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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/11/2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election of Group I Claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 06/25/2025 is acknowledged. Group II Claims 15-18 are hereby withdrawn.
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.
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 1-3, 5, 7-8 and 9-14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cuende et al. (U.S No. 9679276, hereinafter referred to as “Cuende”) Struttmann et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20170366353, hereinafter referred to as “Struttmann”), and Padmanabhan et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200252406, hereinafter referred to as “Padmanabhan”) further in view of Hardy et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20190207768, hereinafter referred to as “Hardy”)
In regards to Claim 1, Cuende teaches a method of using a first blockchain to generate evidence for proving document integrity, the method executable by a processor, the method comprising: (Col. 2 lines 1-15 “.”; generate evidence (create one or more proofs)), (Col 1 lines 26-35; a first blockchain for proving document integrity (integrity and/or ownership of a file using the bitcoin block chain)), (Col. 1 lines 44-50 ; executable by a processor))
generating, for a document, a first record in a first format, the first format comprising: (Col. 3 lines 63-67 ; generating a first record)), (Col. 4 line 22-30; for a document (electronic files/documents)), (Col. 6 lines 60-7 and Col. 7 lines 1-8”; in a first format ( 80 bytes of data)
a record locator field; (Col. 2 lines 40-55; record locator field (index describing a position of the first hash)), (Col. 8 lines 60-65 and Col. 9 lines 15-30;record locator field (information related to a position of the data unit [..] index may describe position of individual hashes))
wherein the first record comprises: (Col. 3 lines 63-67 “.”; first record (block includes a record))
a first value in the record locator field of the first record; and (Col. 10 lines 10-25 ; first value (index value (H.sub.k 302, H.sub.L 304 etc.) in the record locator field (index describing position of hashes)), (Col. 3 lines 63-67 ”; of the first record (block in blockchain corresponding to record))
generating, in the first blockchain, a first block comprising the first record, (Col. 3 lines 63-67 “”; first block comprising first record (block in blockchain corresponding to record))
wherein the first value in the record locator field of the first record indicates a blockchain address of a second record, different than the first record, (Col. 3 lines 63-67 “”; second record (several blocks in blockchain corresponding to record)), (Col. 6 lines 35-55 “”; second record in first blockchain (hashes corresponding to data blocks/units)), (Col. 10 lines 7-20 “.”; first value in record location field (index of position of hashes) indicating an address/location of a second record (index describing position of hashes H.sub.k 302 and H.sub.L 304))
Cuende does not explicitly teach a first IVC value in the first IVC portion of the IVC field of the first record; and an integrity verification code (IVC) field comprising a first IVC portion; and wherein the blockchain address of the second record indicates a location of the second record within the blockchain, wherein the second record is within a second block of the first blockchain that is prior to the first block in the first blockchain wherein the first value in the record locator field of the first record includes a block identifier of the second block, and wherein the first value in the record locator field of the first record does not link blocks of the first blockchain; and linking the first block to a prior block in the first blockchain using an IVC of the prior block in the first blockchain within the first block.
Wherein Struttmann teaches an integrity verification code (IVC) field comprising a first IVC portion; and (Par. (0006); integrity verification code (cryptographic hash value based on a record)), (Par. (0084) “first IVC portion (SHA-2 SHA256, MD5)), (Par. (0243); first IVC portion (hash digest))
a first IVC value in the first IVC portion of the IVC field of the first record; and (Par. (0236) ; first IVC value (MD5) in the first IVC portion (hash digest)), (Par. (0223-0224) “”; first record (records))
linking the first block to a prior block in the first blockchain using an IVC of the prior block in the first blockchain within the first block. (Par. (0097); block with IVS (hash value) of previous block in contents referring to previous block in the blockchain))
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Struttmann within the teachings of Cuende because of the analogous concept of blockchain technologies and verifying records based on hash values. Struttmann includes an implementation of an integrity verification code including a portion and a value in that portion of the first record. This is important because by implementing a hash value that comprises a SHA-256, MD5 or utilization of a hash/message digest multiple documents such as real estate transactions, estate planning with codicils regarding bequests or power of attorneys, financial transactions with multiple stages/accounts, patent cross-licenses, licenses terms for standard essential patents can be identified and fully verified at the time the document or file is being registered into the blockchain. This solves the issue of trust absences of a trusted entity as well as prevents lawsuits by companies over license disagreements or contract negotiations over property. The motivation to combine these references is because by implementing an integrity verification code that includes a portion as well as a value of that portion documents and files can be thoroughly identified on how they are related or the relationship in contract or similarity to a plurality of other documents. (Struttmann Par. (0002-0003 and 0056))
Cuende and Struttmann do not explicitly teach wherein the blockchain address of the second record indicates a location of the second record within the blockchain, wherein the second record is within a second block of the first blockchain that is prior to the first block in the first blockchain, wherein the first value in the record locator field of the first record includes a block identifier of the second block, and wherein the first value in the record locator field of the first record does not link blocks of the first blockchain; and
Wherein Padmanabhan teaches wherein the blockchain address of the second record indicates a location of the second record within the blockchain, (Par. (0362-0365); blockchain address of the second record (address for specific blocks; using address to return information for a block on the blockchain)), (Par. (0390, 0598-0604); blockchain address of the second record indicates a location (plurality of data records in first blockchain with index and addressable location of each record))
wherein the second record is within a second block of the first blockchain that is prior to the first block in the first blockchain, (Figure 2A labels 144, 141, 143; second record (fork block 143) is prior to first block (fork root block 144))
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Padmanabhan within the teachings of Cuende and Struttmann, because of the analogous concept of blockchain technologies and verifying data with the use of hash values. Padmanabhan includes a process in which a fourth linked record value is in the linked record locator field of a second record, and the fourth linked record indicates a location of a fifth record linking the records in a daisy chain. This is important because by including an index value of a location a solution is presented that links multiple documents such as real estate or financials transactions, patent licensing, accounts, contract negotiations by their relationship to one and another. This proves importance when attempting to verify the integrity of many documents and preventing lawsuits or disputes by companies/ owners on the determining how the documents are related. By linking the location of records with multiple index values users would ultimately be able to identify at the time and place of where the documents were registered and have a more efficient way of verification that could not be corrupted or altered because of the complexity of each linked record value. (Padmanabhan Par. (0085-0086))
Cuende, Struttmann and Padmanabhan do not explicitly teach wherein the first value in the record locator field of the first record includes a block identifier of the second block, and wherein the first value in the record locator field of the first record does not link blocks of the first blockchain; and
Wherein Hardy teaches wherein the first value in the record locator field of the first record includes a block identifier of the second block, and (Par. (0007-0010); first block and receiving /storing first block with identifier of third content item (record of block) of second blockchain))
wherein the first value in the record locator field of the first record does not link blocks of the first blockchain; and (Par. (0007-0010); first content item with identifier and address of first record is received and stored in second blockchain and does not link to first blockchain))
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Cuende, Struttmann and Padmanabhan within the teachings of Hardy because of the analogous concept of blockchain technologies and integrity verification using hash values with the motivation of implementing address and record locator fields not linking to certain blockchains to ensure authenticity and make the records immutable and susceptible to changes (Hardy Par. (0065))
In regards to Claim 2, the combination of Cuende, Struttmann, Padmanabhan and Hardy teach the method of claim 1, Cuende further teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: prior to generating the first block, generating, in the blockchain, the second block comprising the second record; and ((Col. 10 lines 5-25 “; location of the second record (index corresponding to position) within a second block (hashes corresponding to data units)), (Col. 3 lines 62-67 “.”; several blocks corresponding to hash)), (Col. 10 lines 10-30 “”; second block (H.sub.k 302) that is prior to first block (H.sub.L 304)), (Examiner Note: The phrasing of the claimed limitations creates confusion and an illogical step. In the logic of numbering it is not possible to have a second number prior or before a first number, thus the claimed limitation second block that is prior to the first block is reciting an illogical step. There is also no clear definition in the specification outside of Par. (0132) explaining how this process is performed or defining the logic. Therefore it will be broadly and reasonably interpreted that a “second block that is prior to the first block” could be defined as one of the several blocks being interpreted as a “second block” that is behind, before or prior to a block that can be interpreted as the label a “first block”. Examiner suggest not using first or second when defining the blocks to avoid the illogical numbering and instead give the blocks names as an identifier otherwise appropriate correction is needed.)
Cuende does not explicitly teach linking the second block to a subsequent block in the first blockchain using an IVC of the second block within the subsequent block in the first blockchain.
Wherein Struttmann teaches linking the second block to a subsequent block in the first blockchain using an IVC of the second block within the subsequent block in the first blockchain. (Par. (0097); block with IVS (hash value) of previous block in contents referring to previous block in the blockchain)), (Par. (0101); second block( plurality of blocks each with hash (IVC) of previous block))
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Cuende, Hardy and Padmanabhan within the teachings of Struttmann for the reasons discussed in independent claim 1 stated above.
In regards to Claim 3, the combination of Cuende, Struttmann, Padmanabhan and Hardy teach the method of claim 1, Cuende further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first value in the record locator field of the first record further includes a position of the second record within the second block. (Col. 3 lines 63-67 “”; second record (several blocks in blockchain corresponding to record)), (Col. 6 lines 35-55 “”; second record in first blockchain (hashes corresponding to data blocks/units)), (Col. 10 lines 7-20 “.”; first value in record location field (index of position of hashes) indicating an address/location of a second record (index describing position of hashes H.sub.k 302 and H.sub.L 304))
In regards to Claim 5, the combination of Cuende, Struttmann, Padmanabhan and Hardy teach the method of claim 1, Padmanabdhan further teaches wherein the first record further comprises: third value in the record locator field of the first record, (Par. (0371); third value in record locator field of the first record (index corresponding to location of the stored record)), (Par. (0376); third value (3rd of the four components or portions in the index that contains bits))
wherein the third value in the record locator field of the first record indicates a blockchain address of a fourth record, different than the first record and different than the second record, (Par. (0601); location of a fourth record (location of each of the plurality of data records)), (Par. (0376); third value indicating location of a fourth record (3rd of the four components or portions in the index that contains bits corresponding to records))
wherein the blockchain address of the fourth record indicates a location of the fourth record within the blockchain, (Par. (0376-0378);fourth value (index with portion containing linked UUID) indicates a location of a fourth record (linking the students record stored on the blockchain)), (Par. (0598) “.”; fourth record in blockchain (plurality of data records stored in blockchain) corresponding to fourth value indicates a location (index defines at least a location for each of the plurality of data records)),
wherein the fourth record is within a third block of the first blockchain that is prior to the first block in the first blockchain, (Par. (0601)”; location of a fourth record in third block (location of each of the plurality of data records in each block)), (Par. (0376) “”; third linked record value indicating location of a four record within third block (3rd of the four components or portions in the index that contains bits corresponding to records))
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Padmanabhan within the teachings of Cuende, Struttmann, and Hardy because of the analogous concept of blockchain technologies and verifying data with the use of hash values. Padmanabhan includes a process in which a fourth linked record value is in the linked record locator field of a second record, and the fourth linked record indicates a location of a fifth record linking the records in a daisy chain. This is important because by including an index value of a location a solution is presented that links multiple documents such as real estate or financials transactions, patent licensing, accounts, contract negotiations by their relationship to one and another. This proves importance when attempting to verify the integrity of many documents and preventing lawsuits or disputes by companies/ owners on the determining how the documents are related. By linking the location of records with multiple index values users would ultimately be able to identify at the time and place of where the documents were registered and have a more efficient way of verification that could not be corrupted or altered because of the complexity of each linked record value. (Padmanabhan Par. (0085-0086))
Cuende, Struttmann and Padmanabhan do not explicitly teach wherein the third value in the record locator field of the first record includes a block identifier of the third block, and wherein the third value in the record locator field of the first record does not link blocks of the first blockchain.
Wherein Hardy teaches wherein the third value in the record locator field of the first record includes a block identifier of the third block, and (Par. (0007-0010); block identifier of third content item corresponding to third blockchain record))
wherein the third value in the record locator field of the first record does not link blocks of the first blockchain. ( Par. (0112-0113); third value in the record locator field of the first record (transaction record with block data (serial number, hash and addresses) does not link blocks (no index values corresponding to block and transaction record))(Examiner Note: In the specification on Par. (0055) it describes a linking of blocks with an index and on Par. (0120) describing an a record and address “does not include an index value” therefore it will be broadly and reasonably interpreted that a third value in the record locator field of the first record does not link blocks of the first blockchain is referring to values within the block of a blockchain that do not having linking index values))
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Cuende, Struttmann and Padmanabhan within the teachings of Hardy because of the analogous concept of blockchain technologies and integrity verification using hash values with the motivation of implementing address and record locator fields not linking to certain blockchains to ensure authenticity and make the records immutable and susceptible to changes (Hardy Par. (0065))
In regards to Claim 7, the combination of Cuende, Struttmann, Padmanabhan and Hardy teach the method of claim 1, Struttmann further teaches wherein the first IVC value comprises at least a portion of a Secure Hash Algorithm (SHA) message digest, and (Par. (0080) ; hash corresponding to SHA-256))
wherein the SHA message digest is generated by at least one function selected from the list consisting of:SHA-1, SHA-224, SHA-256, SHA-384, and SHA-512. (Par. (0080) ; hash corresponding to SHA-256))
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Cuende, Padmanabhan and Hardy, within the teachings of Struttmann for the reasons discussed in independent claim 1 stated above.
In regards to Claim 8, the combination of Cuende, Struttmann, Padmanabhan and Hardy teach the method of claim 1, Cuende further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first format further comprises a timestamp field, wherein the first record further comprises a timestamp value in the timestamp field. ((Col. 4 lines 55-67 and Col. 5 lines 1-5; the first format (data units/blocks) timestamp field (timeframes), first record (first block in blockchain) comprises a timestamp value (predetermined period of 10 minutes)), (Col. 6 lines 22-30 ; first format (80 bytes of data corresponding to block/transaction of blockchain)),
In regards to Claim 9, the combination of Cuende, Struttmann and Hardy teach the method of claim 1, Cuende further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first format further comprises an index field, (Col. 2 lines 5-15 “an index field (index describing a position))
Cuende, and Struttmann do not explicitly teach wherein the first record further comprises a first index value in the index field of the first record; and wherein the second record further comprises a second index value in the index field of the second record.
Wherein Padmanabdhan teaches wherein the first record further comprises a first index value in the index field of the first record; and (Par. (0601); first record (plurality of data records corresponding to index)), (Par. (0376) “index 616 which is broken into four primary components which make up a hexadecimal string. The first portion provides an application namespace of an exemplary 6-10 bits (though the size may differ) in which a specific application may be coded [..] which may be coded as SR which converts to hex “5352” or the information may be metadata defining a student record which may be coded as MD which converts to hex “4d44” or the information may be a related entity. Certain related entities are stored as metadata with the same type identifier (e.g., MD/4d44) or alternatively may be stored as metadata with a unique entity type identifier, such as being coded RE for a related entity which converts to hex “5245.””; first index value in the index field (index corresponding to hexadecimal string),
wherein the second record further comprises a second index value in the index field of the second record. ((Par. (0601); second record (plurality of data records corresponding to index)), (Par. (0376-0377) “index 616 which is broken into four primary components which make up a hexadecimal string. The first portion provides [..] Next, within the addressing structure 640 is the name of the entity or data record of an exemplary 10-20 bits (though the size may differ) to specify what is being stored (not the contents, but the name of the stored information). Thus, metadata defining a student record may be coded as SRAMD (e.g., for Student Record Application MetaData) which converts to hex “5352414d4420””; second index value (first portion followed by next portion with hex 5354554452454320))
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Padmanabhan within the teachings of Cuende, Struttmann, and Hardy for the reasons discussed in dependent claim 5 stated above.
In regards to Claim 10, the combination of Cuende, Struttmann and Hardy teach the method of claim 1, Cuende further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first format further comprises an index field, (Col. 2 lines 5-15 “an index field (index describing a position))
Cuende, and Struttmann do not explicitly teach wherein the first record further comprises a first index value in the index field of the first record; and wherein the second record further comprises a second index value in the index field of the second record.
Wherein Padmanabdhan teaches wherein the first record further comprises a first index value in the index field of the first record; and (Par. (0601); first record (plurality of data records corresponding to index)), (Par. (0376);first index value in the index field (index corresponding to hexadecimal string),
wherein the second record further comprises a second index value in the index field of the second record. ((Par. (0601); second record (plurality of data records corresponding to index)), (Par. (0376-0377); second index value (first portion followed by next portion with hex 5354554452454320))
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Padmanabhan within the teachings of Cuende, Struttmann, and Hardy for the reasons discussed in dependent claim 5 stated above.
In regards to Claim 11, the combination of the combination of Cuende, Struttmann, Padmanabdhan and Hardy teach the method of claim 1, Padmanabdhan further teaches wherein the second index value appears within the record locator field of the first record. ((Par. (0376-0377)”; record locator field of first record (index) comprises a portion of the second index value (first portion followed by next portion with hex 5354554452454320); record locator field of first record (index) comprises of four components or four portions with index values (hexadecimal numbers)))
In regards to Claim 12 the combination of Cuende, Struttmann, Padmanabdhan and Hardy teach the method of claim 1, Padmanabdhan further teaches wherein first value in the record locator field of the first record further comprises the second index value. (Par. (0601); first record (plurality of data records corresponding to index)), (Par. (0376)”; first index value in the record locator field (index value field corresponding to hexadecimal string), (Par. (0376-0380) second index value with first value in first record (index portion with 304 bits and hex index value 5352; first record with four primary components of index values))
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Padmanabhan within the teachings of Cuende, Struttmann, and Hardy for the reasons discussed in dependent claim 5 stated above.
In regards to Claim 13, the combination of Cuende, Struttmann, Padmanabdhan and Hardy teach the method of claim 1, Padmanabdhan further teaches wherein index values placed in the index field are incremental counts of records within a block.(Par. (0393); incremental updates of blockchain data/records with index values), (Par. (0397); incremental updates of records and index portions of blockchain; having incremental information))
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Padmanabhan within the teachings of Cuende, Struttmann, and Hardy for the reasons discussed in independent claim 1 stated above.
In regards to Claim 14, the combination of Cuende, Struttmann, Padmanabdhan and Hardy teach the method of claim 1, Padmanabdhan further teaches wherein the blockchain address of the second record indicates a starting bit of the second record within the second block. (Par. (0376-0380); addressing structure of blockchain record include bit values on record))
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Padmanabhan within the teachings of Cuende, Struttmann, and Hardy for the reasons discussed in independent claim 1 stated above.
Claim 4, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cuende et al. (U.S No. 9679276, hereinafter referred to as “Cuende”), Struttmann et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20170366353, hereinafter referred to as “Struttmann”), Padmanabhan et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200252406, hereinafter referred to as “Padmanabhan”) and Hardy et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20190207768, hereinafter referred to as “Hardy”) further in view of Chow et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20190312863, hereinafter referred to as “Chow”)
In regards to Claim 4, the combination of Cuende, Struttmann, Padmanabhan and Hardy teach the method of claim 2, Cuende further teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: generating the second record in the first format; wherein the second record comprises: (Col. 6 lines 59-67 and Col. 7 lines 1-15; second record (new block of the block chain) in the first format (80 bytes of data)), (Col. 6 lines 35-55; second record (data blocks)), (Col. 3 lines 63-67; second record (record corresponding to block in blockchain))
Cuende, and Struttmann do not explicitly teach a third IVC value in the first IVC portion of the IVC field of the second record; and a second value in the record locator field of the second record, wherein the second value in the record locator field of the second record indicates a location of a third record in the first blockchain, thereby providing a daisy chain of references to the third record from the first record.
Wherein Padmanabhan teaches a second value in the record locator field of the second record, (Par. (0369); second value in the record locator (index corresponding to location of record), (Par. (0371) “.”; the record locator field (index addressing information providing the location) of the first record (records in the blockchain)), (Par. (0598); the record locator field (index defines at least a location) of the first record (plurality of data records)), (Par. (0376) “”; second value in record locator (2nd of four components or portions in the index))
wherein the second value in the record locator field of the second record indicates a location of a third record in the first blockchain, (Figure 6B labels 685A, 685B, 685C; third record (685C)), (Par. (0369); second value ( index) indicates location of a third record (blockchain block 685C)), (Par. (0372); second value (multiple indexes and locations correlating to records))
thereby providing a daisy chain of references to the third record from the first record. ((Par. (0029) ; thereby linking third from first record in a daisy chain (storing related entities)), (Par. (0310); in a daisy chain (relationship of data being written onto the blockchain)),
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Padmanabhan within the teachings of Cuende, and Struttmann because of the analogous concept of blockchain technologies and verifying data with the use of hash values. Padmanabhan includes a process in which a fourth linked record value is in the linked record locator field of a second record, and the fourth linked record indicates a location of a fifth record linking the records in a daisy chain. This is important because by including an index value of a location a solution is presented that links multiple documents such as real estate or financials transactions, patent licensing, accounts, contract negotiations by their relationship to one and another. This proves importance when attempting to verify the integrity of many documents and preventing lawsuits or disputes by companies/ owners on the determining how the documents are related. By linking the location of records with multiple index values users would ultimately be able to identify at the time and place of where the documents were registered and have a more efficient way of verification that could not be corrupted or altered because of the complexity of each linked record value. (Padmanabhan Par. (0085-0086))
Cuende, Struttmann, Padmanabhan and Hardy do not explicitly teach a third IVC value in the first IVC portion of the IVC field of the second record; and
Wherein Chow teaches a third IVC value in the first IVC portion of the IVC field of the second record; and (Par. (0032) ; second record (one or more ledger blocks)), (Figure 2B labels 260, 260A-C; third IVC value (three hash values)), (Par. (0005); third IVC value in the first portion (hash values based on portions)), (Par. (0065); third IVC value (three hash values representing biometric coordinate data))
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chow within the teachings of Cuende, Struttmann, Padmanabhan and Hardy because of the analogous concept of blockchain technologies and verifying data with the use of hash values. Chow includes a third value in the first integrity verification portion of the second record. This is important because by implementing a third hash value in the portion of the integrity verification code it makes it difficult for unauthorized entities such as users dealing with multiple documents regarding real estate transactions, contract negotiations, licensing agreements to be able to alter, modify for forged the documents because of the complexity of hash values and portions within the record of the blockchain. This allows companies or owners of property of accounts to be able to verify the integrity of the document without risk of tainting the files. (Chow Par. (0120))
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cuende et al. (U.S No. 9679276, hereinafter referred to as “Cuende”), Struttmann et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20170366353, hereinafter referred to as “Struttmann”), Padmanabhan et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200252406, hereinafter referred to as “Padmanabhan”) and Hardy et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20190207768, hereinafter referred to as “Hardy”) further in view of Wilke et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200057869, hereinafter referred to as “Wilke”)
In regards to Claim 6, the combination of Cuende, Struttmann, Padmanabhan and Hardy teach the method of claim 1, Struttmann further teaches wherein the second IVC value represents an output of a different integrity verification function than the first IVC value. (Par. (0236 and 0243); different IVC (hash digest) representing different documents and creating new IVC values), (Par. (0115); represents different integrity verification (hashes that are compared and do not match)), (Par. (0243-0254); an output of a different integrity verification (matching IVC values that do not match and new IVC values (hash digest))
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Struttmann within the teachings of Cuende because of the analogous concept of blockchain technologies and verifying records based on hash values. Struttmann includes an implementation of an integrity verification code including a portion and a value in that portion of the first record. This is important because by implementing a hash value that comprises a SHA-256, MD5 or utilization of a hash/message digest multiple documents such as real estate transactions, estate planning with codicils regarding bequests or power of attorneys, financial transactions with multiple stages/accounts, patent cross-licenses, licenses terms for standard essential patents can be identified and fully verified at the time the document or file is being registered into the blockchain. This solves the issue of trust absences of a trusted entity as well as prevents lawsuits by companies over license disagreements or contract negotiations over property. The motivation to combine these references is because by implementing an integrity verification code that includes a portion as well as a value of that portion documents and files can be thoroughly identified on how they are related or the relationship in contract or similarity to a plurality of other documents. (Struttmann Par. (0002-0003 and 0056))
Cuende, Struttmann, Padmanabhan and Hardy do not explicitly teach wherein the IVC field further comprises a second IVC portion, wherein the first record further comprises a second IVC value in the second IVC portion, wherein the second IVC value represents a same document as the first IVC value, and
Wherein Wilke teaches wherein the IVC field further comprises a second IVC portion, (Par. (0057); IVC field (hash value) comprises a second IVS portion (hash value corresponding to first and second portions))
wherein the first record further comprises a second IVC value in the second IVC portion, (Par. (0077); first record (records corresponding to transactions in blockchain)), (Par. (0091); second IVC value (second hash value)), (Par. (0050); second IVC value (additional block corresponding to hash value) in the second IVC portion ( additional block including the second portion))
wherein the second IVC value represents a same document as the first IVC value, and (Par. (0070);second IVC values represents same document as first IVC value ( hash values corresponding to one digitally encoded document)), (Par. (0072); same document (a digitally encoded document))
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wilke within the teachings of Cuende, Struttmann, Padmanabhan and Hardy because of the analogous concept of verifying documents that are placed into blockchain network based on hash values. Wilke includes a process of the integrity verification code including a second portion, a record of the blockchain including a second integrity verification code as a second portion and the second integrity verification code representing the same document as the first integrity verification code value. This is significant because by implementing multiple hash values for each record of the blockchain as well as having two portions in each hash value documents pertaining to financial transaction and complex contract negotiation deals can be linked based on their relationship to other documents more effectively and efficiently as well as attest that the documents were truthfully asserted at the time they were registered in the blockchain by identifying and comparing multiple portions in each hash value corresponding to a record. This provides clarity to the user who might have questions of the integrity of the document in question regarding legal dispute and by having multiple hash values and portions within prevents pre-image attacks. The motivation to combine these references is by having a second IVC value and portion documents in the blockchain are securely protected and entity can falsify date proofs or corrupt documents during operation because of the complexity of the IVC field and various portions and hash values. (Wilke Par. (0005-0008))
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ishibashi, Yoshihito (U.S Pub. No. 20030023847) “DATA PROCESSING SYSTEM, RECORDING DEVICE, DATA PROCESSING METHOD AND PROGRAM PROVIDING MEDIUM”. Considered this reference because it addressed multiple blocks corresponding a sequence and chain based record values that are linked.
Hopkins, W. Dale (U.S Pub. No. 20050149739) “PIN Verification Using Cipher Block Chaining”. Considered this application because it relates to cipher block chaining and verifying the plurality of blocks based on contents when received or registered.
Tandel; Sebastien (U.S Pub. No. 20210243201) “BLOCKCHAIN-BASED VERIFICATION FRAMEWORK”. Considered this application because it addressed a blockchain system with message or hash digest in a plurality of records corresponding to documents or files used for verification.
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.
/H.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2497 /ELENI A SHIFERAW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2497