DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to applicant’s correspondence of 10/01/2025. Claims 1, 10, 11, 25 – 27, 29 – 38, and 40 – 42 are amended. Claims 2 – 9, 12 – 24, 28 and 39 are canceled. Claims 1, 10, 11, 25 – 27, 29 – 38 and 40 – 42 are pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and remarks in the Arguments/Remarks filed on 10/01/2025 (hereafter Remarks) referring to the Office Action on 01/28/2025 (hereafter OA) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On p.8 of the Remarks Applicant stated that “Kotwal therefore fails to disclose computing sequencing values that encode a relationship to earlier events”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. According the disclosure by Applicant in Para. [0032] of SPECS, the sequencing value could be a single value “assigned to a respective encrypted event”. The sequencing value is associated with an event according to the sequencing scheme indicating the sequencing values as a respective number. i.e., “the sequencing scheme may be a pattern of increasing (or decreasing) values (e.g., "one", followed by "two", followed by "three", etc.)”.
The limitation “sequencing value” is met in Kotwal by the “event log comprising sequencing number” (see Kotwal, col. 2, ll.30-58) associated with respective event, as indicated in OA.
On p.9 of the Remarks Applicant referring to a combination of Kotwal-Yin stated that “the combination would still lack the claimed mechanism for conditional re-transmission of both the current event and a previously generated event upon verification failure.” Followed this clarification, the amendments in the claims are focused on the operations with data and relevant transactions where the respective transactions are dependent. Therefore, claimed computing of a specified value is based on previously generated event, thus improving data verification and security in the system.
Examiner respectfully notes that the claimed conditional mechanism in the amended claims is not original as indicated in updated OA referring to the prior art of Simon. Other arguments are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
The amended claims still missing a clear indication of an originality of the invention and therefore cannot overcome the prior art. In addition, the claims are not clear who is transmitting the data and where.
Accordingly, rejection under 103 maintained.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 10, 11, 25 – 27, 29 – 38 and 40 – 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotwal et al. (US 12242455) (hereafter Kotwal) and in view of Simon et al. (US 20190295081) (hereafter Simon).
As per claim 1, Kotwal discloses: A method comprising: generating a computer event at a computing device associated with a device management system (Kotwal, in col. 2, ll. 11-16, discloses computing event management system, method, and media);
storing the Kotwal, in col. 2, ll. 25-29, discloses storage of computer event data in a storage system);
transmitting the computer event and the sequencing value to the device management system, (Examiner note: device management system is met in Kotwal by the audit framework comprising analytics tools; sequencing value is met in Kotwal by the event log comprising sequencing number associated with an event) (Kotwal, in col. 2, ll. 34-39, discloses: The file server may include an audit framework that manages event data in an event log. The audit framework may be configured to communicate with a message topic broker of the analytics tool to provide event data and/or metadata to the analytics tool from the event log)
the sequencing value being used by the device management system to determine whether thefrom a last verified event]; (Examiner note: a sequence number associated with an event indicates a respective sequent event) (Kotwal, in col. 2, ll. 30-58, discloses operations of analytics tool processing events according the sequence number) (Kotwal, in col. 2, ll. 45-47, discloses the audit framework may store each event in the event log with a uniquely, monotonically increasing sequence number);
receiving an event response from the device management system; in response to the event response indicating that the computer event is the subsequent event (Examiner note: a sequence number associated with an event indicates the respective sequent event) (Kotwal, col.2, ll.47-49: When event data is provided to the analytics tool, the sequence number is provided with the event data.),
[from the last verified event,]
deleting the computer event from the local storage device (Kotwal, in col. 11, ll. 60-63, discloses virtual file system, VFS, performing adding, deleting, moving, modifying etc. operations);
and in response to the event response indicating the from the last verified event]: retrieving the previously generatedKotwal, in col. 2, ll.39-43 discloses: If a first message that includes event data for a first event corresponding to a particular file is not received by the analytics tool, processing a subsequent second message that includes event data for a second event corresponding to the particular file);
(Kotwal, in col. 2, ll.39-43 discloses: If a first message that includes event data for a first event corresponding to a particular file is not received by the analytics tool, processing a subsequent second message that includes event data for a second event corresponding to the particular file)
and re-transmitting the computer event and the previously generated computer event (Kotwal, in col. 11, ll. 3-10, discloses operations of event-related data transmitting/moving by the virtual file system, VFS).
Kotwal does not explicitly disclose: an event verification procedure as well as computing a sequence number or value based on previous event features. However, Simon discloses:
from the last verified event (Simon, discloses in para. [0014-0015] a verifiable ledger enabling verification of data, transactions and products in the system);
computing a sequencing value for the computer event based on data of a previously generated computer event: (Simon, in para. [0022] discloses computing transaction A250 of a blockchain system that uses as an input data from the previous transactions and data blocks)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kotwal, in view of the teaching of Simon because both references disclose computer event/transaction data processing and management in distributed ledger system. The motivation to combine would be to extend computer event data operation on explicit event verification procedures and transaction processing using as input data from the previous transactions and blocks to achieve a better information security in the computing system.
As per claim 10 Kotwal as modified discloses: The method of claim 1, further comprising: selecting a delivery priority level for the Kotwal, in col. 26, ll.4-8 discloses determination of event priority levels and respective data processing according to the priority levels); in response to the delivery priority level being selected as the first delivery priority level, scheduling transmission of the without delay (Kotwal, in col. 26, ll.28-48 discloses operations of tiering engine processing event data according to the priority levels including, scheduling, processing time, delays etc. and including respective data encryption, in col.43, ll.2-7).
As per claim 11, claim 11 encompasses same or similar scope as claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected based on the same reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 1.
As per claim 25 Kotwal as modified discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein the sequencing value is a digest computed from the data of the previously generated computer event (Simon, in para. [0022] discloses computing transaction A250 of a blockchain system that uses as an input data from the previous transactions and data blocks).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kotwal, in view of the teaching of Simon because both references disclose computer event/transaction data processing and management in distributed ledger system. The motivation to combine would be to extend computer event data operation on explicit event verification procedures and transaction processing using as input data from the previous transactions and blocks to achieve a better information security in the computing system.
As per claim 26 Kotwal as modified discloses: The method of claim 25, wherein the digest is a first digest, the method comprising: determining whether the first digest digest of the last verified event; (Simon, in para. [0049,0050] discloses verification of a variety of products in a system, i.e., massages, digests, manifests etc., as depicted in Fig. 8); and in response to the first digest being determined as not corresponding to the second digest, generating the event response to include information that indicates that the computer event is not the subsequent event from the last verified event (Simon, in para. [0023] discloses a software algorithm to regulate computation of a response that “may comprise any type of rules that regulate who and how the chain may be extended”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kotwal, in view of the teaching of Simon because both references disclose computer event/transaction data processing and management in distributed ledger system. The motivation to combine would be to extend computer event data operation on explicit event verification procedures and transaction processing using an appropriate software algorithm for data management to achieve a better information security in the computing system.
As per claim 27 Kotwal as modified discloses: The method of claim 1, further comprising: selecting a delivery priority level for the first computer event from a plurality of delivery priority levels based on a type of the first computer event (Kotwal, in col. 26, ll.4-8 discloses determination of event priority levels and respective data processing according to the priority levels); generating the sequencing value information based on the-a previously generated transmitted computer event having a delivery priority level that corresponds to the delivery priority level for the first computer event; and modifying the first computer event to include the sequencing value (Kotwal, in col. 26, ll.28-48 discloses operations of tiering engine processing event data according to the priority levels including event log with sequencing information, col. 14, ll.43-46).
As per claim 29 Kotwal as modified discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein the computer event is encrypted using an encryption key, wherein a decryption key, used to decrypt the computer event, is stored at the device management system, the decryption key not being accessible to the computing device (Simon, in para. [0021-0022] discloses application of encryption keys for protected data management in the system).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kotwal, in view of the teaching of Simon because both references disclose computer event/transaction data processing and management in distributed ledger system. The motivation to combine would be to extend computer event data operation on encryption using public/private keys to achieve a better information security in the computing system.
As per claim 30 Kotwal as modified discloses: The method of claim 29, wherein the computer event is a first computer event and the sequencing value is a first sequencing value, wherein the encryption key is a first encryption key, the event response also including a second encryption key, the method further comprising: storing the second encryption key on the computing device; generating, by the computing device, a second computer event (Simon in para. [0021, 0023] discloses usage of a software algorithm for data management followed any predefined rule, e.g. sequentially using encryption keys, as depicted in Figs. 2A, 2B); generating a second sequencing value for the second computer event based on data of the first computer event encrypting the computer event using the second encryption key; and transmitting the second computer event and the second sequencing value. (Simon, in para. [0023] discloses a software algorithm to regulate computation of a response that “may comprise any type of rules that regulate who and how the chain may be extended”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kotwal, in view of the teaching of Simon because both references disclose computer event/transaction data processing and management in distributed ledger system. The motivation to combine would be to extend computer event data operation on explicit event verification procedures and transaction processing using an appropriate software algorithm for data management to achieve a better information security in the computing system.
As per claim 31 Kotwal as modified discloses: The method of claim 1, further comprising: encrypting a portion of the computer event, wherein the sequencing value is not encrypted (Simon in para. [0021, 0023] discloses usage of a software algorithm for data management followed any predefined rule, e.g. processing a full file or a part of it by locating an appropriate item at step 606 using encryption keys [0038], as depicted in Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kotwal, in view of the teaching of Simon because both references disclose computer event/transaction data processing and management in distributed ledger system. The motivation to combine would be to extend computer event data operation on explicit event verification procedures and transaction processing using an appropriate software algorithm for data management to achieve a better information security in the computing system.
As per claim 32 Kotwal as modified discloses: The computing device of claim 11, wherein the executable instructions include instructions that cause the at least one processor to: generate the sequencing value for the computer event by computing a digest of the previously generated computer event (Simon, in para. [0022] discloses computing transaction A250 of a blockchain system that uses as an input data from the previous transactions and data blocks, i.e., processing sequential values); and modify the computer event to include the digest (Simon, in para. [0049,0050] discloses processing variety of products in a system, i.e., massages, digests, manifests etc., as depicted in Fig. 8.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kotwal, in view of the teaching of Simon because both references disclose computer event/transaction data processing and management in distributed ledger system. The motivation to combine would be to extend computer event data operation on explicit event verification procedures and transaction processing using an appropriate software algorithm for data management to achieve a better information security in the computing system.
As per claims 33 – 35, claims 33 - 35 encompass same or similar scope as claims 27, 29 and 30, respectively. Therefore, claim 33 – 35 are rejected based on the same reasons set forth above in rejecting claims 27, 29 and 30.
As per claim 36 Kotwal as modified discloses: The computing device of claim 11, wherein the computer event also includes event information about the computer event, wherein the executable instructions include instructions that cause the at least one processor to: encrypt the event information of the computer event, wherein the sequencing value of the computer event is not encrypted (Simon in para. [0021, 0023] discloses usage of a software algorithm for data management followed any predefined rule, i.e., for encryption procedure).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kotwal, in view of the teaching of Simon because both references disclose computer event/transaction data processing and management in distributed ledger system. The motivation to combine would be to extend computer event data operation on explicit event verification procedures and transaction processing using an appropriate software algorithm for data management to achieve a better information security in the computing system.
As per claim 37, claim 37 encompasses same or similar scope as claim 1. Therefore, claim 37 is rejected based on the same reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 1.
As per claims 38, 40 and 41, claims 38, 40 and 41 encompass same or similar scope as claims 27, 29 and 30, respectively. Therefore, claim 38, 40 and 41 are rejected based on the same reasons set forth above in rejecting claims 27,29 and30.
As per claim 42 Kotwal as modified discloses: The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 40, wherein the computer event also includes event information about the computer event, wherein the operations further comprise: encrypting the event information and the sequencing value using the encryption key (Simon in para. [0021, 0023] discloses usage of a software algorithm for data management followed any predefined rule, e.g. sequentially using encryption keys, as depicted in Figs. 2A, 2B).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kotwal, in view of the teaching of Simon because both references disclose computer event/transaction data processing and management in distributed ledger system. The motivation to combine would be to extend computer event data operation on explicit event verification procedures and transaction processing using an appropriate software algorithm for data management to achieve a better information security in the computing system.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment 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 extension fee 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 VLADIMIR IVANOVICH GAVRILENKO whose telephone number is (313) 446-6530. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 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, Lynn Feild can be reached on (571) 272-2092. 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.
/Vladimir I. Gavrilenko/Examiner, Art Unit 2431
/SHIN-HON (ERIC) CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2431