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 arguments filed 04/06/2026 have been fully considered but the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out a response to every ground of objection and rejection in the prior Office action. The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section.
Applicant should submit an argument under the heading “Remarks” pointing out disagreements with the examiner’s contentions. Applicant must also discuss the references applied against the claims, explaining how the claims avoid the references or distinguish from them. Therefore, the previous rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruce Schneier, Applied Cryptography Second Edition, Pub. 1-01-1996, John Wiley and Sons (henceforth Schneier), and Majko-Ruben: US 2021/0157942 A1
As for claim 1, Schneier teaches:
A computer-implemented method (Sec. 2.6 Digital Signatures, page 63, paragraph 3: “We would like to do this sort of thing on computers…”), comprising:
a) receiving a digital artifact (Sec. 2.6 Digital Signatures: Signing Documents with Symmetric Cryptosystems and an Arbitrator, page 64 paragraph 2: Schneier teaches forming a digital signature on a document, reading on a digital artifact, page 68: One Way Hash Functions, steps 1-4: Schneier teaches Alice producing a one-way hash of a document and encrypting the hash with her private key KA of a public/private key pair to form a signed hash, reading on a digital artifact: i.e., the document, and a digital fingerprint of the artifact, i.e., the signed hash),
b) creating a digital fingerprint from the digital artifact (Sec. 2.6 Digital Signatures: page 64 paragraph 1-3, step 1: Schneier teaches Alice forming a digital signature on a document by encrypting it with her private key KA of a public-private key pair, reading on creating a digital fingerprint, page 68: One Way Hash Functions, steps 1-4: Schneier teaches Alice producing a one-way hash of a document and encrypting the hash with KA to form a signed hash, reading on a digital artifact: i.e., the document, and a digital fingerprint of the artifact, i.e., the signed hash),
c) generating or receiving authentication information associated with a creator (Sec. 2.6 Digital Signatures: Signing Documents with Symmetric Cryptosystems and an Arbitrator, page 64 paragraph 2: Trent shares/sends a private key KA of a public/private key pair to Alice which becomes her private key)
d) transmitting, associated information including either
(A)(1) the digital artifact, (2) the digital fingerprint, and (3) the authentication information associated with the creator, or
(B)(1) the digital artifact, and (2) the digital fingerprint, both processed by the authentication information associated with the creator, as a first information set, to a digital notary (Sec. 2.6 Digital Signatures: page 64 paragraph 2: steps 1-2: Alice encrypts her message with KA and sends it to Trent who is a trusted arbitrator, reading on a digital notary, page 68: One Way Hash Functions, steps 1-4: Schneier teaches Alice producing a one-way hash of a document and encrypting the hash with KA to form a signed hash, reading on a digital artifact: i.e., the document, and a digital fingerprint of the artifact, i.e., the signed hash, and sending both the document and the signed hash to a recipient),
e) receiving, by the digital notary, the first information set (Sec. 2.6 Digital Signatures: page 64 paragraph 2: steps 1-2: Alice encrypts her message with KA and sends it to Trent),
f) determining, by the digital notary, that the first information set originated from the creator using authentication (Sec. 2.6 Digital Signatures: page 64 paragraph 2: steps 2-3, paragraph 3: Trent decrypts Alice’s message with KA and verifies it as authentic, ),
g) responsive to a determination that the first information set originated from the creator, determining, by the digital notary, whether or not the digital artifact has integrity using the digital fingerprint (Sec. 2.6 Digital Signatures: page 64 paragraph 2: steps 2-3, paragraph 3: Trent decrypts Alice’s message with KA and verifies it as authentic, page 68: One Way Hash Functions, steps 1-4: Schneier teaches Alice producing a one-way hash of a document and encrypting the hash with KA to form a signed hash, reading on a digital artifact: i.e., the document, and a digital fingerprint of the artifact, i.e., the signed hash, sending the document and signed hash to a recipient, whereupon the recipient hashes the received document, decrypts the signed hash using a public key associated with Alice’s private key KA, and compares the two to authenticate the fingerprint),
h) responsive to determining that the digital artifact has integrity, digitally signing, by the digital notary, the digital fingerprint, to generate a bonded fingerprint including a digital signature uniquely associated with the digital notary (Sec. 2.6 Digital Signatures: page 64 paragraph 2: steps 2-4, Trent signs the message with KB, a private key shared with Bob, and sends the bundle to Bob),
wherein the bonded fingerprint includes a time stamp and/or a date stamp (Sec. 2.6 Digital Signatures: Signing Documents and Timestamps, page 67 paragraph 3: Schneier teaches that digital signatures often include time stamps),
Majko-Reuben teaches the feature not taught by Schneier of: i) storing the bonded fingerprint on an immutable decentralized ledger registry (fig. 5, [0019], [0023], [0105], [0106]: Majko-Reuben teaches forming a content identifier for a file that is a hash or fingerprint function applied to the digital content and/or meta-data of a file, and storing it on a blockchain, reading on an immutable ledger). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated this feature into the invention of Schneier. It would have been desirable to do so since the use of a blockchain storage protocol would allow long term use of a bonded signature in authentication and verification of a digital artifact and thereby increase the utility of Schneier’s system.
As for claim 2, the combination of Schneier and Majko-Reuben teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Schneier teaches the additional features wherein the act of creating a digital fingerprint includes hashing the digital artifact (Sec. 2.6 Digital Signatures: page 68: One Way Hash Functions, steps 1-4: Schneier teaches Alice producing a one-way hash of a document and encrypting the hash with KA to form a signed hash, reading on a digital artifact: i.e., the document, and a digital fingerprint of the artifact, i.e., the signed hash).
As for claim 3, the combination of Schneier and Majko-Reuben teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Majko-Reuben teaches the additional features not taught by Schneier wherein the digital artifact includes digital content and at least one of (A) a watermark and (B) meta data (fig. 5, [0019], [0023], [0105], [0106]: Majko-Reuben teaches forming a content identifier for a file that is a hash or fingerprint function applied to the digital content and/or meta-data of a file, and storing it on a blockchain, reading on an immutable ledger). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated this feature into the invention of Schneier. It would have been desirable to do so since the use of the content or meta data of a file in forming a bonded fingerprint would increase the accuracy of authentication and verification of the file (digital artifact) and thereby increase the utility of Schneier’s system.
As for claim 4, the combination of Schneier and Majko-Reuben teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Schneier teaches the additional features wherein the authentication information associated with the creator is a private key, and wherein the private key has an associated public key (page 68: One Way Hash Functions: steps 1-4: Schneier teaches Alice producing a one-way hash of a document and encrypting the hash with her private key KA to form a signed hash, reading on a digital artifact: i.e., the document, and a digital fingerprint of the artifact, i.e., the signed hash, sending the document and signed hash to a recipient, whereupon the recipient hashes the received document, decrypts the signed hash using a public key associated with Alice’s private key KA, and compares the two to authenticate the fingerprint).
As for claim 5, the combination of Schneier and Majko-Reuben teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 4. Schneier teaches the additional features wherein the act of determining, by the digital notary, that the first information set originated from the creator using authentication uses the public key and the private key (page 68: One Way Hash Functions, steps 1-4: Schneier teaches Alice producing a one-way hash of a document and encrypting the hash with KA to form a signed hash, reading on a digital artifact: i.e., the document, and a digital fingerprint of the artifact, i.e., the signed hash, sending the document and signed hash to a recipient, whereupon the recipient hashes the received document, decrypts the signed hash using a public key associated with Alice’s private key KA, and compares the two to authenticate the fingerprint).
As for claim 6, The combination of Schneier and Majko-Reuben teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1.Schneier teaches the additional features wherein the bonded fingerprint is generated by encrypting the fingerprint with a private key of the digital notary (page 69: Multiple Signatures: Schneier teaches the step where a signed document or a signed hash of it may be signed again by a recipient by encrypting with the private key of the recipient. Schneier teaches the feature where it is impossible to verify the first signature without first verifying the second signature, reading on a bonded fingerprint).
As for claim 7, the combination of Schneier and Majko-Reuben teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Majko-Reuben teaches the additional features not taught by Schneier wherein the immutable decentralized ledger registry is a blockchain (fig. 5, [0019], [0023], [0105], [0106]: Majko-Reuben teaches forming a content identifier for a file that is a hash or fingerprint function applied to the digital content and/or meta-data of a file, and storing it on a blockchain, reading on an immutable ledger). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated this feature into the invention of Schneier. It would have been desirable to do so since the use of a blockchain storage protocol would allow long term use of a bonded signature in authentication and verification of a digital artifact and thereby increase the utility of Schneier’s system.
As for claim 8, the combination of Schneier and Majko-Reuben teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Majko-Reuben teaches the additional step not taught by Schneier wherein the bonded fingerprint is stored to the immutable decentralized ledger by the digital notary (fig. 5, [0019], [0023], [0105], [0106]: Majko-Reuben teaches forming a content identifier for a file that is a hash or fingerprint function applied to the digital content and/or meta-data of a file, and storing it on a blockchain, reading on an immutable ledger, where the storage is accomplished by a centralized authentication system, reading on a digital notary). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated this feature into the invention of Schneier. It would have been desirable to do so since the use of a blockchain storage protocol by a digital notary would allow long term use of a bonded signature in authentication and verification of a digital artifact by the notary and thereby increase the utility of Schneier’s system.
As for claim 9, the combination of Schneier and Majko-Reuben teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Majko-Reuben teaches the additional step not taught by Schneier wherein the act of storing the bonded fingerprint on an immutable decentralized ledger registry includes (1) transmitting the bonded fingerprint from the digital notary to a user device of the creator, and (2) storing the bonded fingerprint from the user device of the creator to the immutable decentralized ledger ([0014]: Majko-Reuben teaches that the client device and authentication system (digital notary) may be a shared computing resource separate from a distributed ledger, therefore the bonded fingerprint (content identifier) will be sent to the ledger from the client device). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated this feature into the invention of Schneier. It would have been desirable to do so since the use of a client device to transmit a bonded fingerprint to blockchain storage would a client more choice in selecting an appropriate ledger server and thereby increase the utility of Schneier’s system.
As for claim 10, the combination of Schneier and Majko-Reuben teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Majko-Reuben teaches the additional features not taught by Schneier further comprising: determining, by an auditing service provider, whether or not a copy of the digital artifact has data integrity, by retrieving the bonded fingerprint from the immutable decentralized ledger; authenticating that the digital signature of the bonded fingerprint is uniquely associated with the digital notary; and creating a digital fingerprint copy from the copy of the digital artifact; and comparing the digital fingerprint copy created with the bonded fingerprint ([0026]: the authentication system can authenticate a data file by retrieving the data file from a storage system and generating a content identifier for the retrieved version, and then retrieve a stored content identifier of the file from a distributed electronic ledger system, and then comparing the generated content identifier with the stored content identifier. If the generated content identifier matches the stored content identifier, the authentication system authenticates the data file.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated this feature into the invention of Schneier. It would have been desirable to do so since the use of a blockchain storage protocol for a digital fingerprint (content identifier) for a digital artifact (content file) by a digital notary would allow long term use of a bonded signature (content identifier) in authentication and verification of a digital artifact (content file) by the notary and thereby increase the utility of Schneier’s system.
As for claims 11 and 12, these claims are drawn to the system that corresponds to the method of claim 1. Claims 11 and 12 recite substantially the same limitations as does claim 1 and are rejected on the same basis as claim 1.
As for claims 13-20, these claims are drawn to the computer program-product that corresponds to the method of claims 1-3 and 6-10. Claims 13-20 recite substantially the same limitations as do claims 1-3 and 6-10 and are rejected on the same basis as claims 1-3 and 6-10.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Shewaye Gelagay whose telephone number is (571)272-4219. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8 A.M. - 4 P.M..
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, Amy C. Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-2238. 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.
/SHEWAYE GELAGAY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2436
Prosecution Insights