DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on July 25, 2025 has been entered. Applicant has amended claims 1, 3-8, 10, 13, 15-20, 22-23 and 25. Applicant has cancelled claims 2, 9, 11, 14 and 24. . Claims 1, 3-8, 10, 12, 13, 15-20, 22-23 and 25 are now pending, have been examined and currently stand rejected.
Claim interpretation
Contingent Limitations
Regarding claim 1: The portion which recites “after revocation of the encryption key from the second portion of the data structure at a second time, cause automatic replacement of the revoked encryption key in the second portion of the data structure at a third time based on proof of revocation data”, is conditional language that not necessarily will happen since in these claims, the detecting of the revocation is not required. MPEP 2111.04 II
Regarding claim 13: The portion which recites “based on detection of revocation of the encryption key from the second portion of the data structure based on a revocation request at a second time, cause automatic replacement of the revoked encryption key in the second portion of the data structure at a third time based on proof of revocation data.” is conditional language that not necessarily will happen since in these claims, the detecting of the revocation is not required. MPEP 2111.04 II
See MPEP 2111.04 II. “[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a system claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, still requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur." Schulhauser at 14. Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (e.g., instances in which the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria such that the condition precedent for the determining step and the remaining steps of claim 1 has not been met);" however to render the claimed system obvious, the prior art must teach the structure that performs the function of the contingent step along with the other recited claim limitations. Schulhauser at 9, 14.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7-8, 10, 17-20 and 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claim 7, the claim recites the term “the replacement”. An “automatic replacement” was previously introduced in claim 1. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the replacement”.
As to claim 8, the claim recites the term “the first data structure”. This language was removed with the claim amendments, “a data structure” is recited in claim 1. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “a first data structure”.
As to claim 17, the claim recites “The at least one non-transitory … as defined in claim 14”. However, claim 14 was cancelled.
As to claim 20, the claim recites “The at least one non-transitory … as defined in claim 14”. However, claim 14 was cancelled.
Claims 10, 18-19 and 22 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) at least for their dependency to claims 8, 17 and 20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10, 12, 13, 15-20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites and is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., an abstract idea) and does not provide an integration of the recited abstract idea into a practical application nor include an inventive concept that is “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea to which the claim is directed. MPEP §2106.
In determining subject matter eligibility in an Alice rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101, it is first determined as Step 1 whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of an invention (i.e., a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter). MPEP §2106.03.
Here, the claims are directed to the statutory category of a machine (Claims 1, 3-8, 10, 12), and a manufacture (Claim 13, 15-20 and 22). Therefore, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong 1. MPEP §2106.
Under a Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more enumerated categories of patent ineligible subject matter that amounts to a judicial exception to patentability. MPEP §2106.04. Independent Claim 1 is selected as being representative of the independent claims in the instant application. Claim 1 recites:
Claim 1: An apparatus to secure data to a ledger of a blockchain,
comprising:
interface circuitry:
machine readable instructions; and
processor circuitry to be programmed by the machine readable instructions to:
populate encrypted input data into a first portion of a data structure;
populate an encryption key into a second portion of the data structure;
cause the first portion of the data structure to be signed at a first time with (a) credentials corresponding to an identifier corresponding to the encrypted data and (b) credentials corresponding to a transaction host; and
after revocation of the encryption key from the second portion of the data structure at a second time, cause automatic replacement of the revoked encryption key in the second portion of the data structure at a third time based on proof of revocation data.
Here, the claims recite an abstract idea, or combination of abstract ideas, of signing and storing encrypted data and updating keys. This concept/abstract idea, which is identified in the bolded sections seen above, falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping because it describes a mitigating risk in commercial transactions.
Accordingly, it is determined that the claims recite an abstract idea since they fall within one or more of the three enumerated categories of patent ineligible subject matter. MPEP §2106.04.
Since it is determined that the claim(s) contain a judicial exception, it must then be determined, under Step 2A, Prong 2, whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of the exception. MPEP §2106.04. In order to make this determination, the additional element(s) are analyzed to determine if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. Here claim 1 recites the additional elements of an apparatus, a ledger of a blockchain, interface circuitry, machine readable instructions, processor circuitry, data structure and a transaction host. Independent claim 13 recites the additional elements of at least one non-transitory machine readable storage medium comprising machine-readable instructions, one processor circuit, a data structure and a transaction host. These additional elements are all recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception, or a portion thereof, using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims use of these additional elements does not transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application because the claims do not require any nonconventional computer components, or even a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces,” but merely call for the performance of the abstract idea on a generic computing/processing device.
Furthermore, the as explained above, in the claim interpretation section above, the limitation and portion which recites “after revocation of the encryption key from the second portion of the data structure at a second time, cause automatic replacement of the revoked encryption key in the second portion of the data structure at a third time based on proof of revocation data”, in claim 1 and the portion which recites “based on detection of revocation of the encryption key from the second portion of the data structure based on a revocation request at a second time, cause automatic replacement of the revoked encryption key in the second portion of the data structure at a third time based on proof of revocation data.”, in claim 13, are conditional language that not necessarily will happen since in these claims, the detecting of the revocation is not required.
Additionally, Examiner finds no indication in the Specification, that the operations recited in the independent claims require any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, invoke any allegedly inventive programming, or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions. Furthermore, there is no indication in the claim(s) that the use of an apparatus, a ledger of a blockchain, interface circuitry, machine readable instructions, processor circuitry, at least one non-transitory machine readable storage medium, data structure and a transaction host leads to an improvement of the processor, memory, another technology, or to a technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Examiner further notes that even though the claims may not preempt all forms of the abstraction, this alone, does not make them any less abstract.
When analyzed under step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a generic computing component (e.g., an apparatus, a ledger of a blockchain, interface circuitry, machine readable instructions, processor circuitry, at least one non-transitory machine readable storage medium, data structure and a transaction host) to implement the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept or significantly more than the judicial exception. Considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements recited in the claim(s) add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately.
Therefore, claims 1 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 and are not patent eligible. Dependent claims 3-8, 10, 12 and 15-20, 22 and 25 when analyzed are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 3 and 15 further refine the abstract idea by indicating the revocation of encryption key and to permit the attempt. These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 4 and 16 further refine the abstract idea by indicating that is evaluated proof and signatures corresponding to the requestor of the revocation. These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 5-7 and 17-19 further refine the abstract idea by indicating that encryption key is replaced. These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 8 further refine the abstract idea by detecting a modification. This claim fails to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea
Dependent claims 10, 12, 20, 22 and 25 further refine the abstract idea by indicating that second portion of the first data structure is modified with the updated changes and describing the identifier. These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
In summary, the dependent claims considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas itself. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Accordingly, it is determined that all claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 and are ineligible.
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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 12-13, 15, 17-19, 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schrage (US 2021/0377001 A1), hereinafter “Schrage” in view of Borne-Pons, (US 2021/0105144 A1) hereinafter “Borne-Pons” in view of Salmela et al (US 2021/0135864 A1), “Salmela”.
Regarding claims 1, 13 and 23: Schrage disclose:
Claim 1: An apparatus (Schrage, Fig. 14; [0022]) to secure data to a ledger of a blockchain, comprising: interface circuitry; machine readable instructions (Schrage, Fig. 14; [0163]); and processor circuitry Schrage, Fig. 15; [0165] to be programmed the machine readable instructions to:
populate encrypted input data into a first portion of a data structure; (See at least Schrage, Fig. 2; [0026]; [0039]; [0047] where encrypted input data (i.e., encrypted data) is populated (i.e., stored) in a first portion of a data structure (i.e., in blockchain).)
populate an encryption key into a second portion of the data structure; (See at least Schrage, [0129] keys are store)
cause the first portion of the data structure to be signed at a first time with (a) credentials corresponding to an identifier corresponding to the encrypted data and. (See at least Schrage, [0028]; [0039]; Fig. 4)
Schrage disclose store encrypted data and encryption keys and securing data with user keys. However, Schrage does not specifically disclose cause the first portion of the first data structure to be signed with credentials corresponding to a transaction host.
Borne-Pons, on the other hand, teaches that it was known in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to signing transaction and or information with credentials of transaction host (e.g., blockchain node) (See at least Borne-Pons, [0040]; [[0122]; [0168]; [0171]; Claim1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schrage’s system to incorporate the teachings of Borne-Pons and thereby providing security and verifiability of the stored data.
The combination of Schrage and Borne-Pons disclose does not explicitly disclose after evocation of the encryption key from the second portion of the data structure at a second time, cause automatic replacement of the revoked encryption key in the second portion of the data structure at a third time based on proof of revocation data.
Salmela, on the other hand teaches after revocation of the encryption key from the second portion of the data structure at a second time, cause automatic replacement of the revoked encryption key in the second portion of the data structure at a third time based on proof of revocation data. (See at least Salmela, Fig. 3; S110a-c [0069-0070]; When the host entity 200 contacts the key issuer 300 in order to revoke the current private key and to negotiate parameters of a new replacing private key, e.g. the key issuer's public key is used for establishing a secure connection. That is, security might not solely rely on the private key of the host entity 200 because there might be a malicious party (such as an old platform provider 400a or a malign tenant) that also possesses the private key. Once a secure connection has been established, the host entity 200 can communicate the request to revoke the current private key.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination and include Salmela’s teachings in order to provide efficient protection against attacks that could lead to private key leakage to a third party, e.g. a malicious tenant. Salmela, [0022].
Claim 13: At least one A non-transitory machine readable storage medium (Schrage, Fig. 14; [0163]) comprising machine readable instructions that, when executed, cause processor circuitry to at least:
cause storage generate an entry of encrypted input data to a first portion of a data structure; (See at least Schrage, Fig. 2; [0026]; [0039]; [0047] where encrypted input data (i.e., encrypted data) is populated (i.e., stored) in a first portion of a first data structure (i.e., in blockchain).)
generate an entry of an encryption key into a second portion of the first data structure; (See at least Schrage, [0129] keys are store)
sign the first portion of the data structure at a first time with (a) credentials corresponding to an identifier corresponding to the input data and (See at least Schrage, [0028]; [0039]; Fig. 4)
Schrage disclose store encrypted data and encryption keys and securing data with user keys. However, Schrage does not specifically disclose cause the first portion of the first data structure to be signed with credentials corresponding to a transaction host.
Borne-Pons, on the other hand, teaches that it was known in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to signing transaction and or information with credentials of transaction host (e.g., blockchain node). (See at least Borne-Pons, [0040]; [[0122]; [0168]; [0171]; Claim1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schrage’s system to incorporate the teachings of Borne-Pons and thereby providing security and verifiability of the stored data.
The combination of Schrage and Borne-Pons disclose does not explicitly disclose based on detection of revocation of the encryption key from the second portion of the data structure based on a revocation request at a second time, cause automatic replacement of the revoked encryption key in the second portion of the data structure at a third time based on proof of revocation data.
Salmela, on the other hand teaches based on detection of revocation of the encryption key from the second portion of the data structure based on a revocation request at a second time, cause automatic replacement of the revoked encryption key in the second portion of the data structure at a third time based on proof of revocation data. (See at least Salmela, [0069]; When the host entity 200 contacts the key issuer 300 in order to revoke the current private key and to negotiate parameters of a new replacing private key, e.g. the key issuer's public key is used for establishing a secure connection. That is, security might not solely rely on the private key of the host entity 200 because there might be a malicious party (such as an old platform provider 400a or a malign tenant) that also possesses the private key. Once a secure connection has been established, the host entity 200 can communicate the request to revoke the current private key.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination and include Salmela’s teachings in order to provide efficient protection against attacks that could lead to private key leakage to a third party, e.g. a malicious tenant. Salmela, [0022].
Claim 23: A computer implemented method to store ledger data comprising:
generating, by executing an instruction with processor circuitry, an entry of encrypted input data to a first portion of a data structure; (See at least Schrage, Fig. 2; [0026]; [0039]; [0047] where encrypted input data (i.e., encrypted data) is populated (i.e., stored) in a first portion of a first data structure (i.e., in blockchain).)
generating, by executing an instruction with the processor circuitry, an entry of an encryption key into a second portion of the data structure; (See at least Schrage, [0129] keys are store)
signing, by executing an instruction with the processor circuitry, the portion of the first data structure at a first time with (a) credentials corresponding to an identifier corresponding to the input data; and (See at least Schrage, [0028]; [0039]; Fig. 4)
Schrage disclose store encrypted data and encryption keys and securing data with user keys. However, Schrage does not specifically disclose cause the first portion of the first data structure to be signed with credentials corresponding to a transaction host;
Borne-Pons, on the other hand, teaches that it was known in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to signing transaction and or information with credentials of transaction host (e.g., blockchain node) and to store a data structure into a second data structure (e.g., Parameters, databases, and other data structures may be separately stored and managed, may be incorporated into a single memory or database) (See at least Borne-Pons, [0040]; [[0122]; [0168]; [0171]; Claim1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schrage’s system to incorporate the teachings of Borne-Pons and thereby providing security and verifiability of the stored data.
The combination of Schrage and Borne-Pons disclose does not explicitly disclose detecting, by executing an instruction with the processor circuitry, revocation of the encryption key from the second portion of the data structure at a second time, automatically replacing the revoked encryption key in the second portion of the data structure at a third time based on proof of revocation data.
Salmela, on the other hand teaches detecting, by executing an instruction with the processor circuitry, revocation of the encryption key from the second portion of the data structure at a second time, automatically replacing the revoked encryption key in the second portion of the data structure at a third time based on proof of revocation data. (See at least Salmela, [0069]; When the host entity 200 contacts the key issuer 300 in order to revoke the current private key and to negotiate parameters of a new replacing private key, e.g. the key issuer's public key is used for establishing a secure connection. That is, security might not solely rely on the private key of the host entity 200 because there might be a malicious party (such as an old platform provider 400a or a malign tenant) that also possesses the private key. Once a secure connection has been established, the host entity 200 can communicate the request to revoke the current private key.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination and include Salmela’s teachings in order to provide efficient protection against attacks that could lead to private key leakage to a third party, e.g. a malicious tenant. Salmela, [0022].
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Applicant is reminded that the portion which recites “after revocation of the encryption key from the second portion of the data structure at a second time, cause automatic replacement of the revoked encryption key in the second portion of the data structure at a third time based on proof of revocation data”, in claim 1 and the portion which recites “based on detection of revocation of the encryption key from the second portion of the data structure based on a revocation request at a second time, cause automatic replacement of the revoked encryption key in the second portion of the data structure at a third time based on proof of revocation data.”, in claim 13, are conditional language that not necessarily will happen since in these claims, the detecting of the revocation is not required.
Regarding claim 3, 15 and 25: The combination of Schrage, Borne-Pons and Salmela disclose the apparatus as defined in claim 1, the storage medium of claim 13 and method of claim 23. The combination further disclose;
Claim 3: wherein the machine readable instructions are to cause one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to
Claim 15: the machine readable instructions are to cause one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to:
Claim 25: further including allowing the revocation attempt (See at least Schrage, [0159] Access to data in the blockchain of employees lacking any legal hold, will continue to be removed.)
permit the revocation of the encryption key at the second time based on an authorization associated with the proof of revocation data. (See at least Schrage, [0159] Access to data in the blockchain of employees lacking any legal hold, will continue to be removed.)
Regarding claim 5 and 17: The combination of Schrage, Borne-Pons and Salmela disclose the apparatus as defined in claim 1 and the storage medium of claim 13. The combination further disclose wherein the claim 5: processor circuit is to cause:
claim 17: machine readable instructions are to cause one or more of the at least one processor circuit cause:
the automatic [removal] of the revoked encryption key based on a lack of authorization associated with the proof of revocation data. (See at least Schrage, [0033-0044]; [0143-0144] key deletion (i.e., Specifically, following receipt of the second input, the engine deletes the key within the key server. Such removal can comprise removing the key from the key server, or deleting a pointer to the key rev key) lack of authorization associated with the proof of revocation data (i.e., For key destruction, the process may be triggered manually or automatically ( e.g., over certain time intervals). Typically, once a month may be sufficient for legal purposes. In one or both cases, human intervention and a destruction instruction may be necessary). The combination does not explicitly disclose the replacement of a key.
Salmela, on the other hand teaches cause the automatic replacement of the revoked encryption key (i.e., S206: The key issuer 300 causes the current private key to be revoked). Salmela, [0082].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination and include Salmela’s teachings in order to provide efficient protection against attacks that could lead to private key leakage to a third party, e.g. a malicious tenant. Salmela, [0022].
Regarding claim 6 and 18: The combination of Schrage, Borne-Pons and Salmela disclose the apparatus as defined in claim 5 and the storage medium of claim 17. The combination further disclose;
Claim 6: wherein the processor circuitry is to:
Claim 18: wherein the machine readable instructions are to cause one or more of the at least one processor circuit to:
evaluate the proof of revocation data based on a transaction identifier corresponding to a requestor of the revocation, at the second time, the processor circuitry to disallow the revocation based on a mismatch between signatures of the transaction identifier and a current identifier. (See at least Salmela, [0069]; [0072]; [0096-0099]; [0106] The key issuer 300 can verify that the private key is the currently active private key (i.e. that is not on the private key revocation list and it is indeed matching the corresponding public key; after having verified that the current private does not match any private keys already on the private key revocation list whilst still producing valid authentication of the host entity 200).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination and include Salmela’s teachings in order to provide efficient protection against attacks that could lead to private key leakage to a third party, e.g. a malicious tenant. Salmela, [0022].
Regarding claim 7 and 19: The combination of Schrage, Borne-Pons and Salmela disclose the apparatus as defined in claim 1 and the storage medium of claim 17. The combination further disclose;
Claim 7: wherein the processor circuit is to:
Claim 19: the machine readable instructions are to cause one or more of the at least one processor is circuit to:
replace the revoked encryption key with at least one of the same revoked encryption key or a second encryption key from an encryption key backup storage device. (See at least Salmela, [0081] generate a new private key) .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination and include Salmela’s teachings in order to provide efficient protection against attacks that could lead to private key leakage to a third party, e.g. a malicious tenant. Salmela, [0022].
Regarding claim 12: The combination of Schrage, Borne-Pons and Salmela disclose the apparatus as defined in claim 1. The combination further disclose; wherein the identifier corresponding to the encrypted data corresponds to an owner of the encrypted data. (See at least Schrage, [0078] the recognized data ( or a recognized portion thereof) is encrypted according to key(s).)
Claim(s) 4, 8-10, 16 and 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schrage, Borne-Pons and Salmela as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Doyle et al. (US 20050039034 A1).
Regarding clam 4 and 16: The combination of Schrage, Borne-Pons and Salmela disclose the apparatus as defined in claim 3 and the storage medium of claim 15. The combination does not explicitly
disclose, however, Doyle teaches:
Claim 4: wherein the processor circuit is to:
Claim 16: wherein the machine readable instructions are to cause one or more of the at least one processor circuit to:
evaluate the proof of revocation data based on transaction data associated with a transaction identifier corresponding to a requestor of the revocation; and match signatures between the transaction identifier and a current transaction identifier. See at least Doyle, [0089- 0095] where it is evaluated proof of revocation data based on transaction data associated with a transaction identifier (i.e., digital signature in the security container is checked) corresponding to a requestor of the revocation and by matching signatures between the transaction identifier and a current transaction identifier (i.e., The secure hash of the rules (see element 130 of FIG. 1 and element 730 of FIG. 7) enables determining whether the proper private key was used to recover the symmetric key (i.e., in the decryption performed at Block 830).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination and include Doyle’s teachings in order to provide integrity and access control protection.
Regarding claim 8 and 20: The combination of Schrage, Borne-Pons and Salmela disclose the apparatus as defined in claim 1 and the storage medium of claim 13. The combination does not specifically disclose; however, Doyle teaches:
Claim 8: wherein the processor circuit is to: determine the second portion of the data structure has been modified.
Claim 20: wherein the machine readable instructions are to cause one or more of the at least one processor circuit to: detect modification of the second portion of the first data structure.
Doyle, on the other hand teaches the detection of modifications (See at least Doyle, [0095] detect unauthorized modifications).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination and include Doyle’s teachings in order to provide integrity and access control protection.
Regarding claim 10 and 22: The combination of Schrage, Borne-Pons, Salmela and Doyle disclose the apparatus as defined in claim 8 and the machine readable storage medium of claim 20. The combination does not explicitly disclose; however, Doyle teaches:
Claim 10: wherein the processor circuitry is to:
Claim 22: machine readable instructions are to cause one or more of the at least one processor circuit:
detect the modification as at least one of an encryption key change, a deletion of the second portion of the first data structure, or an encryption key revocation. (See at least Doyle, [0095-0099] To detect unauthorized modifications of data in the security container, preferred embodiments include a digital signature in each security container.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination and include Doyle’s teachings in order to provide integrity and access control protection.
Response to Arguments
Requirement for Information
Applicant’s response to the Requirement for Information in the las Office Action dated April 7, 2025 is acknowledged.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §101
Applicant argues that does not recite a judicial exception and, thus, satisfies Prong One of Revised Step 2A. (Remarks, p. 10). Examiner respectfully disagrees, in part. For example, claims 1, 3-8, 10, 12, 13, 15-20 and 22 still recite an abstract idea of signing and storing encrypted data and updating keys.
Applicant argues that claim 1 is consistent with at least, USPTO Example 40. (Remarks, p.10-11). Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Example 40, the combination of additional elements (e.g., collection of additional Netflow protocol data to when the initially collected data reflects an abnormal condition, avoiding excess traffic volume.) In contrast with the claims 1 and 13, that indicates a revocation of an encryption key and an automatic replacement that does not necessarily needs to happen.
Applicant argues that the claims sets forth a combination of additional elements "after revocation of the encryption key from the second portion of the data structure." When such a revocation trigger is detected, claim 1 is able to facilitate a particular improvement related to blockchain information management. (Remarks, p.11). Regarding Claims 1 and 13, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained above, in the Claim Interpretation section and 101 Rejections section above, the detecting of the revocation is not required (e.g., the claims do not positively recite the steps of “detecting…”. Accordingly, rejections under 35 USC 101 to claims 1, 3-8, 10, 12, 13, 15-20 and 22 are maintained. Examiner notes that Claim 23 recite a subject matter eligible claim. Accordingly, rejections under 35 USC 101 to claims 23 and 25 are withdrawn.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §103
Applicant argues that Schrage fails to teach or suggest automatic replacement of the revoked encryption key in a second portion of a data structure based on proof of revocation data, as set forth in claim 1. (Remarks, p.12). However, upon further consideration of the newly introduced language, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Schrage, Borne-Pons and Salmela. Examiner notes this feature is disclosed by “Salmela”.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 103 rejection(s) that Laghaeian necessarily fails to teach or suggest at least one processor circuit to cause automatic replacement of the revoked encryption key from the portion of the data structure based on proof of revocation data, as set forth in claim 1 (Remarks, p. 13), have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Schrage, Borne-Pons and Salmela.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tomlinson US_20120131327_A1: Disclose; an encryption key; a decryption key an instruction to use an encryption or decryption key an instruction to replace an encryption or decryption key an instruction to revoke a decryption key at least one policy instruction for execution by a security system; a license; an executable; a software update; a data file. Tomlinson Claim 10.
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 KARLYANNIE M GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)272-6950. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 4:30-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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571) 272-7575. 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.
/K.G.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/EDUARDO CASTILHO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3698