DETAILED ACTION
Examiner's Note: The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed on 03/19/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding claim[s] 1 – 20 under the various anticipatory and obviousness rejections, applicants are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on all the reference[s] applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Therefore, see the office action below.
The examiner will address all other remarks that do not concern the prior art rejections, if any, in the office action below.
Response to Amendment
Status of the instant application:
Claim[s] 1 – 20 are pending in the instant application.
Regarding claim[s] 1 – 20 under the various anticipatory and obviousness rejections, applicant’s claims amendments have been considered. Therefore, the rejections are withdrawn. However, there are new prior art rejections on the claims to address applicant’s newly added claim amendments in the office action below.
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 (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 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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5 – 12, 15 - 17, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatge et al. [US PAT # 10491608] in view of Alvarez et al. [US PGPUB # 2018/0091596]
As per claim 1. Tatge does teach a method [Tatge, col. 1, lines 33 – 37, Embodiments of the present disclosure generally relate to the provenance tracking of machine or agronomic data, as well as other types of agriculture-related data, to facilitate secured access, auditability, and transactional oversight of exchanged farming data.] comprising:
collecting sensor data from one or more sensors of a device at a time, a location, or a combination thereof associated with a transaction, wherein the sensor data represent one or more environmental observations of the location [Tatge, col. 2, lines 1 – 9, In some embodiments, a user (e.g., a farmer) can employ a data collection device coupled to farming machinery operable by the user. The data collection device can be associated with a user account of the user and can collect raw data generated by the farming machinery, for example. In some aspects, the data collection device can geo-tag the collected raw data based on detected location information, including but not limited to GPS data, cell tower data, Wi-Fi signal data, and the like.];
generating a capsule comprising a digest [Tatge, col. 3, lines 5 – 13, The generated transaction can include, among other things, a hash that is generated by the primary node based on an electronic agricultural dataset associated with a user account, such as the collected set of raw farming data, interpreted set of raw farming data, generated certified farming dataset, non-certified farming data associated with the certified farming dataset, certification data, and/or metadata that describes characteristics of the collected set of raw farming data or generated certified farming dataset.] of the one or more environmental observations [Tatge, Figure # 2, and col. 11, lines 61 – 65, In some other embodiments, the data collection device 200 can communicate the collected raw farming data to the primary node when a communications signal (e.g., Wi-Fi signal, Bluetooth signal, cellular signal) is available to the communications component 240 ];
tagging the capsule with the time of the transaction [Tatge, col. 2, lines 27 – 30, In various embodiments, the set of raw farming data can be grouped together and provided for display via the interface in a geospatial format, by virtue of the data being geo-tagged and/or timestamped];
cryptographically signing the capsule [Tatge, col. 15, lines 32 – 37, In this regard, the generated transaction can be digitally signed with a private key, such as a private key associated with a user account of the certified farming dataset (e.g., the user account associated with the data collection device from which the collected raw farming data utilized to generate the certified farming dataset was received).]; and
providing the cryptographically signed capsule as a proof of location [Tatge, Figure # 3, and col. 17, lines 61 – 67 and col. 18, lines 1 – 5, In some embodiments, the application service component 310 can include a security component 326 that determines whether a user account can have authorized access an electronic agricultural dataset. In some aspects, the security component 326 can employ ledger analyzing component 324 to search and identify all stored transactions that either include a reference to the user account and/or is digitally signed with a private key associated with the user account],
wherein the proof of location is verified by decrypting the cryptographically signed capsule and rectifying the one or more decrypted environmental observations [Tatge, Figure # 4, and col. 22, lines 14 – 33, In some embodiments, a node 380, 380a-c can validate a received transaction based on a determination that the transaction has been digitally signed by a known or authorized private key, such as one associated with the primary node 300, or one associated with an authorized user account [i.e. applicant’s…and rectifying the one or more decrypted environmental observations]. In some aspects, each node of the distributed ledger network 400 can determine that a transaction was digitally signed with a private key associated with the primary node 300 based on a provided or identified public key of the primary node 300 [i.e. applicant’s…wherein the proof of location is verified by decrypting the cryptographically signed capsule…]. In some implementations, a public key of the primary node can be defined in each dataset consensus component 342, or can be defined on the blockchain to be easily determined by any node of the distributed ledger network 400. In some other aspects, each node of the distributed ledger network 400 can determine that a transaction was digitally signed with a private key associated with an authorized user account based on the public key of each user account being securely shared (e.g., communicated) between the nodes 300, 380a-c of the distributed ledger network 400.].
Tatge does not clearly teach the claim limitations of: “…..to determine that the one or more decrypted environment observations matches a radio environment observed by another party of the transaction within a threshold range.”
However, Alvarez does teach the claim limitations of: “…..to determine that the one or more decrypted environment observations matches a radio environment observed by another party of the transaction [paragraph: 0046, As shown, the flowchart 500 begins with the receipt of a request for a data value (an answer) from a third party, where the answer may be obtained, calculated, derived, or otherwise provided from private telematics data (operation 510). Rather than providing the raw telematics data directly to the requesting third party, the communication device operates to generate the answer and a proof to validate the answer with the following technique.
Then further of paragraph: 0047, In response to the request, the communication device accesses and decrypts the private data associated with the request (operation 520), and evaluates the private data (operation 530). For example, the communication device may use a private key that is secret to the communication device, which was used to encrypt the data. After encrypting and evaluating the private data (including performing respective calculations), an answer to the request is generated by the computing device (operation 540). Additionally, a proof of the answer validity is generated by the computing device (operation 550). This proof may correspond to the information regarding the data element that was previously sorted with a decentralized data service (such as performed with the method in FIG. 4).
Then further of paragraph: 0048, Upon successful generation of the answer and the proof of answer validity, the answer is communicated to the requesting third party as a response to the request (operation 560), and the proof of the answer validity is also communicated to the requesting third party as a response to the request (operation 570). These responses may occur concurrently or in sequence to one other. Additionally, in some examples, the proof of the answer validity may be communicated to another third party (a fourth party) responsible for data validation and verification] within a threshold range [paragraph: 0067, Example 1 is a communication device to process telematics data, comprising processing circuitry to: receive telematics data from a telematics system of a motor vehicle; transmit, to a data record system, a derived indication of the telematics data; compute an answer using the telematics data, in response to a request for the answer from a third party; and transmit, to the third party, the answer and a proof of validity for the answer, wherein the proof of validity for the answer is verified using the derived indication of the telematics data [i.e. applicant’s…within a threshold].].”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tatge and Alvarez in order for the monitoring of the various sensor input from external environment of the farming machinery by the data collection device for transfer to the primary node to store on the distributed ledger of Tatge to include encrypting the sensor input data while in transit to the primary node of Alvarez. This would allow for the captured sensor data integrity to be preserved from attack. See paragraph: 0004 of Alvarez.
As per claim 2. Tatge as modified does teach the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving another cryptographically signed capsule from another device associated with the transaction, wherein the another cryptographically signed capsule is generated from other sensor data collected from the another device and is cryptographically signed by the another device [Alvarez, Figure # 2, and paragraph: 0028, FIG. 2 illustrates respective scenarios involving data processing requests for securely stored data from a motor vehicle telematics system using the techniques discussed herein. It will be understood that additional components, data, transactions, and parties not depicted in FIG. 2 may be used to implement the following techniques. For example, the techniques applied in FIG. 2 may be modified to capture and track data from multiple users (e.g., drivers), each of which may be collecting different (or overlapping data) from a motor vehicle using respective mobile computing devices.];
a mobile network carrier to which the device is connected;
a signal strength of the mobile network carrier;
a base station list of one or more base stations, one or more base station identity codes, one or more base station frequencies, or a combination thereof detected by the device;
a wireless network list comprising one or more wireless networks to which the device is connected or that can be detected by the wireless device, a wireless signal strength of the one or more wireless networks, a wireless frequency of the one or more wireless networks, or a combination thereof; or
a barometric pressure measure by the device.
As per claim 5. Tatge does teach the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more environmental observations include at least one of:
a geolocation of the device [Tatge, col. 2, lines 1 – 9, In some embodiments, a user (e.g., a farmer) can employ a data collection device coupled to farming machinery operable by the user. The data collection device can be associated with a user account of the user and can collect raw data generated by the farming machinery, for example. In some aspects, the data collection device can geo-tag the collected raw data based on detected location information, including but not limited to GPS data, cell tower data, Wi-Fi signal data, and the like.];
As per claim 6. Tatge does teach the method of claim 1, wherein the cryptographically signed capsule is exchanged with another device using shortrange wireless communication [Tatge, Figure # 2, and col. 11, lines 61 – 65, In some other embodiments, the data collection device 200 can communicate the collected raw farming data to the primary node when a communications signal (e.g., Wi-Fi signal, Bluetooth signal, cellular signal) is available to the communications component 240].
As per claim 7. Tatge does teach the method of claim 6, further comprising:
periodically scanning for the another device, wherein the cryptographically signed capsule is exchanged based on the scanning [Tatge, col. 7, lines 62 – 66, and col. 8, lines 1 – 6, In some further embodiments, other data collection devices associated with the user account can include a set of sensors and/or scanners, computing devices, and/or electronic components that can generate raw data based on sensed conditions or scanned information, such as environmental conditions, weather patterns, wireless signals, or RFID tags, among other things. The raw data (e.g., raw farming data) can include electronic data generated by the set of sensors and/or scanners, computing devices, and/or electronic components coupled to any other set of sensors, computing devices, and/or electronic components, or any combination thereof.].
As per claim 8. Tatge as modified does teach the method of claim 1, further comprising:
decrypting the one or more environmental observations from the cryptographically signed capsule to verify the proof of location [Alvarez, Figure # 5, and paragraph: 0047, In response to the request, the communication device accesses and decrypts the private data associated with the request (operation 520), and evaluates the private data (operation 530). For example, the communication device may use a private key that is secret to the communication device, which was used to encrypt the data. After encrypting and evaluating the private data (including performing respective calculations), an answer to the request is generated by the computing device (operation 540). Additionally, a proof of the answer validity is generated by the computing device (operation 550). This proof may correspond to the information regarding the data element that was previously sorted with a decentralized data service (such as performed with the method in FIG. 4).].
As per claim 9. Tatge does teach the method of claim 1, wherein the cryptographically signed capsule is integrated with an identity token provided by an identity verification system [Tatge, col. 3, lines 5 – 13, In some embodiments, an electronic transaction formatted as a unique electronic dataset and corresponding to a certified farming dataset can be generated based at least in part on the certification data being received by the primary node. The generated transaction can include, among other things, a hash [i.e. applicant’s identity token] that is generated by the primary node based on an electronic agricultural dataset associated with a user account, such as the collected set of raw farming data, interpreted set of raw farming data, generated certified farming dataset, non-certified farming data associated with the certified farming dataset, certification data, and/or metadata that describes characteristics of the collected set of raw farming data or generated certified farming dataset].
As per claim 10. Tatge does teach the method of claim 1, further comprising: recording the cryptographically signed capsule on a blockchain [Tatge, Figure # 3, and col. 17, lines 61 – 67 and col. 18, lines 1 – 5, In some embodiments, the application service component 310 can include a security component 326 that determines whether a user account can have authorized access an electronic agricultural dataset. In some aspects, the security component 326 can employ ledger analyzing component 324 to search and identify all stored transactions that either include a reference to the user account and/or is digitally signed with a private key associated with the user account].
As per apparatus claim 11 that includes the same or similar claim limitations as method claim 1, and is similarly rejected.
***The examiner notes that the recited: “at least one processor,” “at least one memory,” “computer program code,” and “one or more programs,” is taught by the prior art of Tatge et al. at col. 30, lines 45 – 67, and col. 31, lines 1 – 61.
As per apparatus claim 12 that includes the same or similar claim limitations as method claim 2, and is similarly rejected.
As per apparatus claim 15 that includes the same or similar claim limitations as method claim 5, and is similarly rejected.
As per non – transitory computer readable storage medium claim 16 that includes the same or similar claim limitations as method claim 1, and is similarly rejected.
***The examiner notes that applicant’s recited “non – transitory computer readable storage medium,” “instructions,” and “one or more processors” is taught by the prior art of Tatge et al. at col. 30, lines 45 – 67, and col. 31, lines 1 – 61.
As per non – transitory computer readable storage medium claim 17 that includes the same or similar claim limitations as method claim 7, and is similarly rejected.
As per non – transitory computer readable storage medium claim 20 that includes the same or similar claim limitations as method claim 5, and is similarly rejected.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 13, 14, 18, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatge et al. [US PAT # 10491608] in view of Alvarez et al. [US PGPUB # 2018/0091596] as applied to claim[s] 2 above, and further in view of Gao [US PGPUB # 2019/0394019].
As per claim 3. Tatge and Alvarez do teach what is taught in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Tatge and Alvarez do not clearly teach the method of claim 2, wherein the device cryptographically signs the another cryptographically signed capsule of the another device as part of a multiparty agreement, and wherein the another device cryptographically signs the cryptographically signed capsule to the device as part of the multiparty agreement.
However, Gao does teach the method of claim 2, wherein the device cryptographically signs the another cryptographically signed capsule of the another device as part of a multiparty agreement, and wherein the another device cryptographically signs the cryptographically signed capsule to the device as part of the multiparty agreement [paragraph: 0033, Secure Multi-Party Computation: If two or more parties (or nodes in a network) are required to compute a common function but need to keep their respective data inputs encrypted or secret, HE can provide a method for executing these procedures.].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tatge as modified and Gao in order for the monitoring of the various sensor input from external environment of the farming machinery by the data collection device for transfer to the primary node to store on the distributed ledger of Tatge as modified to include encrypting the sensor input data while in transit to the primary node of Gao. This would allow for the captured sensor data integrity to be preserved from attack while performing operations of the encrypted data. See paragraph: 0004 of Gao.
As per claim 4. Tatge as modified does teach the method of claim 3, further comprising:
providing the multiparty agreement as proof of the transaction [Guo, paragraph: 0033, Secure Multi-Party Computation: If two or more parties (or nodes in a network) are required to compute a common function but need to keep their respective data inputs encrypted or secret, HE can provide a method for executing these procedures.].
As per apparatus claim 13 that includes the same or similar claim limitations as method claim 3, and is similarly rejected.
As per apparatus claim 14 that includes the same or similar claim limitations as method claim 4, and is similarly rejected.
As per non – transitory computer readable storage medium claim 18 that includes the same or similar claim limitations as method claim 3, and is similarly rejected.
As per non – transitory computer readable storage medium claim 19 that includes the same or similar claim limitations as method claim 4, and is similarly rejected.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANT SHAIFER - HARRIMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7910. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 9am to 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, Kambiz Zand can be reached at 571- 272- 3811. 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.
/DANT B SHAIFER HARRIMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2434
Prosecution Insights