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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/02/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 02/13/2026 has been entered. Claim 16 has been amended. Claims 9, 14, 17-21, 23 and 28 have been/remained canceled. Claim 1-8, 10-13, 15-16, 22, 24-27 and 29 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s arguments, on page 6-8 of the remark filed on 02/13/2026, on the newly amended limitations of independent claim 16: “obtaining a blockchain alias identifying a blockchain account; sending, by the electronic data processing device, certificate data including the public key to the blockchain account; and embedding the blockchain alias in the certificate, such that the certificate data in the blockchain account is identifiable to a party receiving the certificate. ”, arguments are persuasive.
Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over Kravitz et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20170147808) further in view of Prodanovic et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220103681), has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the following prior art: Lonas et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20180077146) and Royyuru et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200117656) further in view of Torrenegra et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20190325532)). Please refer to the 35 U.S.C. 103 section below for a detailed explanation.
For the reasons stated above and the new ground(s) of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 below, Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument, see Applicant’s Remarks Page 6-8, regarding allowance of the application. Examiner asserts that claims 16, 22, 24, 26-27 and 29 are rejected for the reasons stated above in conjunction with the new ground(s) of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 below.
Conclusion: Lonas- Royyuru-Torrenegra teaches the aforementioned limitations of independent claim 16 rendering the claim limitations obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The use of the terms “Facebook, like Facebook or Instagram, Snapchat, Reddit, Pinterest, Tinder, Twitter, Grindr, VK, WeChat” on page 11 of the specification, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 16, 22, 24, 26 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lonas et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20180077146, hereinafter referred to as “Lonas”) and Royyuru et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200117656, hereinafter referred to as “Royyuru”) further in view of Torrenegra et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20190325532, hereinafter referred to as “Torrenegra”)
In regards to Claim 16, Lonas teaches a method of registering a certificate in an electronic data processing device, the method comprising: (Par. (0024 and 0031); electronic processing device (server) registers a certificate (records and stores information on digital certificate))
generating the certificate and associating the certificate with a public key; (Par. (0031 and 0046); generated certificate related to public key pair))
adding at least one reputation service identifier of a reputation service provider to the certificate, (Par. (0014); at least one reputation service identifier (entity with online identity of user name or persona)), (Par. (0017); adding at least one reputation service identifier to the certificate (digital certificate is issued to an entity with username)), (Par. (0024); adding at least one reputation service identifier of a reputation service provider (online identities on social media website self-certify by entity with username and issued certificate being used to verify)), (Par. (0031); adding at least one reputation service identifier of a reputation service provider (entity data of entity with user name of social media website includes digital certificate that comprises entity)), (Examiner note: in the instant application the specification states on Page 11 lines 10-25 that a one reputation service identifier of a reputation service provider refers to a username of social media platform therefor it will be broadly and reasonably interpreted as such.
the reputation service identifier comprising data, which identifies the reputation service provider; (Par. (0014); at least one reputation service identifier (entity with online identity of user name or persona)), (Par. (0031); reputation service identifier (entity with user name of social media website includes entity data with online identity) comprises data (entity data with online identities and online photos)), (Par. (0021 and 0034); which identifies the reputation service provider (entity accessing social media website with online identity associated with data (entity data with online identities))
Lonas does not explicitly teach obtaining a blockchain alias identifying a blockchain account; sending, by the electronic data processing device, certificate data including the public key to the blockchain account; and embedding the blockchain alias in the certificate, such that the certificate data in the blockchain account is identifiable to a party receiving the certificate.
Wherein Royyuru teaches obtaining a blockchain alias identifying a blockchain account; (Par. (0034 and 0043-0044); obtaining alias and account information of distributed ledger)
sending, by the electronic data processing device, certificate data including the public key to the blockchain account; and (Par. (0050-0051); transmitting certificate to blockchain account (contributing entity including the public key (public key with certificate)) , (Par. (0002 and 0043); to the blockchain account (contributing entity with account on distributed ledger)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lonas to incorporate the teaching of Royyuru to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of alias data and certificate verification within nodes of a network based on accounts, with the motivation of using a blockchain network to link accounts with alias to avoid conflicts and using a certificate authority to transmit certificate data and encryption keys to create authentication and allow nodes to identify trusted participants. (Royyuru Par. (0043 and 0048-0049))
Lonas and Royyuru do not explicitly teach embedding the blockchain alias in the certificate, such that the certificate data in the blockchain account is identifiable to a party receiving the certificate.
Wherein Torrenegra teaches embedding the blockchain alias in the certificate, such that the certificate data in the blockchain account is identifiable to a party receiving the certificate. (Par. (0263-0264); embedding the blockchain alias in the certificate (embedding the signature with the profile data and account ID), (Par. (0037-0038 and 0064); blockchain alias (profile data with account ID of blockchain associated with social network), (Par. (0261 and 0264); such that the certificate data in the blockchain account (signature is verified and re-validated based on account holder of blockchain) is identifiable to a party receiving the certificate (nodes that receive signature that is embedded with profile data can commit data to blockchain based on account)), (Examiner Note: Examiner states the phrase “such that” is broadly and reasonably interpreted in light of the specification stated on page 11 lines 5-20 of a limitation that uses the certificate in a way that all nodes or parties in the system when received can identify the data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lonas and Royyuru to incorporate the teaching of Torrenegra to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of blockchain technologies with certificate verification and reputation service identifiers associated with social networking, with the motivation of utilizing social networks and account information of users to guard access and grant only authorized users data to protect the user and prevent selling of data. By embedding signature data into the alias with an account users can validate and commit data into the blockchain more effectively based on comparisons. (Torrenegra Par. (0007-0008 and 0254))
In regards to Claim 22, the combination of Lonas, Royyuru and Torrenegra teach the method of claim 16, Lonas further teaches a data processing device comprising a processor configured to perform the method of claim 16. (Par. (0033); processing device with processor )
In regards to Claim 24, the combination of Lonas, Royyuru and Torrenegra teach the method of claim 16, Lonas further teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a program of instructions that, when executed by a processor, perform the method of claim 16. (Par. (0047 and 0049); non-transitory medium associated with processor))
In regards to Claim 26, the combination of Lonas, Royyuru and Torrenegra teach the method of claim 16, Royyuru further teaches sending the certificate to the blockchain account. (Par. (0050-0051); transmitting certificate to blockchain account (contributing entity including the public key (public key with certificate)) , (Par. (0002 and 0043); to the blockchain account (contributing entity with account on distributed ledger)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lonas and Torrenegra to incorporate the teaching of Royyuru to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of alias data and certificate verification within nodes of a network based on accounts, with the motivation of using a blockchain network to link accounts with alias to avoid conflicts and using a certificate authority to transmit certificate data and encryption keys to create authentication and allow nodes to identify trusted participants. (Royyuru Par. (0043 and 0048-0049))
In regards to Claim 29, the combination of Lonas, Royyuru and Torrenegra teach the method of claim 16, Lonas further teaches the method according to claim 16, wherein the reputation service provider is at least one of the following: a social media service; (Par. (0024); a reputation service provider is at least a social media service (online identities on social media website self-certify by entity with username and issued certificate being used to verify))
a network address associated with an entity associated with a private key; and
a database managed by a government service. (Examiner Note: By using the phrase “at least one of the following” followed by “and a database [..]” Examiner broadly and reasonably interprets in light of the claims that only one of the following limitations should be mapped based on condition of “at least one of the following”.)
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lonas et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20180077146, hereinafter referred to as “Lonas”), Royyuru et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200117656, hereinafter referred to as “Royyuru”) and Torrenegra et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20190325532, hereinafter referred to as “Torrenegra”) further in view of Castinado et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210112063, hereinafter referred to as “Castinado”)
In regards to Claim 27, the combination of Lonas, Royyuru and Torrenegra do not explicitly teach sending the reputation service identifier to the blockchain account.
Wherein Castinado teaches sending the reputation service identifier to the blockchain account. (Par. (0044); reputation service identifier (alias that is social networking ID), (Par. (0184); providing reputation service identifier (alias) to blockchain account (valid account of BANK1 of blockchain and alias is mapped to valid account))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lonas, Royyuru and Torrenegra to incorporate the teaching of Castinado to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of alias data and verification within nodes of a network based on accounts, with the motivation of using alias with accounts in a blockchain to regulate and grant requested access based on determining alias of accounts to authorize transaction. (Castinado Par. (0008))
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1-8,10-13,15 and 25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Dependent claim 10 and their respective dependent claims, are allowable over the prior art of record including Lonas, Royyuru and Torrenegra and the remaining references cited by the Examiner, since the prior art, taken individually or in combination fails to particularly disclose, fairly suggest or render obvious;
associating the certificate to a data file; signing the data file using a private key, the private key being associated with the certificate and being associated with the public key; generating a file identifier, which identifies the data file based on data contained in the data file; sending the file identifier to the blockchain account; generating a data file token based on the file identifier; signing the data file token with the private key; sending the data file token to the reputation service provider for publication associated with the reputation service identifier, as specified in claim 10.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sobel; William E. (U.S No. 9860230) “Systems And Methods For Digitally Signing Executables With Reputation Information”. Considered this reference because it addressed the concept of authenticating digital certificates and reputation data.
Raman; Nivedhitha (U.S No. 9455994) “Techniques For Intelligently Executing A Digital Signature”. Considered this application because it relates to digital signatures and programmable code to establish a level of trustor reputation when signing.
Teppler, Steven W. (U.S Pub. No. 20050160272) “System And Method For Providing Trusted Time In Content Of Digital Data Files”. Considered this application because it addressed digital files and identifying tampering using hash-based verification and certificates to establish trust.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASSAN A HUSSEIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3554. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am-5pm.
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, Eleni Shiferaw can be reached on (571)272-3867. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HASSAN A HUSSEIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2497