a value of the trade secret (“the implementation of the abstract cryptographic hash function that is determined in block 184 may specify that certain types of inputs are to be used in calculating the cryptographic hash value output” [0176] “timestamps dates, position indices” [0177]);
receiving, from the electronic device, a third document obfuscation value corresponding to the valuation data (“each cryptographic hash value in each cryptographic hash pointer of a directed acyclic graph” [0177]);
receiving, from at least one of the electronic device or the distributed-ledger system, a second block value generated based at least in part on the third document obfuscation value, the second block value representing a second block in the blockchain (“each directed edge encoded by a cryptographic hash pointer may also include a value that identifies the implementation, for example, a value that indicates whether the edge is specified with a position-agnostic implementation of the abstract cryptographic hash function or a position-dependent implementation, the position-implement dependent implementation including as inputs the types of values described above as non-position-agnostic, for example, timestamps dates, position indices, and the like” [0177]); and
wherein the first record includes the third document obfuscation value and the second block value (“prepend the new entries to the tamper-evident log” [0179]).
As to Claims 7 and 27, the Struttmann/Gabrick/Choudhury/Kamath combination discloses as discussed above.
Gabrick also teaches receiving an indication of a trade-secret type associated with the trade secret (“select files/directories/servers as trade secrets, create classes of trade secrets” [0229]).
Struttmann further discloses
identifying a frequency at which versions of trade secrets associated with the trade-secret type are registered (“the risk metric may be based on the content of units of content being written,” [0231], wherein written implies registered) with the trade secret registry (“types of access requests (or sequences of such requests), such as to particular units of content, types of unit of content, amounts of access requests, frequencies of access requests” [0230]);
generating a version-registration alert based at least in part on the frequency (“upon satisfying the first or second thresholds in block 246 and 250, some embodiments may emit an alarm using techniques like those described above to facilitate investigation” [0233]); and
sending, to the electronic device, alert data representing the version-registration alert (“upon satisfying the first or second thresholds in block 246 and 250, some embodiments may emit an alarm using techniques like those described above to facilitate investigation” [0233]).
As to Claims 8 and 28, the Struttmann/Gabrick/Choudhury/Kamath combination discloses as discussed above.
Struttmann further discloses
determining a frequency at which versions of trade secrets are registered with the trade secret registry utilizing at least one of the electronic device or an entity identifier corresponding to an entity associated with the electronic device (“types of access requests (or sequences of such requests), such as to particular units of content, types of unit of content, amounts of access requests, frequencies of access requests…for a given user, workload application, computing device, portion of a network, or combination thereof” [0230]);
generating a version-registration alert based at least in part on the frequency (“upon satisfying the first or second thresholds in block 246 and 250, some embodiments may emit an alarm using techniques like those described above to facilitate investigation” [0233]); and
sending, to the electronic device, alert data representing the version-registration alert (“upon satisfying the first or second thresholds in block 246 and 250, some embodiments may emit an alarm using techniques like those described above to facilitate investigation” [0233]).
Claims 2 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Struttmann in view of Gabrick in view of Choudhury in view of Kamath, and further in view of Liang (US 11,170,092 B1)(“Liang”).
As to Claims 2 and 22, the Struttmann/Gabrick/Choudhury/Kamath combination discloses as discussed above.
Struttmann further discloses wherein the input data comprises first input data (“receiving a request to write a new version of a document,” [0243]), and the operations further comprise:
storing first access-control data indicating a first identifier (“username, geolocation, client machine IP address, etc” [0189]) of a first person permitted to access the first record (“roles and permissions stored in association with various user accounts of an application used to access that data” [0033]);
storing second access-control data indicating a second identifier of a second person permitted to access the second record, the second access-control data indicating that access to the first record is unpermitted by the second person (“access to data in the lower-trust database 14, and corresponding access to corresponding records in the secure distributed storage 16, may be designated in part with roles and permissions stored in association with various user accounts of an application used to access that data.” [0033], “binary large objects with various examples of metadata, like file names, creation dates, modification dates, authors, permissions to access” [0242]);
receiving second input data requesting access to the second record, the second input data indicating that the second person is requesting access to the second record (“receiving a read request identifying a pointer to a most recent version of a document” [0253], “record that includes an identifier of a user account making the access request” [0225]);
causing display, based at least in part on the second input data, of the second record including the selectable link (“documents are retrieved” [0254], see combination above with Choudhury that includes link in the second record).
Struttmann does not directly disclose but Liang teaches
receiving third input data corresponding to selection of the selectable link (“third user 104 may also authenticate the currently-selected document 116 by selecting the "Authenticate" button 158. Once the third user 104 has also authenticated the notarization of the document 116, all of the signatures for the document 116 are included in the list 160 of signatures, as illustrated in FIG. SF.” C.15, L.30-35); and
refraining from causing display of the first record based at least in part on the second access-control data indicating that access to the first record is unpermitted (“(e.g., user 104A may be able to access the document data 112 but the document data 112 may generally be locked and inaccessible by other users 104. Accordingly, to facilitate a transfer of the document 116, the document data 112 may be temporarily unlocked to enable access by another user (e.g., user 104B). Based at least partly on their examination of the document” C.6, L.6-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Struttmann/Gabrick/Choudhury/Kamath combination by the features of Liang, and in particular to include in the combination the receiving third input data corresponding to selection of the selectable link, as taught by Liang; a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these features because it would “obviate[e] the need to maintain physical copies of legal documents and, rather, facilitating the ability of provide immutable, readily auditable records of authentication certification histories for electronic documents” (Liang, C.3, L.60-64); and to include in the combination the feature of refraining from causing display of the first record based at least in part on the second access-control data indicating that access to the first record is unpermitted, as taught by Liang; a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these features because it would “reduce[s] fraud risks” (Liang, C.3, L.10).
Claims 3 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Struttmann in view of Gabrick in view of Choudhury in view of Kamath, and further in view of Rutley et al. (US 10,685,009 B1)(“Rutley”).
As to Claims 3 and 23, the Struttmann/Gabrick/Choudhury/Kamath combination discloses as discussed above.
Struttmann does not directly disclose but Rutley teaches
associating, using a smart contract associated with the blockchain, the trade secret with an insurance policy (“items that are insured…intellectual property,” C.9, L.38-42), the smart contract indicating a condition for validating the insurance policy (“system…may utilize a smart contract” C.5, L.15-16);
receiving, from the electronic device, validation data indicating that the condition has been met (“digitally represent one or more conditions and execution steps when the one or more conditions are met.” C.5, L.17-19);
sending the validation data to the distributed-ledger system, the validation data causing the smart contract to validate the insurance policy (“Responsive to an event stored in the distributed ledger, the system 100 may execute a smart contract to respond to a status state of a policyholder, for example. In an embodiment, the system 100 may track an event of a policyholder (e.g., status state transitions from alive to dead), and execute the smart contract to perform a one or more transactions between the first party computing system 102 and third party computing systems 106.” C.5, L.20-27); and
receiving, from the distributed-ledger system, confirmation data indicating that the insurance policy has been validated utilizing the smart contract (“determining that the qualifying state is satisfied by the policyholder” C.11, L.5-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Struttmann/Gabrick/Choudhury/Kamath combination by the feature of Rutley, and in particular to include in the Struttmann/Gabrick/Choudhury/Kamath combination, the features of associating, using a smart contract associated with the blockchain, the trade secret with an insurance policy, the smart contract indicating a condition for validating the insurance policy; receiving, from the electronic device, validation data indicating that the condition has been met ; sending the validation data to the distributed-ledger system, the validation data causing the smart contract to validate the insurance policy; and receiving, from the distributed-ledger system, confirmation data indicating that the insurance policy has been validated utilizing the smart contract, as taught by Rutley.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these features because “an insurance claim process, for example, may be self-contained in that communications may be initiated and processes performed independent of human interaction because an inherently trustless environment may be trusted” (Rutley, C.5, L.38-43).
Claims 5-6 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Struttmann in view of Gabrick in view of Choudhury in view of Kamath, and further in view of Coen et al. (US 2006/0242142 A1)(“Coen”).
As to Claims 5 and 25, the Struttmann/Gabrick/Choudhury/Kamath combination discloses as discussed above.
Struttmann does not directly disclose but Coen teaches
associating a first feature vector with the first document based at least in part on first text data associated with the first document (“document vectors are populated with the original data from the data dictionary in which they are associated” [0024]);
associating a second feature vector with the second document based at least in part on second text data associated with the second document (“document vectors are populated with the original data from the data dictionary in which they are associated” [0024]);
determining that a distance between the first feature vector and the second feature vector is less than a threshold distance (“the process determines if any document vectors from different source data dictionaries differ by less than a threshold amount.” [0026]); and
wherein determining that the second document corresponds to the second version of the first document comprises determining that the second document corresponds to the second version of the first document based at least in part on the distance being less than the threshold distance (“the process determines if any document vectors from different source data dictionaries differ by less than a threshold amount. If none of the document vectors differ by less than a threshold amount, the process is complete and returns. If at the decision block 200 any document vectors do differ by less than the threshold amount, these document vectors are reported to the user at a block 202.” [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Struttmann/Gabrick/Choudhury/Kamath combination by the features of Coen, and in particular to include in the Struttmann/Gabrick/Choudhury/Kamath combination, the features of associating a first feature vector with the first document based at least in part on first text data associated with the first document; associating a second feature vector with the second document based at least in part on second text data associated with the second document; determining that a distance between the first feature vector and the second feature vector is less than a threshold distance; and wherein determining that the second document corresponds to the second version of the first document comprises determining that the second document corresponds to the second version of the first document based at least in part on the distance being less than the threshold distance, as taught by Coen.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these features because “[i]n most cases, it is expected that the resultant diff will be much smaller than the new version of the file (or other blob). As such, storing the diff in the blockchain is expected to be less computationally expensive than storing the entire new version” (Struttmann, [0239]).
As to Claims 6 and 26, the Struttmann/Gabrick/Choudhury/Kamath combination discloses as discussed above.
Struttmann does not directly disclose but Coen teaches
associating a feature vector with the first document based at least in part on first text data associated with the first document (“document vectors are populated with the original data from the data dictionary in which they are associated” [0024]);
determining a number of other feature vectors within a threshold distance from the first feature vector (“the process determines if any document vectors from different source data dictionaries differ by less than a threshold amount.” [0026]); and determining a popularity score to associate with the first document based at least in part on the number of the other feature vectors (“the results (matching/near matching terms) may be presented a number of different ways. For example, the results may be in ascending or descending order of quality of the matching terms (e.g. perfect matches and various levels of near matches). Also, when matching or near matching terms may be presented in the same color, font, or other manner that distinguishes one match from an adjacent match.” [0061]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Struttmann/Gabrick/Choudhury/Kamath combination by the features of Coen, and in particular to include in the Struttmann/Gabrick/Choudhury/Kamath combination, the features of associating a feature vector with the first document based at least in part on first text data associated with the first document; determining a number of other feature vectors within a threshold distance from the first feature vector; and determining a popularity score to associate with the first document based at least in part on the number of the other feature vectors, as taught by Coen.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these features because “In most cases, it is expected that the resultant diff will be much smaller than the new version of the file (or other blob). As such, storing the diff in the blockchain is expected to be less computationally expensive than storing the entire new version” (Struttmann, [0239]).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Struttmann in view of Gabrick.
As to Claim 9, Struttmann discloses a method comprising:
storing, in association with a registry, a first record (“the most-recent entry may be a last block written to the log or a last node within a component of a block…” [0172]) indicating:
a first document obfuscation value (“cryptographic hash value output.” [0176]) corresponding to a document (“the document may be stored in a single node of the directed acyclic graph” [0097])(“inputs that are selected may include…document content stored” [0176]); and
a first block value generated based at least in part on the first document obfuscation value, the first block value representing a first block in a blockchain of a distributed-ledger system (“new entry to the camper-evident log that includes the hash value calculated in block 186 and the current record selected in block 178, as indicated by block 188,” [0178]);
receiving a first entity identifier (“file names” [0242]) associated with first document (“documents stored with techniques like those described above, and some embodiments may intercept (e.g., receive directly, pass through, observe upon filtering, etc.) read or write access requests” “then, in response, effectuate the corresponding operations on documents stored in a tamper-evident, immutable data repository, like those described above or other types of remote storage. In some cases, this may include creating new versions, updating pointers stored in the directory, and various other operations. Further, these techniques may similarly be applied to database read and write operations, for example, storing differences between previously stored values and databases that are relatively large and new versions of those values in databases” [0242]);
receiving, from an electronic device, valuation data of the trade secret (“the implementation of the abstract cryptographic hash function that is determined in block 184 may specify that certain types of inputs are to be used in calculating the cryptographic hash value output” [0176] “timestamps dates, position indices” [0177]);
receiving, from the electronic device, a second document obfuscation value corresponding to the valuation data, wherein the second document obfuscation value is derived using a cryptographic hash function (“the hash digest is a cryptographic hash value based upon the content of the document, or a non-cryptographic hash value based upon the content of the document,” [0244], “calculating a new hash digest based on the new version” [0244]);
receiving a second entity identifier (“file names” [0242]) associated with [valuation] data (“documents stored with techniques like those described above, and some embodiments may intercept (e.g., receive directly, pass through, observe upon filtering, etc.) read or write access requests” “then, in response, effectuate the corresponding operations on documents stored in a tamper-evident, immutable data repository, like those described above or other types of remote storage. In some cases, this may include creating new versions, updating pointers stored in the directory, and various other operations. Further, these techniques may similarly be applied to database read and write operations, for example, storing differences between previously stored values and databases that are relatively large and new versions of those values in databases” [0242]);
receiving, from at least one of the electronic device or the distributed-ledger system, a second block value generated based at least in part on the second document obfuscation value (“As the document is a revised, new records may be added with new versions of the document” [0114], “then store the set of changes in the tamper-evident, immutable data repository” [0248], “the hash digest is a cryptographic hash value based upon the content of the document, or a non-cryptographic hash value based upon the content of the document,” [0244], “calculating a new hash digest based on the new version” [0244), the second block value representing a second block in the blockchain (“blocks have an integer index, a block capacity, a cryptographic hash value based on all of the nodes in the block (like a Merkle root), the nodes within the block, and a cryptographic hash based on content of a previous block,” [0098], “calculating a new hash digest based on the new version” [0244]), wherein the record includes the second document obfuscation value (hash) and the second block value (“blocks have an integer index, a block capacity, a cryptographic hash value based on all of the nodes in the block (like a Merkle root), the nodes within the block, and a cryptographic hash based on content of a previous block,” [0098], “calculating a new hash digest based on the new version” [0244], “As the document is a revised, new records may be added with new versions of the document” [0114], “then store the set of changes in the tamper-evident, immutable data repository” [0248]); and
modifying the record to include at least a portion of the valuation data based at least on part on receiving the second document obfuscation value (“storing the diff in the blockchain” [0238], “an index that associates pointers to documents with hash digests of those documents.” [0244]).
Struttmann does not directly disclose:
the data in the document representing a trade secret;
a trade secret registry;
valuation data associated with a financial assessment of the trade secret and generated based on a predetermined valuation methodology;
determining, based at least in part on a comparison of the first entity identifier and the second entity identifier, that the valuation data corresponds to a financial evaluation of the first document by a same entity, wherein the first entity identifier and the second entity identifier indicate a same entity; and
the modifying the record based at least in part on determining that the second document correspond to the valuation data of the first document rather than a new version of the first document, and
receiving an indication that the new version of the first document has been generated; and
in response to the indication, applying a linkage between a second record associated with the new version of the first document and the valuation provided in the second document.
Gabrick teaches:
data in a document representing a trade secret (“database for documents relating to the registered ideas etc. (where documents can be anything stored electronically and/or digitally),” [0086]), “trade secret” Abstract);
a trade secret registry (“The system identifies, classifies, compiles, tracks and routes real-time data automatically on a continuous basis, and provides instant access to stored database information, such as trade secret archives,” Abstract); and
valuation data (“The manager enters information regarding the ownership, economic value, and key words to be associated with the trade secrets.” [0279]) associated with a financial assessment of the trade secret (See “Financial” in table of Fig.6, “click on the 'Perform Analysis' button to begin the process. You will be presented with a series of questions.” [0496]) and generated based on a predetermined valuation methodology (see Financial Analysis Factors in Fig.36, “This is a summary overview of all of the analyses that have been performed on a particular innovation. It includes a graphical representation of the total, along with information about the people who performed the analyses and their individual scores.” [0498]);
determining, based at least in part on a comparison of the first entity identifier and the second entity identifier, that the valuation data (“The manager enters information regarding the ownership, economic value, and key words to be associated with the trade secrets.” [0279]) corresponds to a financial evaluation of the first document by a same entity (See “Financial” in table of Fig.6, “click on the 'Perform Analysis' button to begin the process. You will be presented with a series of questions.” [0496]), wherein the first entity identifier and the second entity identifier indicate a same entity (“you can add new electronic documents to your innovation…even if the document name is the same.” “system automatically determines if the file names are the same, and if so, automatically creates a new version-without deleting the original” [0525]);
the modifying the record based at least in part on that the second document correspond to the valuation data of the first document rather than a new version of the first document (“To get all of the details associated with an innovation including, status information, other inventors, comments, complete analysis results, attached electronic documents, attached paper/misc items, and innovation details use this function.” [0516], see Financial Analysis Factors in Fig.36, “This is a summary overview of all of the analyses that have been performed on a particular innovation. It includes a graphical representation of the total, along with information about the people who performed the analyses and their individual scores.” [0498]);
receiving an indication that a new version of the first document has been generated (“Click the ‘Update’ button when you are finished editing. This will save your changes to the database.” [0519], “you can add new electronic documents to your innovation…even if the document name is the same.” “system automatically determines if the file names are the same, and if so, automatically creates a new version-without deleting the original” [0525]); and
in response to the indication, applying a linkage between a second record associated with the new version of the first document and the valuation provided in the second document (“It allows employees to enter their intellectual creations (documents, ideas, schematics, etc.) and receive an immediate, time/date certification to discourage ‘borrowing’ by unethical employees. In addition to certification and registration, the System can provide automatic e-mail notifications to an immediate supervisor and the IP corporate department (all configurable), as well as entry and logging into the company-wide intranet. Others in a user company, with appropriate privilege levels, can search (by PTO key words, project descriptions, classifications, author, date, etc.) and instantly access archived innovations, increasing the level of inter-company collaboration.” [0055], “This is a summary overview of all of the analyses that have been performed on a particular innovation. It includes a graphical representation of the total, along with information about the people who performed the analyses and their individual scores.” [0498]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Struttmann by the features of Gabrick, and in particular, to include in the data of Struttmann, trade secret data as taught by Gabrick, and to include in Struttmann’s registry, a trade secret registry, as taught by Gabrick, because as noted in Applicant’s specification (see Claim Interpretation section below) “‘trade secret’ is used, it should be noted to include not only trade secrets, but any document and/or data and/or information including confidential information, know-how, and other information, and not necessarily documents, data, and/or information meeting a legal definition of the term ‘trade secret,’” and because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable; to include in the value of the trade secret of the Struttmann/Gabrick combination, the valuation data of Gabrick, because it would help “safeguard[s] and protect[s] the most valuable assets a company owns” and “promote new innovation, and document and protect a company’s assets” (Gabrick, [0031]); to include in Struttmann, the feature of determining, based at least in part on a comparison of the first entity identifier and the second entity identifier, that the second document corresponds to a second version of the first document, wherein the first entity identifier and the second entity identifier indicate a same entity, as taught by Gabrick because it would facilitate updating the document by reducing user input or commands to the system; and to include in the modifying of the record of Struttmann, the feature of modifying the record based at least in part on determining that the second document correspond to the second version of the first document, as taught by Gabrick, because it “keeps the information fresh and frees corporations from the laborious task of entering data repeatedly” ([0050]), and to include in Struttmann, the features of receiving an indication that the new version of the first document has been generated, and in response to the indication, applying a linkage between a second record associated with the new version of the first document and the valuation provided in the second document, as taught by Gabrick, because it would provide a complete and updated picture of the trade secret.
As to Claim 10, the Struttmann/Gabrick combination discloses as discussed above.
Struttmann further discloses wherein the document comprises a first document, the record comprises a first record (“the document may be stored in a single node of the directed acyclic graph.” [0097]), and the method further comprises: receiving an indication that the first document represents a first version of the first document (“the read command may reference an identifier of a document that indicate a most current version of the document is to be retrieved, or in some cases the read command may reference a particular version of the document” [0117]); receiving, from the electronic device, input data requesting to register a second document in association with the trade secret registry (“document is a revised, new records may be added with new versions of the document to the data structure 70” [0114]); receiving, from the electronic device, a third document obfuscation value corresponding to the second document (“Some embodiments may receive a write request for a modified file (or other blob of data) and determine whether the data has changed from a previous version. In some embodiments, upon reading the data initially, hash digest (e.g., a MD5 hash) of the data may be calculated and held in memory. Upon a write, a new hash may be calculated based on the data to be re-written to memory, and that hash may be compared to the earlier hash to determine whether the file has changed” [0237]); determining, based at least in part on a comparison of the first document obfuscation value with the third document obfuscation value, that the second document corresponds to the second version of the first document ([0237]); and generating a second record: indicating that an identifier of the second document has been registered in association with the trade secret registry ([0237]); and indicating that the second document corresponds to the second version of the first document (“an updated pointer to the newly stored set of changes from block 270 may be stored in the file system (or database cell) in place of the previous pointer submitted with the request to write the new version in block 262. Thus, a subsequent read request for that file may identify that new pointer and retrieve the new set of changes and then trace back to the initial version through the previous version, as” [0250]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Struttmann in view of Gabrick and further in view of Liang.
As to Claim 11, the Struttmann/Gabrick combination discloses as discussed above.
Struttmann further discloses
storing first access-control data indicating a first identifier (“username, geolocation, client machine IP address, etc” [0189]) of a first person permitted to access a first portion of the record (“roles and permissions stored in association with various user accounts of an application used to access that data” [0033]);
storing second access-control data indicating a second identifier of a second person permitted to access a second portion of the record, the second access-control data indicating that access to the first portion of the record is unpermitted by the second person (“access to data in the lower-trust database 14, and corresponding access to corresponding records in the secure distributed storage 16, may be designated in part with roles and permissions stored in association with various user accounts of an application used to access that data.” [0033], “binary large objects with various examples of metadata, like file names, creation dates, modification dates, authors, permissions to access” [0242]);
receiving first input data (“receiving a request to write a new version of a document,” [0243]) requesting access to the record, the first input data indicating that the second person is requesting access to the record (“receiving a read request identifying a pointer to a most recent version of a document” [0253], “record that includes an identifier of a user account making the access request” [0225]);
causing display, based at least in part on the first input data, of the second portion by the second person (“documents are retrieved” [0254], see combination above with Choudhury that includes link in the second record).
Struttmann does not directly disclose but Liang teaches refraining from causing display of the first portion of the record based at least in part on the second access-control data indicating that access to the first portion of the record is unpermitted (“(e.g., user 104A may be able to access the document data 112 but the document data 112 may generally be locked and inaccessible by other users 104. Accordingly, to facilitate a transfer of the document 116, the document data 112 may be temporarily unlocked to enable access by another user (e.g., user 104B). Based at least partly on their examination of the document” C.6, L.6-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Struttmann/Gabrick combination by the feature of Liang, and in particular to include in the combination, the refraining from causing display of the first portion of the record based at least in part on the second access-control data indicating that access to the first portion of the record is unpermitted, as taught by Liang.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these features because it would “obviate[e] the need to maintain physical copies of legal documents and, rather, facilitating the ability of provide immutable, readily auditable records of authentication certification histories for electronic documents” (Liang, C.3, L.60-64).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Struttmann in view of Gabrick and further in view of Rutley.
As to Claim 12, the Struttmann/Gabrick combination discloses as discussed above.
Struttmann does not directly disclose but Rutley teaches
associating, using a smart contract associated with the blockchain, the trade secret with an insurance policy (“items that are insured…intellectual property,” C.9, L.38-42), the smart contract indicating a condition for validating the insurance policy (“system…may utilize a smart contract” C.5, L.15-16);
receiving, from the electronic device, validation data indicating that the condition has been met (“digitally represent one or more conditions and execution steps when the one or more conditions are met.” C.5, L.17-19);
sending the validation data to the distributed-ledger system, the validation data causing the smart contract to validate the insurance policy (“Responsive to an event stored in the distributed ledger, the system 100 may execute a smart contract to respond to a status state of a policyholder, for example. In an embodiment, the system 100 may track an event of a policyholder ( e.g., status state transitions from alive to dead), and execute the smart contract to perform a one or more transactions between the first party computing system 102 and third party computing systems 106.” C.5, L.20-27); and
receiving, from the distributed-ledger system, confirmation data indicating that the insurance policy has been validated utilizing the smart contract (“determining that the qualifying state is satisfied by the policyholder” C.11, L.5-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Struttmann/Gabrick combination by the feature of Rutley, and in particular to include in the Struttmann/Gabrick combination, the features of associating, using a smart contract associated with the blockchain, the trade secret with an insurance policy, the smart contract indicating a condition for validating the insurance policy; receiving, from the electronic device, validation data indicating that the condition has been met ; sending the validation data to the distributed-ledger system, the validation data causing the smart contract to validate the insurance policy; and receiving, from the distributed-ledger system, confirmation data indicating that the insurance policy has been validated utilizing the smart contract, as taught by Rutley.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these features because “an insurance claim process, for example, may be self-contained in that communications may be initiated and processes performed independent of human interaction because an inherently trustless environment may be trusted” (Rutley, C.5, L.38-43).
Claim Interpretation
After careful review of the original specification, the Examiner concludes that the Applicant has lexicographically defined “trade secret” in [0079] of the published application. Said paragraph reads “It should be understood that anywhere in this disclosure where the term ‘trade secret’ is used, it should be noted to include not only trade secrets, but any document and/or data and/or information including confidential information, know-how, and other information, and not necessarily documents, data, and/or information meeting a legal definition of the term ‘trade secret.’” The examined claims are therefore construed with these lexicographic definitions. See MPEP § 2111.01 IV.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed in the September 2025 Remarks have been fully considered and addressed below.
On pages 13-14, Applicant argues that the combination of the previously cited art does not teach or suggest the newly amended features of “receiving an indication…generated” and “in response to the indication…document.” However, as discussed in the current rejection, Gabrick teaches receiving an indication that a new version of the first document has been generated (“Click the ‘Update’ button when you are finished editing. This will save your changes to the database.” [0519], “you can add new electronic documents to your innovation…even if the document name is the same.” “system automatically determines if the file names are the same, and if so, automatically creates a new version-without deleting the original” [0525]); and in response to the indication, applying a linkage between a second record associated with the new version of the first document and the financial valuation provided in the second document (“It allows employees to enter their intellectual creations (documents, ideas, schematics, etc.) and receive an immediate, time/date certification to discourage ‘borrowing’ by unethical employees. In addition to certification and registration, the System can provide automatic e-mail notifications to an immediate supervisor and the IP corporate department (all configurable), as well as entry and logging into the company-wide intranet. Others in a user company, with appropriate privilege levels, can search (by PTO key words, project descriptions, classifications, author, date, etc.) and instantly access archived innovations, increasing the level of inter-company collaboration.” [0055], “This is a summary overview of all of the analyses that have been performed on a particular innovation. It includes a graphical representation of the total, along with information about the people who performed the analyses and their individual scores.” [0498]). Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
The remainder of the arguments rest and fall on Applicant’s previous argument that the previously cited art does not teach the newly added features. Therefore, they are found unpersuasive for the same reasons given above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment filed on September 17, 2025 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 MONICA A MANDEL whose telephone number is (571)270-7046. The examiner can normally be reached Monday and Thursday 10:00 AM-6:00 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, Ilana Spar can be reached at (571) 270-7537. 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.
/M.A.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3622
/ILANA L SPAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622