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 .
This office action is responsive to request for continued examination (RCE) filed on 04/07/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/07/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the allowance on 02/09/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, 8, 12 – 13, and 17 - 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Voell et al (US 2017/0289111; hereinafter Voell).
Regarding claim 1, Voell discloses a proxy method, which is applied to a first proxy, comprising:
generating a digest according to private data (paragraphs [0004 - 0005], [0043 – 0044]; Voell discloses the distributed application sending a pending transaction including the hash digest to a first node in a plurality of nodes)), encrypting the private data (paragraphs [0004 - 0005]; Voell discloses the step of preparing a transaction request may include generating the symmetric key; encrypting the payload with the symmetric key; calculating the hash digest of the encrypted payload; and encrypting the symmetric key with public keys of parties to the transaction), and adding a signature to the encrypted private data (paragraph [0043 – 0044]; Voell discloses that a distributed application may prepare a transaction (“Tx”) payload. In one embodiment, this may involve generating a symmetric key, encrypting the payload with the symmetric key, calculating the hash digest of the encrypted payload, encrypting the symmetric key with the public keys of the parties to the transaction);
generating a transaction request according to the digest and the signature (paragraphs [0043 – 0044]; Voell discloses that a distributed application may prepare a transaction (“Tx”) payload. In one embodiment, this may involve generating a symmetric key, encrypting the payload with the symmetric key, calculating the hash digest of the encrypted payload, encrypting the symmetric key with the public keys of the parties to the transaction ));
obtaining transaction data of a user, the transaction data comprising [[a]]the transaction request and the private data (Voell discloses that a transaction may have a plurality of arguments or fields, including, for example, the from_address, to_address, and payload fields. The names of these arguments or fields may vary. The payload generally contains information such as the arguments to a smart contract function or a simple data structure in the case of no smart contracts. The payload may be, for example, an encrypted blob, a hash digest (e.g., 256 or 512 bit));
storing the private data locally (paragraphs [0004], [0042], [0083]; Voell discloses that the actual transaction payload may be stored (off-chain) in a local database managed by a transaction and key management service (e.g., TxKeyManager).), and sending the transaction request to a blockchain platform (paragraphs [0004]; Voell discloses that the distributed application sending a payload storage message comprising a hash digest, an encrypted payload, and an encrypted symmetric key to a transaction key manager ), to enable the blockchain platform to complete a transaction according to the transaction request (paragraphs [0047 - 0048], [0074]; Voell discloses that even though the local state database may be a subset of the whole, the blockchain is still complete and every node can participate in the peer-to-peer blockchain distribution process); and
sending the private data to a peer proxy for transaction verification by means of communication between the first proxy and the peer proxy after the transaction is completed (paragraphs [0050 - 0051]; Voell discloses the in step 280, TxKeyManager may receive and process the TxPayloadRequest. In general, it may validate the signature, look up the TxHash, and, if the requester is party to the transaction, return the encrypted payload and encrypted symmetric key . Voell further discloses that in step 292, the encrypted symmetric key+nonce1 blob, nonce2, the encrypted payload, and the sender's public key may be returned to the requesting node. If not (i.e., it is not a party to the transaction));
wherein sending the private data to a peer proxy for transaction verification by means of communication between the first proxy and the peer proxy after the transaction is completed comprises: sending a push request to the peer proxy (paragraphs [0048], [0059], [0061]; Voell discloses that In step 435, Node A sends the pending transaction with the transaction hash payload to Node B and to Node C);
receiving response information sent by the peer proxy according to the push request (paragraph [0061]; Voell discloses that In step 450, Transaction Manager A and Transaction Manager B request decryption from their respective enclaves, and, in step 455, the response is received); and
sending the private data to the peer proxy according to the response information (paragraph [0061]; Voell discloses that in step 445, during the validation of the proposed block 123 which includes processing transaction AB, Node A sends TxPayloadRequest to Transaction Manager A, Node B sends TxPayloadRequest to Transaction Manager B, and Node C sends TxPayloadRequest to Transaction Manager C), to enable the peer proxy to perform the transaction verification according to the private data (fig. 5; paragraphs [0065], [0067], [0074]; Voell discloses that FIG. 5, a block validation algorithm that includes one or more private transactions in which the validating node is not party to the private transaction(s) is disclosed according to one embodiment. In step 505, a check may be made to see if the previous block referenced exists and is valid).
Regarding claim 6, Voell discloses the proxy method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving a synchronization request of the peer proxy, and returning a digest list of the private data according to the synchronization request, to enable the peer proxy to compare with the private data stored in the peer proxy according to the digest list and return a request list in response to a determination of an absence of private data; and sending the private data to the peer proxy according to the request list (paragraphs [0043 – 0044], [0047], [0051]; Voell discloses that the hash digest may be a reference to the actual payload that may be stored in the TxKeyManager, and when presented with the actual payload, the user can cryptographically prove that the payload data they received (e.g., from the TxKeyManager) matches the hash digest).
Regarding claim 8, Voell discloses a proxy method, which is applied to a second proxy, comprising:
obtaining private data sent by a peer proxy by means of communication between the second proxy and the peer proxy, the private data being stored in the peer proxy and configured to verify a transaction performed by the peer proxy by sending a transaction request to a blockchain platform (Voell discloses that a transaction may have a plurality of arguments or fields, including, for example, the from_address, to_address, and payload fields. The names of these arguments or fields may vary. The payload generally contains information such as the arguments to a smart contract function or a simple data structure in the case of no smart contracts. The payload may be, for example, an encrypted blob, a hash digest (e.g., 256 or 512 bit)); wherein the transaction request is generated according to a digest generated according to the private data and a signature added to the private data after being encrypted (paragraphs [0043 – 0044]; Voell discloses that a distributed application may prepare a transaction (“Tx”) payload. In one embodiment, this may involve generating a symmetric key, encrypting the payload with the symmetric key, calculating the hash digest of the encrypted payload, encrypting the symmetric key with the public keys of the parties to the transaction )); and
performing transaction verification on the private data performing signature verification on the private data, to confirm a user who provides the private data (paragraph [0047]; Voell discloses that FIG. 2A, in step 220, TxKeyManager may receive and process the TxPayloadStore request. This may include, for example, validating the sending signature (e.g., the sender's signature that provides cryptographic proof that the transaction was not forged, or at least is was generated by whomever has control of the private key associated with the (from address) of the transaction) and storing the TxKeyRecord); and
decrypting the private data, and generating a comparison digest from the decrypted private data, to compare the comparison digest with a digest of the private data of the peer proxy to confirm whether the private data is valid (paragraphs [0018]; Voell discloses that the method may further include the node computer processor communicating a node public key and the transaction hash digest for the first transaction to a transaction key manager for the node; and the node computer processor receiving an encrypted transaction payload for the first transaction and decrypting the encrypted transaction payload, the transaction payload comprising the contract code associated with the first transaction in response to the node being a party to the first transaction.).
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voell et al (US 2017/0289111; hereinafter Voell) in view of Balaraman et al (US 2020/0042625; hereinafter Balaraman).
Regarding claim 4, Voell discloses all the limitations in claim 1, but fail to specifically disclose the idea of using a gossip protocol to send data to a peer proxy.
Balaraman, in the same field of endeavor, discloses such idea (paragraphs [0026], [0034], [0036], and 0040]; Balaraman discloses that integration platform 140-1, 140-2, 140-n configures network settings in entity system 110-1, 110-2, 110-n (step 202), to enable peer-to-peer communications using a gossip protocol).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Voell by using a gossip protocol to send data to a peer proxy as evidenced by Balaraman for the purpose of allowing integration platform to communicate over a peer-to-peer network.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voell et al (US 2017/0289111; hereinafter Voell) in view of Barday et al (US 2022/0164476; hereinafter Barday).
Regarding claim 5, Voell discloses all the limitations in claim 1, but fail to specifically disclose deleting the private data in response to a storage time of the private data exceeding a preset storage time.
Barday, in an analogous art, discloses deleting the private data (paragraphs [0006], [0010], [0036]; Barday discloses that the system can then apply a particular set of rules to control a computer-specific operation (e.g., the facilitation of the processing operations or network communication by the entity computing system for identifying and deleting the data), where the rules define whether to facilitate such computer-specific operations based on the data subject engagement rating) in response to a storage time of the private data exceeding a preset storage time (paragraph [0200]; Barday discloses that the first location may, for example, place any suitable limit on the collection and storage of personal data (e.g., one or more time limits, one or more encryption requirements, etc.)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Voell by deleting the private data in response to a storage time of the private data exceeding a preset storage time as evidenced by Barday for the purpose of reducing unnecessary storage of particular personal data (e.g., and reduce a storage infrastructure on the private data network), thereby reducing the amount of sensitive data stored on an entity computing system.
Claims 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voell et al (US 2017/0289111; hereinafter Voell) in view of Michael Smith (US 2013/0138608; hereinafter Smith).
Regarding claim 7, Voell discloses all the limitations in claim 10, but fails to specifically discloses periodically performing sending of the synchronization request to the peer proxy.
Smith, in an analogous art, discloses periodically performing sending of the synchronization request to the peer proxy (paragraphs [0057], [0082], [0087]; Smith discloses that the trigger may be generated by the mobile device going to an online state from an offline state. In another implementation, the trigger may be a user-generated synchronization request. In yet another implementation, the trigger may be a synchronization request periodically. generated by the host server).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Voell by periodically performing sending of the synchronization request to the peer proxy as evidenced by Smith for the purpose of determining from the meta data whether the user of the mobile device has adequate privileges to access or synchronize the selected folder/sub-folder.
Regarding claim 19, Voell and Balaraman disclose the proxy method of claim 3, wherein sending a push request to the peer proxy comprising:
establishing a transport Layer Security protocol (TLS) link with the peer proxy (Balaraman: paragraphs [0042], [0062]; Balaraman discloses that web client may implement security protocols such as Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) and Transport Layer Security (TLS));
sending a push request using the TLS link to the peer proxy (Balaraman: paragraphs [0042], [0062]). Same motivation as in claim 4.
Regarding claim 20, Voell and Balaraman disclose the proxy method of claim 6, wherein receiving a synchronization request of the peer proxy comprises:
receiving a synchronization request of the peer proxy using a transport Layer Security protocol (TLS) link established with the peer proxy (Balaraman: paragraphs [0042], [0062]; Balaraman discloses that web client may implement security protocols such as Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) and Transport Layer Security (TLS)). Same motivation as in claim 4.
Claim 10 – 13 and 17 - 18 incorporate substantively all the limitations of claims 1, and 4 – 8. The reasons for rejecting claims 1, and 4 – 8 apply in claims 10 - 13 and 17 - 18. Therefore, claims 10 - 13 and 17 - 18 are rejected for the same reasons.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YVES DALENCOURT whose telephone number is (571)272-3998. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5:30PM.
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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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.
/YVES DALENCOURT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
Prosecution Insights