DETAILED ACTION
1. Pending claims for reconsideration are claims 1-20 and 22. Claim 21 has been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments filed 011/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks, applicant argues in substance:
That- As such, the Office Action appears to allege that skipping steps 618-622
and generating validation data at step 616 teaches "wherein the generating of the response to the proof of space challenge using the lookup tables in the proof of space plot comprises reading only a portion of the proof of space plot to generate the response," as recited in amended Claim 1. However, step 616 and steps 618-622 have nothing to do with using only a portion of a proof of space plot to generate a response as claimed. Step 616 of Carlsson relates to "validating the merchant online resource 113 identified by the merchant identifier 167 of the challenge request." Carlsson at 42:12-14. However, validating a resource based on a challenge request does not teach or suggest using only a portion of a proof of space plot to generate a response as claimed. Step 618 of Carlsson relates to "encrypting the challenge data of step 616 using any suitable key or otherwise and then may be operative to communicate that encrypted challenge data along with any other suitable data as challenging data 668 to merchant subsystem 200." Carlsson at 43:24-28. Step 620 relates to "processing received challenging data 668 and then generate and communicate challenge response data 670 to commercial entity subsystem 400 for further validating merchant subsystem 200 during the current validation session." Carlsson at Col. 44:1-5. Step 622 relates to "validating further merchant subsystem 200 and its merchant online resource of interest in the current validation session." Carlsson at Col.45:13-14. However, none of these steps 618, 620, and 622 relate to using only a portion of a proof of space plot to generate a response as claimed. Furthermore, skipping the steps 618, 620, and 622 as described in Carlsson also does not appear to relate to using only a portion of a proof of space plot to generate a response as claimed.
In response to arguments – Step 616 can be viewed as “generating a response based on subset of data. Step 616 of Carlson relates to “validating the merchant online resource 113 identified by the merchant identifier 167 of the challenge request.”(Col.42:12-14). This step involves reading and processing only the portion of the merchant data needed to respond to a validation challenge. Analogously, the claimed invention , a response to a proof-of-space challenge can be generated by accessing only a portion of the proof-of-space plot. Both involve partial access to a larger dataset to compute a response to a challenge efficiently. Thus, step 616 can be considered conceptually similar to accessing a subset of a stored dataset to generate a challenge response. Steps 618-622 relate to encryption, communication, and further validation. If these steps are skipped, the system focuses solely on step 616, which is analogous to reading only the necessary portion data to respond to a challenge, without performing additional overhead operations (encryption, transmission, extended validation). This is functionally similar to the claimed limitation of “reading only a portion of the proof-of-space plot to generate the response, “where the full plot is not accessed, only the subset required to generate the response. In Carlson, the challenge request targets a specific merchant resource, and only relevant data is read/processed at step 616. The concept is the same; accessing a subset of a larger dataset t(proof-of-space plot or merchant data) to generate a challenge response efficiently and teaches the same functional concept of partial data access to generate a response.
Claimed limitation
Carlson Analogy
Reading only a portion of the proof-of-space plot to generate response
Step 616: processing only the merchant data needed to respond to a challenge
Generating a challenge response efficiently
Skipping steps 618-622 focuses on minimal necessary processing
Lookup tables in a proof-of-space plot
Conceptually similar to accessing required challenge in a data set
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patent No.: US 11,107,071 B2 to Carlsson et al(hereafter referenced as Carlsson) in view of Pub.No.: US 2019/0280863 A1 to Meyer et al(hereafter referenced as Meyer), in further view of Patent No.: US 10/708,071 B1 to Greco et al(hereafter referenced as Greco).
Regarding claim 1, Carlsson discloses “a method, comprising: storing, in a memory sub-system having an integrated circuit memory device”(multiple memory subsystems [Fig.1]) , “a proof of space plot comprising a set of lookup tables (IDMS component 470 and/or any other suitable server or portion of commercial entity subsystem 400 may be operative to identify or otherwise lookup the status of any credentials provisioned on any electronic devices associated with a given user account or otherwise, such that commercial entity subsystem 400 may be operative to efficiently and effectively identify one or more non-native payment credentials that may be available to a particular client device associated with a particular user account (e.g., multiple devices of a family account with commercial entity subsystem 400) [Col.20/lines 56-66]) ; receiving a proof of space challenge”(steps 618-622 may be skipped after a challenge request has been validated at step 616 and, instead, validation data may be generated and stored at step 616 rather than challenge data [Col.59/line 6-9]); “generating a response to the proof of space challenge using the lookup tables (one or more merchant using a merchant online resource to obtain transaction data for purchasing that product from that merchant ) , all automatically and without any active interaction by a user of device 100. The potential transaction data of step 502 may keys may be associated with a particular merchant identifier 35 include all data necessary for device 100 to securely gen or with a particular merchant online resource 113. All such merchant key and merchant identifier associations may be stored by or otherwise accessible to commercial entity subsystem 400 ( e.g. , in one or more tables 430 ) at one or more instances of step 501 [Col.23/lines 34-40]) in the proof of space plot” (steps 618-622 may be skipped after a challenge request has been validated at step 616 and, instead, validation data may be generated and stored at step 616 rather than challenge data [Col.59/line 6-9]), “wherein the generating of the response to the proof of space challenge using the lookup table in the proof of space plot comprises reading only a portion of the proof of space plot to generate the response” (steps 618-622 may be skipped after a challenge request has been validated at step 616 and, instead, validation data may be generated and stored at step 616 rather than challenge data [Col.59/line 6-9]);
Carlsson does not explicitly disclose “computing, based on a unique device secret of the integrated circuit memory device and for a communication associated with the proof of space challenge, identity data representative of an identity of the proof of space plot stored in the memory sub-system; and providing the identity data in the communication.”
However, Meyer in an analogous art discloses “computing, based on a unique device secret of the integrated circuit memory device and for a communication associated with the proof of space challenge”(obtain challenge configuration data Meyer[Fig.3/ item 316]), “identity data representative of an identity of the proof of space plot stored in the memory sub-system”(communication functions , including data and voice communications , are performed through a communication subsystem 204 . The communication subsystem 204 implements various communication protocols that allow it to receive messages from and send messages to the network 104 Meyer [par.0022]) ; “and providing the identity data in the communication.”(the computing device 200 may use a subscriber module com ponent or “ smart card ” 226 , such as a Subscriber Identity Module ( SIM ) , a Removable User Identity Module ( RUIM ) and a Universal Subscriber Identity Module ( USIM ) Meyer [par.0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Carlsson’s process for validating online access to secure device functionality using shared secrets between different subsystems and limited use validation data with Meyer’s recovery of secret data in a distributed subsystem in order to provide additional security. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine because Carlsson discloses a process for validating online access to secure device functionality using shared secrets between different subsystems and limited use validation data, Meyer teaches secret data in a distributed system, and both are from the same field of endeavor.
Neither Carlson nor Meyer explicitly disclose “wherein the response to the proof of space challenge is indicative of the memory sub-system having a storage capacity sufficient to store the proof of space plot:”
However, Greco in an analogous art discloses “wherein the response to the proof of space challenge (receive at the prover challenge Greco[Fig.16/item 1606]) is indicative of the memory sub-system having a storage capacity sufficient to store the proof of space plot:”(receive at prover file to be stored Greco[Fig.16/item]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Carlsson’s process for validating online access to secure device functionality using shared secrets between different subsystems and limited use validation data and Meyer’s recovery of secret data in a distributed subsystem with Greco’s proof of response challenge and proof of spacetime engine which receives an input challenge at the challenge generation engine in order to provide additional security. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine because Carlsson discloses a process for validating online access to secure device functionality using shared secrets between different subsystems and limited use validation data, Meyer teaches secret data in a distributed system, Greco discloses a proof of spacetime engine which receives an input challenge at the challenge generation engine, and all are from the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 2 in view of claim 1, the references combined disclose “wherein the proof of space plot includes a plot private key”(the merchant key stored by merchant subsystem 200 maybe a private key Carlsson[Col.1/lines 61-65]) ; “the identity data includes an identification of the proof of space plot” (identity management component Carlsson [Fig.4/item 470]); “and the identification of the proof of space plot is based at least a plot public key associated with the plot private key in a key pair of asymmetric cryptography” (Commercial entity subsystem 400 may provide such commercial entity public key to device 100 in any suitable manner Carlsson [Col.29/lines 37-39]).
Regarding claim 3 in view of claim 2, the references combined disclose “wherein the identity data includes a digital signature generated using the plot private key” (in some embodiments, the merchant key 157 stored by merchant subsystem 200 may be a private key and the merchant key 157 stored by commercial entity subsystem 400 may be a corresponding public key (e.g., for use in asymmetric key encryption/decryption processes Carlsson [Col.29/lines 32-36]).
Regarding claim 4 in view of claim 3, the references combined disclose “wherein the identity data includes an identification of a plot storage location of the proof of space plot in the memory sub-system”(storage in table 430 Carlsson [Col.12/line 5]).
Regarding claim 5 in view of claim 4, the references combined disclose “wherein the proof of space plot is stored at least in part in the integrated circuit memory device; and the plot storage location includes an address of a portion of the proof of space plot being read in generation of the response”(the number of system nodes 106a - n included in the system 100 may be selected as a matter of design choice and may be in the range from a single node to plurality of nodes potentially filling currently known address spaces such as IPv6 Meyer[par.0018]).
Regarding claim 6 in view of claim 5, the references combined disclose “wherein the identity data includes a unique identification of the integrated circuit memory device, the memory sub-system, or an endpoint containing the memory sub-system, or any combination thereof. (multiple memory subsystems Carlsson [Fig.1]).
Regarding claim 7 in view of claim 6, the references combined disclose “wherein the identity data includes a digital signature signed(the given system node may also provide a signature Meyer[par.0041]), “on a message provided in the identity data (obtain identity verification Meyer [Fig.3/item 318]) , “using a secret key in the integrated circuit memory device; and the secret key is generated based on the unique device secret within the integrated circuit memory device”(perform identity verification to obtain secret shares Meyer [Fig.3/item 320]).
Regarding claim 8 in view of claim 7, the references combined disclose “wherein the unique device secret is not accessible from outside of the integrated circuit memory device after completion of manufacture of the integrated circuit memory device” (recover secret data based on secret shares possessed by at least some of the second subset Meyer [Fig.3/item 322]).
Regarding claim 9, Carlsson discloses “a memory sub-system(multiple memory subsystems [Fig.1]), comprising: a processing device; a storage medium operable to store a proof of space plot; and an integrated circuit having a unique device secret; wherein in response to a proof of space challenge” (steps 618-622 may be skipped after a challenge request has been validated at step 616 and, instead, validation data may be generated and stored at step 616 rather than challenge data [Col.59/line 6-9]), “the processing device is configured to generate a response to the proof of space challenge using data in the proof of space plot” (steps 618-622 may be skipped after a challenge request has been validated at step 616 and, instead, validation data may be generated and stored at step 616 rather than challenge data [Col.59/line 6-9]), “wherein the generating of the response to the proof of space challenge using the lookup table in the proof of space plot comprises reading only a portion of the proof of space plot to generate the response” (steps 618-622 may be skipped after a challenge request has been validated at step 616 and, instead, validation data may be generated and stored at step 616 rather than challenge data [Col.59/line 6-9]);
Carlsson does not explicitly disclose “wherein the integrated circuit is configured to compute, based on the unique device secret and for a communication associated with the proof of space challenge, identity data representative of an identity of the proof of space plot stored in the memory sub-system; and wherein the memory sub-system is configured to provide the identity data in the communication.
However, Meyer in an analogous art discloses “wherein the integrated circuit is configured to compute, based on the unique device secret and for a communication associated with the proof of space challenge”(obtain challenge configuration data Meyer[Fig.3/ item 316]), “identity data representative of an identity of the proof of space plot stored in the memory sub-system”(communication functions , including data and voice communications , are performed through a communication subsystem 204 . The communication subsystem 204 implements various communication protocols that allow it to receive messages from and send messages to the network 104 Meyer [par.0022]) ; “and wherein the memory sub-system is configured to provide the identity data in the communication”(the computing device 200 may use a subscriber module com ponent or “ smart card ” 226 , such as a Subscriber Identity Module ( SIM ) , a Removable User Identity Module (RUIM) and a Universal Subscriber Identity Module ( USIM ) Meyer [par.0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Carlsson’s process for validating online access to secure device functionality using shared secrets between different subsystems and limited use validation data with Meyer’s recovery of secret data in a distributed subsystem in order to provide additional security. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine because Carlsson discloses a process for validating online access to secure device functionality using shared secrets between different subsystems and limited use validation data, Meyer teaches secret data in a distributed system, and both are from the same field of endeavor.
Neither Carlson nor Meyer explicitly disclose “wherein the response to the proof of space challenge is indicative of the memory sub-system having a storage capacity sufficient to store the proof of space plot:”
However, Greco in an analogous art discloses “wherein the response to the proof of space challenge (receive at the prover challenge Greco[Fig.16/item 1606]) is indicative of the memory sub-system having a storage capacity sufficient to store the proof of space plot:”(receive at prover file to be stored Greco[Fig.16/item]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Carlsson’s process for validating online access to secure device functionality using shared secrets between different subsystems and limited use validation data and Meyer’s recovery of secret data in a distributed subsystem with Greco’s proof of response challenge and proof of spacetime engine which receives an input challenge at the challenge generation engine in order to provide additional security. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine because Carlsson discloses a process for validating online access to secure device functionality using shared secrets between different subsystems and limited use validation data, Meyer teaches secret data in a distributed system, Greco discloses a proof of spacetime engine which receives an input challenge at the challenge generation engine, and all are from the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 10 in view of claim 9, the references combined disclose “wherein the proof of space plot includes a plot private key stored in the integrated circuit” (the merchant key stored by merchant subsystem 200 maybe a private key Carlsson[Col.1/lines 61-65]); “the identity data includes an identification of the proof of space plot” (identity management component Carlsson [Fig.4/item 470]); “and the identification of the proof of space plot is based at least a plot public key associated with the plot private key in a key pair according to asymmetric cryptography” (Commercial entity subsystem 400 may provide such commercial entity public key to device 100 in any suitable manner Carlsson [Col.29/lines 37-39]).
Regarding claim 11 in view of claim 10, the references combined disclose “wherein the identity data includes a digital signature generated using the plot private key” (in some embodiments, the merchant key 157 stored by merchant subsystem 200 may be a private key and the merchant key 157 stored by commercial entity subsystem 400 may be a corresponding public key (e.g., for use in asymmetric key encryption/decryption processes Carlsson [Col.29/lines 32-36]).
Regarding claim 12 in view of claim 11, the references combined disclose “wherein the identity data includes a message containing an identification of a plot storage location of the proof of space plot in the memory sub-system” (storage in table 430 Carlsson [Col.12/line 5]).
Regarding claim 13 in view of claim 12, the references combined disclose “wherein the plot storage location includes an address of the plot private key of the proof of space plot” (storage in table 430 Carlsson [Col.12/line 5]).
Regarding claim 14 in view of claim 13, the references combined disclose “wherein the message includes a unique identification of the integrated circuit memory device, the memory sub-system, or an endpoint containing the memory sub-system, or any combination thereof” (multiple memory subsystems Carlsson [Fig.1]).
Regarding claim 15 in view of claim 13, the references combined disclose “the memory sub-system of claim 14, wherein the identity data includes a digital signature signed, on the message provided in the identity data, using a secret key in the integrated circuit memory device; and the secret key is generated based on the unique device secret within the integrated circuit memory device.” (recover secret data based on secret shares possessed by at least some of the second subset Meyer [Fig.3/item 322]).
Regarding claim 16 in view of claim 15, the references combined disclose “comprising: an integrated circuit memory device containing the integrated circuit and at least a portion of the storage medium, wherein the unique device secret is inaccessible from outside of the integrated circuit memory device after completion of manufacture of the integrated circuit memory device, and the secret key is generated within the integrated circuit memory device after the completion of manufacture of the integrated circuit memory device” (the number of system nodes 106a - n included in the system 100 may be selected as a matter of design choice and may be in the range from a single node to plurality of nodes potentially filling currently known address spaces such as IPv6 Meyer[par.0018]).
Regarding claim 17, Carlsson discloses “a system, comprising: an integrated circuit memory device (multiple memory subsystems [Fig.1]) having: memory cells; and a logic circuit configured to: control, using cryptographic keys, access to at least a portion of the memory cells” (steps 618-622 may be skipped after a challenge request has been validated at step 616 and, instead, validation data may be generated and stored at step 616 rather than challenge data [Col.59/line 6-9]).
Carlsson does not explicitly disclose “generate, based at least in part on a unique device secret of the integrated circuit memory device, identity data representative of an identity of a proof of space plot stored at least in part in the memory cells; and provide the identity data in connection with access to the proof of space plot.” “wherein the generating of the response to the proof of space challenge using the lookup table in the proof of space plot comprises reading only a portion of the proof of space plot to generate the response” (steps 618-622 may be skipped after a challenge request has been validated at step 616 and, instead, validation data may be generated and stored at step 616 rather than challenge data [Col.59/line 6-9]);
However, Meyer in an analogous art discloses “generate, based at least in part on a unique device secret of the integrated circuit memory device”(obtain challenge configuration data Meyer[Fig.3/ item 316]), “identity data representative of an identity of a proof of space plot stored at least in part in the memory cells”(communication functions , including data and voice communications , are performed through a communication subsystem 204 . The communication subsystem 204 implements various communication protocols that allow it to receive messages from and send messages to the network 104 Meyer [par.0022]) ; wherein the response of the proof of space challenge is indicative of the storage medium having a storage capacity sufficient to store the proof of space plot. “and provide the identity data in connection with access to the proof of space plot.”(the computing device 200 may use a subscriber module com ponent or “ smart card ” 226 , such as a Subscriber Identity Module ( SIM ) , a Removable User Identity Module ( RUIM ) and a Universal Subscriber Identity Module ( USIM ) Meyer [par.0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Carlsson’s process for validating online access to secure device functionality using shared secrets between different subsystems and limited use validation data with Meyer’s recovery of secret data in a distributed subsystem in order to provide additional security. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine because Carlsson discloses a process for validating online access to secure device functionality using shared secrets between different subsystems and limited use validation data, Meyer teaches secret data in a distributed system, and both are from the same field of endeavor.
Neither Carlson nor Meyer explicitly disclose “wherein the response to the proof of space challenge is indicative of the memory sub-system having a storage capacity sufficient to store the proof of space plot:”
However, Greco in an analogous art discloses “wherein the response to the proof of space challenge (receive at the prover challenge Greco[Fig.16/item 1606]) is indicative of the memory sub-system having a storage capacity sufficient to store the proof of space plot:”(receive at prover file to be stored Greco[Fig.16/item]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Carlsson’s process for validating online access to secure device functionality using shared secrets between different subsystems and limited use validation data and Meyer’s recovery of secret data in a distributed subsystem with Greco’s proof of response challenge and proof of spacetime engine which receives an input challenge at the challenge generation engine in order to provide additional security. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine because Carlsson discloses a process for validating online access to secure device functionality using shared secrets between different subsystems and limited use validation data, Meyer teaches secret data in a distributed system, Greco discloses a proof of spacetime engine which receives an input challenge at the challenge generation engine, and all are from the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 18 in view of claim 17, the references combined disclose “wherein the proof of space plot includes a plot private key stored in the memory cells; and the identity data includes an identification of a location of the plot private key stored in the memory cells” (in some embodiments, the merchant key 157 stored by merchant subsystem 200 may be a private key and the merchant key 157 stored by commercial entity subsystem 400 may be a corresponding public key (e.g., for use in asymmetric key encryption/decryption processes Carlsson [Col.29/lines 32-36]).
Regarding claim 19 in view of claim 18, the references combined disclose “wherein the logic circuit is configured to sign the identity data using a secret key generated from the unique device secret” (recover secret data based on secret shares possessed by at least some of the second subset Meyer [Fig.3/item 322]).
Regarding claim 20 in view of claim 19, the references combined disclose “wherein the identity data includes an identifier representative of an owner of the integrated circuit memory device and an identifier representative of the proof of space plot” (communication functions , including data and voice communications , are performed through a communication subsystem 204 . The communication subsystem 204 implements various communication protocols that allow it to receive messages from and send messages to the network 104 Meyer [par.0022]).
Regarding claim 22, in view of claim 21, the references combined discloses “wherein the proof of space challenge comprises a reference to a plot storage location of the proof of space plot, and further wherein the portion of the proof of space plot read to generate the response is based on the plot storage location” (steps 618-622 may be skipped after a challenge request has been validated at step 616 and, instead, validation data may be generated and stored at step 616 rather than challenge data [Col.59/line 6-9]).
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 MICHAEL D ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5159. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-6pm.
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, Jeffrey Pwu can be reached at (571) 272-6798. 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.
/MICHAEL D ANDERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2433
/JEFFREY C PWU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2433