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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because
The same reference numbers have been used to in different Figures. It is unclear whether the reference numbers refer to the same elements or different elements. For example reference number “1” has been used to designate both user depiction (Figures 1-2 and 6), source (page 8), “bootnodes” (Figure 7), and name format (Figure 9, see also page 7 of Specification).
Reference number “4” has been used to designate both local storage and common data input.
Page 10, lines 5 of Applicant’s specification recite “component 5D” which is not in the drawings.
Reference number “5” has been used to designate both shared data input and internet (page 9).
Reference number “2C” in Figure 4 is not disclosed in the specification.
Reference number “9” in Figure 3 is not disclosed in the specification.
Page 9, lines 18 of Applicant’s specification recites “5E” which is not in the drawings.
Page 9, lines 15 of Applicant’s specification recites “6C” which is not in the drawings.
Page 9, lines 5 of Applicant’s specification recites “5D” which is not in the drawings.
Figure 1 and Figure 6 appear to be the same drawings, however, the brief description of the drawings on pages 6-7 implies that they are different drawings.
Figure 12 is not described in the specification.
Figure 13 is not described in the specification.
Figure 8 is not described in the specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract exceeds 150 words. The abstract should be within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 1, line 13, “….the internet, While there…” should instead be “….in internet[[,]] . While there…”.
Page 2, line 1 fail to spell out the acronym “OTP”. Throughout the specification, different acronyms are used, but they are not spelled out. In the Specification, all acronym should be spelled out using the full name followed by the acronym in parentheses on its first mentioned, (for example ECO page 2, line 18, , IPFS page 4, line 10, DDOS page 5, line 2, PGP page 7, line 20)
Page 2, line 7, “…not encrypted by instead…” appear to have words missing.
Page 4, lines 10-11 recite “….move it DApp “B”…” should instead be “…move it to Dapp “B”.
On pages 6-7, the Brief description of the Drawings list only Figures 1-8; however, the Drawings has Figures 1-15.
Page 7, lines 1-12 described component 1 as a user depiction, but the image in Figure 1 for component 1 is a cloud, not a user.
Page 13, line 10 recite “Fig 6 in 5 or 10”. The sentence is not clear.
Appropriate correction is required.
Due to the extent of the objections above, all possible errors of the drawings and specification have not been recited to the extent necessary. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the drawings and specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without disclosing the details of how the steps are achieved, which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976). For example, the claim recite “preventing service providers from unauthorized use or sale of user data; preventing large scale hacks from compromising user data; allowing unprecedented user control over said user data; and allowing user control of information based on recipient”, but the claim does not specify how the steps are achieved. Critical and essential steps to practice the invention is not included in the claim nor specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: the claim omits essential steps of how the “preventing service providers from unauthorized use or sale of user data; preventing large scale hacks from compromising user data; allowing unprecedented user control over said user data; and allowing user control of information based on recipient” are achieved.
Claim 1 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. This claim is an omnibus type claim.
Claim 1 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
The claim recites “unprecedented” user control. The claim fail to particularly point-out and distinctly include the steps that permit the user control to be “unprecedented”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to certain methods of organized human activity abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “A decentralized and user controlled method for sharing secured user data comprising of: preventing service providers from unauthorized use or sale of user data; preventing large scale hacks from compromising user data; allowing unprecedented user control over said user data; and allowing user control of information based on recipient”.
The limitations above pertain to a method, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers certain methods of the abstract idea being organized human activity of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between user and other entities.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include/recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shockley et al US 20200226592 (hereinafter Shockley).
As to claim 1, Shockley teaches a decentralized and user controlled method for sharing secured user data (paragraphs 7 and 85 and abstract disclose decentralized network for trust, identity, information verification, privacy for secure data storage and digital identities where server-stored data is viewable only by the intended recipients. Users are able to share verifiable proof of data and or identity information) comprising of:
preventing service providers from unauthorized use or sale of user data (paragraph 7 discloses businesses are able to request, consume, and act on the data—all without a data storage server or those businesses ever seeing or having access to the raw sensitive information. Paragraph 13 also discloses providing secure financial transactions, where the provider/selling party has no access to the financial (e.g., credit card) information of the buyer, the financial institution (e.g., credit card company) has no access to the name of the provider/selling party or to the nature of the service provided by the provider/selling party);
preventing large scale hacks from compromising user data (paragraphs 95 and 98 reveal encryption of data, and after the encryption takes place, the source device sends the encrypted data to the storage server. Even though the storage server obtains and stores the encrypted data, the storage server is completely unable to decrypt it (that is, without having the source device's private/decryption key). The source device need not continue to store the raw data, and may delete (or generally not store) any source data once it is encrypted into the source-encrypted source data for even further security against hacking (e.g., locally decrypting it if needed again in the future using its own decryption key, whether for access or editing). Thus, preventing the system from being hack and the compromised of user data);
allowing unprecedented user control over said user data (paragraph 94 reveals the source/user device controls access over the source/user data. See also paragraphs 84-85); and
allowing user control of information based on recipient (paragraph 94 reveals the user/source device controls access over the source/user data. Paragraphs 84-85 discloses users are able to share verifiable proof of data and/or a limitless list of details about themselves (identify information), and businesses are able to request, consume, and act on the data, without a data storage server or those businesses ever seeing or having access to the raw sensitive information. The decentralized network provide for trust, identity, information verification, privacy, and personalization that reinvents secure data storage and digital identities, where server-stored data is viewable only by the intended recipients).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Lemieux et al US 20230315904 (hereinafter Lemieux) and Moffat et al US 20200175198 (hereinafter Moffat).
Lemieux teaches preventing service providers from unauthorized use or sale of user data (paragraph 239); preventing large scale hacks from compromising user data (paragraph 457); allowing unprecedented user control over said user data (abstract and paragraphs 4-5(; and allowing user control of information based on recipient (paragraphs 4-5 and 239).
Moffat teaches preventing service providers from unauthorized use or sale of user data (paragraph 38); preventing large scale hacks from compromising user data (paragraph 51); allowing unprecedented user control over said user data (paragraph 47); and allowing user control of information based on recipient (paragraph 47).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FELICIA FARROW whose telephone number is (571)272-1856. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 7:30am-4:00pm (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alexander Lagor can be reached at (571)270-5143. 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.
/F.F/ Examiner, Art Unit 2437
/ALEXANDER LAGOR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2437