CTFR 18/136,489 CTFR 99217 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Amendment The Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed on 02/20/2026 has been accepted and considered in this office action. Claims 1, 6 and 11 have been amended. Claims 3, 8 and 13 have been cancelled. No Claims have been added. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, filed on 02/20/2026, with respect to the amended limitation have been fully considered. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s)of rejection is made in light of newly discovered prior art, Wright (US 20190303887 A1) as set forth below. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1, 2, 6, 7, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naganari (JP 2018173692 A) in view of Mercuri (US 20190013934 A1) in view of Chen ( Chen, Y.-J., Wu, J.-L., Hsieh, Y.-C., & Hsueh, C.-W. (2020). An Oracle-Based On-Chain Privacy. Computers, 9(3), 69. https://doi.org/10.3390/computers9030069 ) in view of Wright (US 20190303887 A1) . Regarding Claim 1, Naganari teaches: acquiring first trail data to be registered in a traceability system using a block chain (Naganari, Para 16, discloses that an authentication image for each article, certificate of the article, and owner information of the article are supplied to the system for registration and future traceability in a blockchain based system.) registering, as an element of the block chain, a first identifier that correspond to the first trail data in a first memory being a first distinct physical storage device to which organizations of the traceability system refer; (Naganari, Para 53, discloses adding the identifying information summaries like Hash A, Hash B and the owner information to a blockchain as a new block; para 32, Naganari discloses that the blockchain is used as a ledger and a plurality of nodes share and manage the ledger.) and registering the first identifier and first information including metadata of the first trail data, in a second memory being a second distinct physical storage device separate from the first memory and is configured to operate as a first off-chain storage managed within an organization of the traceability system without being shared with other organizations (Naganari, Para 34, discloses image database (image DB3) storing at least an image of information on an article to be managed, stores information capable of identifying block related to the image in the blockchain and also stores other information such as keyword information for search, identifier related to the article which is separate from blockchain (para 26). The search keyword information includes features of an article, an author, a place of production, an age, and so on; para 128, Naganari discloses that in the database, an image-data and a user management area for storing user management information in which second key information associated with a person may be physically separated, and access to the user management area may be accepted only from dedicated input/output processing of an application of web server.) the registering of the first identifier in the first memory includes: registering, in the first memory, a second hash value (Naganari, Para 53, discloses adding the identifying information summaries like Hash A, Hash B and the owner information to a blockchain as a new block); Naganari does not explicitly disclose; However, Mercuri discloses: wherein the registering of the first information in the second memory includes: registering a content portion of the first trail data in a third memory being a third distinct physical storage device that is separate from the first and second memories and is configured to operate as a second off-chain storage managed within the organization without being shared with other organizations; (Mercuri, para 63, discloses storing the event (e.g., record 165 which includes bodycam video, police record, clinical trial record, fishing record) in an off-chain storage 110 like database, cloud storage, data lakes etc. that is distinct from the blockchain and system's memory 103; para 65, Mercuri discloses storing information in off-chain storage that may not be placed on the blockchain such as personally identifiable information and providing access to the record only to authorized participants based on a configuration file which implies restricting access to authorized participants rather than sharing the content publicly on the blockchain.) It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the teaching of Naganari to incorporate the teaching of Mercuri to include third memory for storing trail data off-chain. One would be motivated to made this modification on Naganari’s system to improve performance and reliability by allowing the blockchain to store only compact identifiers while delegating the heavier data load to an additional storage layer. This approach would improve scalability and reduce blockchain storage overhead. Naganari/Mercuri does not explicitly disclose; However, Chen discloses: and registering, in the second memory, second information that indicates an access destination for the content portion of the first trail data registered in the third memory. (Chen, Section 3.3.2, discloses PC (second memory) stores the data pointer pointing towards one's sensitive personal data stored on a database (third memory) and the hash value of the corresponding dataset; Chen discloses that PC stores the access information to the database where the sensitive data are stored.) and a first hash value obtained by hashing the content portion of the first trail data registered in the third memory (Chen, Section 3.3.2, discloses the query string is affixed with the hash value of the corresponding data set to ensure the returned data have not been altered at the source (database); Section 4.2, Chen discloses that the data hash is used to validate data integrity and the hash is used to ensure that the data are not tampered with after being stored on the database); It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the teaching of Naganari/Mercuri’s system to incorporate Chen’s teaching of storing, in a secondary memory, an identifier along with pointer information pointing towards the sensitive information stored on a separate database. One would be motivated to made this modification on Naganari/Mercuri’s system to provide predictable benefits, such as simplifying data lookup, improving interoperability between storage layers, and ensuring that data stored in the third memory can be reliably accessed through the second memory. Chen does not explicitly disclose; However, Wright discloses: Wherein the second hash value is obtained by hashing a combination of the first identifier, the first information, the second information, and the first hash value (Wright, para 99 discloses determining the hash of the redeem script (RS1); Wright, para 146-147, discloses the redeem script includes metadata1 and metadata2 that occupies two of the places in the redeem script. This is followed by two public keys in sequence, the first user public key (P1A) and the first issuer public key (P1I); para 150, Table 1 shows metadata1 includes contract pointer which indicates the address of the actual contract file location, metadata2 includes contract hash which is a hash of the actual contract file addressed by contract pointer.) It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Naganari/Mercuri’s blockchain-based article information management system to incorporate Wright’s technique of including metadata, an access destination/pointer, a content-file hash and identifier/public-key information in a combined data structure and hashing that combined data structure before recording the resulting hash on a distributed ledger. One would be motivated to make such modification on Naganari/Mercuri’s system to improve tamper detection and integrity verification functions because any later alteration to the identifier, metadata, pointer/access destination, or content hash would produce a different composite hash and would therefore be detectable when compared with the hash registered on the blockchain. Doing so would prevent falsification of large capacity data while reducing the amount of data stored directly on the blockchain. Regarding Claim 2, Naganari/Mercuri/Chen/Wright teach the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 1: Naganari teaches: the first identifier in the first memory is referred to by the organizations via a distributed ledger for between the organizations of the traceability system. (Naganari, para 53, discloses adding the identifying information summaries like Hash A, Hash B and the owner information to a blockchain; para 32, discloses that the blockchain is used as a ledger and a plurality of nodes share and manage the ledger.) Regarding Claim 6, Naganari teaches: acquiring first trail data to be registered in a traceability system using a block chain (Naganari, Para 16, discloses that an authentication image for each article, certificate of the article, and owner information of the article are supplied to the system for registration and future traceability in a blockchain based system.) registering, as an element of the block chain, a first identifier that correspond to the first trail data in a first memory being a first distinct physical storage device to which organizations of the traceability system refer; (Naganari, Para 53, discloses adding the identifying information summaries like Hash A, Hash B and the owner information to a blockchain as a new block; para 32, Naganari discloses that the blockchain is used as a ledger and a plurality of nodes share and manage the ledger.) and registering the first identifier and first information including metadata of the first trail data, in a second memory being a second distinct physical storage device separate from the first memory and is configured to operate as a first off-chain storage managed within an organization of the traceability system without being shared with other organizations (Naganari, Para 34, discloses image database (image DB3) storing at least an image of information on an article to be managed, stores information capable of identifying block related to the image in the blockchain and also stores other information such as keyword information for search, identifier related to the article which is separate from blockchain (para 26). The search keyword information includes features of an article, an author, a place of production, an age, and so on; para 128, Naganari discloses that in the database, an image-data and a user management area for storing user management information in which second key information associated with a person may be physically separated, and access to the user management area may be accepted only from dedicated input/output processing of an application of web server.) the registering of the first identifier in the first memory includes: registering, in the first memory, a second hash value (Naganari, Para 53, discloses adding the identifying information summaries like Hash A, Hash B and the owner information to a blockchain as a new block); Naganari does not explicitly disclose; However, Mercuri discloses: wherein the registering of the first information in the second memory includes: registering a content portion of the first trail data in a third memory being a third distinct physical storage device that is separate from the first and second memories and is configured to operate as a second off-chain storage managed within the organization without being shared with other organizations; (Mercuri, para 63, discloses storing the event (e.g., record 165 which includes bodycam video, police record, clinical trial record, fishing record) in an off-chain storage 110 like database, cloud storage, data lakes etc. that is distinct from the blockchain and system's memory 103; para 65, Mercuri discloses storing information in off-chain storage that may not be placed on the blockchain such as personally identifiable information and providing access to the record only to authorized participants based on a configuration file which implies restricting access to authorized participants rather than sharing the content publicly on the blockchain.) It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the teaching of Naganari to incorporate the teaching of Mercuri to include third memory for storing trail data off-chain. One would be motivated to made this modification on Naganari’s system to improve performance and reliability by allowing the blockchain to store only compact identifiers while delegating the heavier data load to an additional storage layer. This approach would improve scalability and reduce blockchain storage overhead. Naganari/Mercuri does not explicitly disclose; However, Chen discloses: and registering, in the second memory, second information that indicates an access destination for the content portion of the first trail data registered in the third memory. (Chen, Section 3.3.2, discloses PC (second memory) stores the data pointer pointing towards one's sensitive personal data stored on a database (third memory) and the hash value of the corresponding dataset; Chen discloses that PC stores the access information to the database where the sensitive data are stored.) and a first hash value obtained by hashing the content portion of the first trail data registered in the third memory (Chen, Section 3.3.2, discloses the query string is affixed with the hash value of the corresponding data set to ensure the returned data have not been altered at the source (database); Section 4.2, Chen discloses that the data hash is used to validate data integrity and the hash is used to ensure that the data are not tampered with after being stored on the database); It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the teaching of Naganari/Mercuri’s system to incorporate Chen’s teaching of storing, in a secondary memory, an identifier along with pointer information pointing towards the sensitive information stored on a separate database. One would be motivated to made this modification on Naganari/Mercuri’s system to provide predictable benefits, such as simplifying data lookup, improving interoperability between storage layers, and ensuring that data stored in the third memory can be reliably accessed through the second memory. Chen does not explicitly disclose; However, Wright discloses: Wherein the second hash value is obtained by hashing a combination of the first identifier, the first information, the second information, and the first hash value (Wright, para 99 discloses determining the hash of the redeem script (RS1); Wright, para 146-147, discloses the redeem script includes metadata1 and metadata2 that occupies two of the places in the redeem script. This is followed by two public keys in sequence, the first user public key (P1A) and the first issuer public key (P1I); para 150, Table 1 shows metadata1 includes contract pointer which indicates the address of the actual contract file location, metadata2 includes contract hash which is a hash of the actual contract file addressed by contract pointer.) It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Naganari/Mercuri’s blockchain-based article information management system to incorporate Wright’s technique of including metadata, an access destination/pointer, a content-file hash and identifier/public-key information in a combined data structure and hashing that combined data structure before recording the resulting hash on a distributed ledger. One would be motivated to make such modification on Naganari/Mercuri’s system to improve tamper detection and integrity verification functions because any later alteration to the identifier, metadata, pointer/access destination, or content hash would produce a different composite hash and would therefore be detectable when compared with the hash registered on the blockchain. Doing so would prevent falsification of large capacity data while reducing the amount of data stored directly on the blockchain. Regarding Claim 7, Naganari/Mercuri/Chen/Wright teach the information processing method according to claim 6: Naganari teaches: the first identifier in the first memory is referred to by the organizations via a distributed ledger for between the organizations of the traceability system. (Naganari, para 53, discloses adding the identifying information summaries like Hash A, Hash B and the owner information to a blockchain; para 32, discloses that the blockchain is used as a ledger and a plurality of nodes share and manage the ledger.) Regarding Claim 11, Naganari teaches: acquire first trail data to be registered in a traceability system using a block chain (Naganari, Para 16, discloses that an authentication image for each article, certificate of the article, and owner information of the article are supplied to the system for registration and future traceability in a blockchain based system.) register, as an element of the block chain, a first identifier that correspond to the first trail data in a first memory being a first distinct physical storage device to which organizations of the traceability system refer; (Naganari, Para 53, discloses adding the identifying information summaries like Hash A, Hash B and the owner information to a blockchain as a new block; para 32, Naganari discloses that the blockchain is used as a ledger and a plurality of nodes share and manage the ledger.) and register the first identifier and first information including metadata of the first trail data, in a second memory being a second distinct physical storage device separate from the first memory and is configured to operate as a first off-chain storage managed within an organization of the traceability system without being shared with other organizations (Naganari, Para 34, discloses image database (image DB3) storing at least an image of information on an article to be managed, stores information capable of identifying block related to the image in the blockchain and also stores other information such as keyword information for search, identifier related to the article which is separate from blockchain (para 26). The search keyword information includes features of an article, an author, a place of production, an age, and so on; para 128, Naganari discloses that in the database, an image-data and a user management area for storing user management information in which second key information associated with a person may be physically separated, and access to the user management area may be accepted only from dedicated input/output processing of an application of web server.) the registering of the first identifier in the first memory includes: registering, in the first memory, a second hash value (Naganari, Para 53, discloses adding the identifying information summaries like Hash A, Hash B and the owner information to a blockchain as a new block); Naganari does not explicitly disclose; However, Mercuri discloses: wherein the registering of the first information in the second memory includes: registering a content portion of the first trail data in a third memory being a third distinct physical storage device that is separate from the first and second memories and is configured to operate as a second off-chain storage managed within the organization without being shared with other organizations; (Mercuri, para 63, discloses storing the event (e.g., record 165 which includes bodycam video, police record, clinical trial record, fishing record) in an off-chain storage 110 like database, cloud storage, data lakes etc. that is distinct from the blockchain and system's memory 103; para 65, Mercuri discloses storing information in off-chain storage that may not be placed on the blockchain such as personally identifiable information and providing access to the record only to authorized participants based on a configuration file which implies restricting access to authorized participants rather than sharing the content publicly on the blockchain.) It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the teaching of Naganari to incorporate the teaching of Mercuri to include third memory for storing trail data off-chain. One would be motivated to made this modification on Naganari’s system to improve performance and reliability by allowing the blockchain to store only compact identifiers while delegating the heavier data load to an additional storage layer. This approach would improve scalability and reduce blockchain storage overhead. Naganari/Mercuri does not explicitly disclose; However, Chen discloses: and registering, in the second memory, second information that indicates an access destination for the content portion of the first trail data registered in the third memory. (Chen, Section 3.3.2, discloses PC (second memory) stores the data pointer pointing towards one's sensitive personal data stored on a database (third memory) and the hash value of the corresponding dataset; Chen discloses that PC stores the access information to the database where the sensitive data are stored.) and a first hash value obtained by hashing the content portion of the first trail data registered in the third memory (Chen, Section 3.3.2, discloses the query string is affixed with the hash value of the corresponding data set to ensure the returned data have not been altered at the source (database); Section 4.2, Chen discloses that the data hash is used to validate data integrity and the hash is used to ensure that the data are not tampered with after being stored on the database); It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the teaching of Naganari/Mercuri’s system to incorporate Chen’s teaching of storing, in a secondary memory, an identifier along with pointer information pointing towards the sensitive information stored on a separate database. One would be motivated to made this modification on Naganari/Mercuri’s system to provide predictable benefits, such as simplifying data lookup, improving interoperability between storage layers, and ensuring that data stored in the third memory can be reliably accessed through the second memory. Chen does not explicitly disclose; However, Wright discloses: Wherein the second hash value is obtained by hashing a combination of the first identifier, the first information, the second information, and the first hash value (Wright, para 99 discloses determining the hash of the redeem script (RS1); Wright, para 146-147, discloses the redeem script includes metadata1 and metadata2 that occupies two of the places in the redeem script. This is followed by two public keys in sequence, the first user public key (P1A) and the first issuer public key (P1I); para 150, Table 1 shows metadata1 includes contract pointer which indicates the address of the actual contract file location, metadata2 includes contract hash which is a hash of the actual contract file addressed by contract pointer.) It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Naganari/Mercuri’s blockchain-based article information management system to incorporate Wright’s technique of including metadata, an access destination/pointer, a content-file hash and identifier/public-key information in a combined data structure and hashing that combined data structure before recording the resulting hash on a distributed ledger. One would be motivated to make such modification on Naganari/Mercuri’s system to improve tamper detection and integrity verification functions because any later alteration to the identifier, metadata, pointer/access destination, or content hash would produce a different composite hash and would therefore be detectable when compared with the hash registered on the blockchain. Doing so would prevent falsification of large capacity data while reducing the amount of data stored directly on the blockchain. Regarding Claim 12, Naganari/Mercuri/Chen/Wright teach the information processing device according to claim 11: Naganari teaches: the first identifier in the first memory is referred to by the organizations via a distributed ledger for between the organizations of the traceability system. (Naganari, para 53, discloses adding the identifying information summaries like Hash A, Hash B and the owner information to a blockchain; para 32, discloses that the blockchain is used as a ledger and a plurality of nodes share and manage the ledger.) 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 4, 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naganari (JP 2018173692 A) in view of Mercuri (US 20190013934 A1) in view of Chen ( Chen, Y.-J., Wu, J.-L., Hsieh, Y.-C., & Hsueh, C.-W. (2020). An Oracle-Based On-Chain Privacy. Computers, 9(3), 69. https://doi.org/10.3390/computers9030069 ) in view of Wright (US 20190303887 A1) in view of Quan (US 20200042972 A1) . Regarding Claim 4, Naganari/Mercuri/Chen/Wright teach the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 1: Naganari teaches: acquiring a second identifier that relates to second trail data, from among identifiers registered in the first memory (Naganari, para 91, discloses the user requests the block in which the transaction details of the article are recorded by transmitting detail information including hash value of the block or identifier of record); Naganari/Mercuri/Chen fails to teach; However, Quan teaches: specifying one of the organizations that manages the second trail data based on the second identifier (Quan, Page 6, Para 59, discloses the transaction processing server 102 which, in turn, identifies an issuer institution that corresponds to the account identifier used by the customer to conduct the transaction.); and requesting the one of the organizations for the second trail data (Quan, Page 6, Para 59, Page 5, Para 56, discloses the transaction processing server 1 02 transmits the transaction message (based on account identifier) (along with the cryptogram and asymmetric keys if not already part of the transaction message) to the issuer institution that was identified). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the teaching of Naganari/Mercuri/Chen/Wright’s system to incorporate the teaching of Quan to identify the appropriate managing institution based on an identifier and requesting the corresponding data from that institution. One would be motivated to made this modification on Naganari/Mercuri/Chen/Wright’s system to allow the traceability system to automatically determine which institution holds the requested data and to forward the request accordingly, thereby improving efficiency, interoperability across participants, and ensuring accurate retrieval of the correct data source. Regarding Claim 9, Naganari/Mercuri/Chen/Wright the information processing method according to claim 6: Naganari teaches: acquiring a second identifier that relates to second trail data, from among identifiers registered in the first memory (Naganari, para 91, discloses the user requests the block in which the transaction details of the article are recorded by transmitting detail information including hash value of the block or identifier of record); Naganari/Mercuri/Chen/Wright fails to teach; However, Quan teaches: specifying one of the organizations that manages the second trail data based on the second identifier (Quan, Page 6, Para 59, discloses the transaction processing server 102 which, in turn, identifies an issuer institution that corresponds to the account identifier used by the customer to conduct the transaction.); and requesting the one of the organizations for the second trail data (Quan, Page 6, Para 59, Page 5, Para 56, discloses the transaction processing server 1 02 transmits the transaction message (based on account identifier) (along with the cryptogram and asymmetric keys if not already part of the transaction message) to the issuer institution that was identified). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the teaching of Naganari/Mercuri/Chen/Wright’s system to incorporate the teaching of Quan to identify the appropriate managing institution based on an identifier and requesting the corresponding data from that institution. One would be motivated to made this modification on Naganari/Mercuri/Chen/Wright’s system to allow the traceability system to automatically determine which institution holds the requested data and to forward the request accordingly, thereby improving efficiency, interoperability across participants, and ensuring accurate retrieval of the correct data source. Regarding Claim 14, Naganari/Mercuri/Chen/Wright the information processing device according to claim 11: Naganari teaches: acquire a second identifier that relates to second trail data, from among identifiers registered in the first memory (Naganari, para 91, discloses the user requests the block in which the transaction details of the article are recorded by transmitting detail information including hash value of the block or identifier of record); Naganari/Mercuri/Chen/Wright fails to teach; However, Quan teaches: specify one of the organizations that manages the second trail data based on the second identifier (Quan, Page 6, Para 59, discloses the transaction processing server 102 which, in turn, identifies an issuer institution that corresponds to the account identifier used by the customer to conduct the transaction.); and request the one of the organizations for the second trail data (Quan, Page 6, Para 59, Page 5, Para 56, discloses the transaction processing server 1 02 transmits the transaction message (based on account identifier) (along with the cryptogram and asymmetric keys if not already part of the transaction message) to the issuer institution that was identified). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the teaching of Naganari/Mercuri/Chen/Wright’s system to incorporate the teaching of Quan to identify the appropriate managing institution based on an identifier and requesting the corresponding data from that institution. One would be motivated to made this modification on Naganari/Mercuri/Chen/Wright’s system to allow the traceability system to automatically determine which institution holds the requested data and to forward the request accordingly, thereby improving efficiency, interoperability across participants, and ensuring accurate retrieval of the correct data source . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 5, 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naganari (JP 2018173692 A) in view of Mercuri (US 20190013934 A1) in view of Chen ( Chen, Y.-J., Wu, J.-L., Hsieh, Y.-C., & Hsueh, C.-W. (2020). An Oracle-Based On-Chain Privacy. Computers, 9(3), 69. https://doi.org/10.3390/computers9030069 ) in view of Wright (US 20190303887 A1) in view of Quan (US 20200042972 A1) in view of Chakra (US 20070239695 A1) . Regarding Claim 5, Naganari/Mercuri/Chen/Wright/Quan teach the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 4: Naganari/Mercuri/Chen/Wright/Quan fail to teach; However, Chakra teaches: when accepting a request for the second trail data, verifying whether a user who provides the request is the user to whom access rights are granted, based on the access rights for data preset for each of users (Chakra, Page 4, Para 32, discloses the central directory server receives the request for the content file and verifies that the user has privileges); and transmitting the second trail data to the user based on a result of the verifying (Chakra, Page 4, Para 32, discloses if the verification check 440 fails any of the criteria a denial notification message is returned to the user 450 indicating the reason for denial. Otherwise, the central directory server will locate the requested content file and send a copy to the user 460.) It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the teaching of Naganari/Mercuri/Chen/Wright/Quan’s system to incorporate Chakra’s teaching of verifying a user’s access rights before releasing requested data. One would be motivated to made this modification on Naganari/Mercuri/Chen/Wright/Quan’s system to enhance the traceability system by ensuring that only authorized users receive trail data, improving security, maintaining data integrity, and preventing unauthorized disclosure. Regarding Claim 10, Naganari/Mercuri/Chen/Wright/Quan teach the information processing method according to claim 9: Naganari/Mercuri/Chen/Wright/Quan fail to teach; However, Chakra teaches: when accepting a request for the second trail data, verifying whether a user who provides the request is the user to whom access rights are granted, based on the access rights for data preset for each of users (Chakra, Page 4, Para 32, discloses the central directory server receives the request for the content file and verifies that the user has privileges); and transmitting the second trail data to the user based on a result of the verifying (Chakra, Page 4, Para 32, discloses if the verification check 440 fails any of the criteria a denial notification message is returned to the user 450 indicating the reason for denial. Otherwise, the central directory server will locate the requested content file and send a copy to the user 460.) It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the teaching of Naganari/Mercuri/Chen/Wright/Quan’s system to incorporate Chakra’s teaching of verifying a user’s access rights before releasing requested data. One would be motivated to made this modification on Naganari/Mercuri/Chen/Wright/Quan’s system to enhance the traceability system by ensuring that only authorized users receive trail data, improving security, maintaining data integrity, and preventing unauthorized disclosure. Regarding Claim 15, Naganari/Mercuri/Chen/Wright/Quan teach the information processing device according to claim 14: Naganari/Mercuri/Chen/Wright/Quan fail to teach; However, Chakra teaches: when accepting a request for the second trail data, verify whether a user who provides the request is the user to whom access rights are granted, based on the access rights for data preset for each of users (Chakra, Page 4, Para 32, discloses the central directory server receives the request for the content file and verifies that the user has privileges); and transmit the second trail data to the user based on a result of the verifying (Chakra, Page 4, Para 32, discloses if the verification check 440 fails any of the criteria a denial notification message is returned to the user 450 indicating the reason for denial. Otherwise, the central directory server will locate the requested content file and send a copy to the user 460.) It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the teaching of Naganari/Mercuri/Chen/Wright/Quan’s system to incorporate Chakra’s teaching of verifying a user’s access rights before releasing requested data. One would be motivated to made this modification on Naganari/Mercuri/Chen/Wright/Quan’s system to enhance the traceability system by ensuring that only authorized users receive trail data, improving security, maintaining data integrity, and preventing unauthorized disclosure. Conclusion 07-39 AIA 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 AMIT KHADKA whose telephone number is (703)756-1440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm. 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, Jeffrey L. Nickerson can be reached at (469) 295-9235. 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. /AMIT KHADKA/Examiner, Art Unit 2432 /Jeffrey Nickerson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2432 Application/Control Number: 18/136,489 Page 2 Art Unit: 2432 Application/Control Number: 18/136,489 Page 4 Art Unit: 2432 Application/Control Number: 18/136,489 Page 5 Art Unit: 2432 Application/Control Number: 18/136,489 Page 6 Art Unit: 2432 Application/Control Number: 18/136,489 Page 7 Art Unit: 2432 Application/Control Number: 18/136,489 Page 8 Art Unit: 2432 Application/Control Number: 18/136,489 Page 9 Art Unit: 2432 Application/Control Number: 18/136,489 Page 10 Art Unit: 2432 Application/Control Number: 18/136,489 Page 11 Art Unit: 2432 Application/Control Number: 18/136,489 Page 12 Art Unit: 2432 Application/Control Number: 18/136,489 Page 13 Art Unit: 2432 Application/Control Number: 18/136,489 Page 14 Art Unit: 2432 Application/Control Number: 18/136,489 Page 15 Art Unit: 2432 Application/Control Number: 18/136,489 Page 16 Art Unit: 2432 Application/Control Number: 18/136,489 Page 17 Art Unit: 2432 Application/Control Number: 18/136,489 Page 18 Art Unit: 2432 Application/Control Number: 18/136,489 Page 19 Art Unit: 2432 Application/Control Number: 18/136,489 Page 20 Art Unit: 2432 Application/Control Number: 18/136,489 Page 21 Art Unit: 2432 Application/Control Number: 18/136,489 Page 22 Art Unit: 2432 Application/Control Number: 18/136,489 Page 23 Art Unit: 2432
Prosecution Insights