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 . 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 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.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 3, 5, 13, 14, 19 and 20 have been amended.
In light of Applicant’s amendment, objection to claim 3 has been withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement PTO-1449
The Information Disclosure Statement submitted by applicant on 02-06-2026 and 11-06-2025 have been considered. Please see attached PTO-1449.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12-31-2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “the Paczkowski reference relies not on hash values but on a contemporaneous characteristic in determining whether a modification to a media file is suspicious. Specifically, the reference teaches encrypting a hash value and at least one contemporaneous characteristic that is prepended or appended to the hash value…As can be seen from the above description, the Paczkowski reference does not use a hash value comparison to determine whether or not the content of the media file has been improperly or suspiciously modified”.
In response, examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant characterization. Paczkowski discloses a system determines “whether a modification to a media file is suspicious based on hash value of the present instance of a media file relative to the digital provenance of the media file….”(column 6, lines 1-11), “‘suspicious modification’ refers to a modification to the content of a media file that cannot be attested to…(column 4, lines 21-23). Paczkowski also discloses, an initial hash value of an initial instance of a media file is stored in the distributed electronic ledger (column 13, lines 40-43), a present hash value is compared to the stored hash value, if the hash values are the same it is determined that the media file has not been modified and therefore is attested, and if the hash valued are different it is determined that media file has been modified (column 16, lines 39-65). It is noted that the verification of contemporaneous characteristics, described in Paczkowski, could be performed in some embodiments in addition to the hash-based comparison and verification, which demonstrates an extra step beyond the core hash based verification (column 17, lines 5-14). The inclusion of such an additional step does not alter or eliminate the hash value comparison and verification discloses by Paczkowski As such, Paczkowski discloses the limitation being argued.
Applicant further argues that “Paczkowski reference does not teach sending the encrypted hash to a communication device and receiving a request to validate the record from the same communication device let alone wherein the request to validate the record comprises a second hash of the record”.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Paczkowski discloses, sending the encrypted hash of the record to the computing device (column 11, lines 16-2, encrypted contemporaneous characteristics with initial hash value is passed to device to be sent to the server).Yang discloses receiving a first hash and request to validate the record (paragraph [0063], [0072]- [0073], the server sends hash value to client , the client sends a verification request that includes a hash value to the database server; and the database server receives the verification and returns a verification result). As such the combination of references discloses the limitation of the claim being argued.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paczkowski et al. (US Patent No. 11, 308,185), hereinafter Paczkowski, in view of Yang (US Publication No. 2020/0183883), hereinafter Yang.
As per claims 1 and 14, Paczkowski discloses a system comprising: a microprocessor; and a computer readable medium, coupled with the microprocessor and comprising microprocessor readable and executable instructions (column 20, lines 54-64) that, when executed by the microprocessor, cause the microprocessor to:
retrieve a first hash of a record generated by a hashing algorithm; encrypt by an encryption algorithm different from the hashing algorithm the first hash of the record using a first encryption key to produce an encrypted hash (column 10, line 47-column 11, line 26,at block 306, the initial hash value is encrypted, and at block 308, at least one contemporaneous characteristic is encrypted with the initial hash value using a public key), wherein the encrypted hash is stored in the record and wherein storing the encrypted hash in the record comprises one of:
[replacing the first hash with the encrypted hash or] adding the encrypted hash to the record (; (column 11, lines 21-26, initial hash value is added to or combined with contemporaneous characteristics and are encrypted, corresponding to encrypted hash stored in the record. It is noted that the encrypted hash and contemporaneous characteristics are considered as a record of the stored hash. Column 11, line 67-column 12, line 3, “the initial hash value that is encrypted with the at least one contemporaneous characteristics is communicated to the server”);
validate the record by (column 15,lines 49-51, server proceeds to determine whether media file has been suspiciously modified): unencrypting the encrypted hash using the first encryption key and encryption algorithm to produce a second hash from the encrypted hash (column 12, lines 38-45, “the server can decrypt the initial hash value using the public key associated with the service provider and/or using the private key associated with the user device”); hashing the record to produce a third hash (column 15, lines 52-54, a hash value of the present instance of the media file is generated); and comparing the second hash to the third hash; in response to the second hash being the same as the third hash, validating the record; and
in response to the second hash not being the same as the third hash, not validating the record (column 16, lines 32-57, “At block 408, it is determined whether the hash value of the present instance is different from the previously-stored hash value of the previous instance. As discussed above, a hash value of the initial instance of the media file was generated using the public key and was stored in the distributed electronic ledger to create a digital provenance for the particular media file. As such, the present hash value can be compared to the hash value of the initial instance of the media file, in embodiments. When the present instance of the media file has not been modified relative to the previous instance of the media file, then the present hash value generated from the present instance of the media file and the previously-stored hash value of the previous instance of the media file are the same (i.e., hash values are the same). When the present instance of the media file has been modified relative to the previous instance of the media file, the present hash value generated from the present instance of the media file is different from the previously stored hash value of the previous instance of the media file (i.e., hash values are different)).
While Paczkowski discloses validate the record, Paczkowski does not explicitly disclose but in an analogous art Yang discloses receiving a request to validate a record and in response to receiving a request validating the record (paragraph [0073], “the client sends a verification request that includes a hash value to the database server; and the database server receives the verification request to verify integrity of a personal asset change record that corresponds to the hash value in the blockchain-type ledger, and returns a verification result”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Paczkowski with Yang. This would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve the predictable result of validating integrity of data record.
As per claims 2 and 15, Paczkowski furthermore discloses, wherein storing the encrypted hash in the record comprises adding the encrypted hash to the record (column 11, lines 21-26, initial hash value is added to or combined with contemporaneous characteristics and are encrypted, corresponding to encrypted hash stored in the record.. Column 11, line 67-column 12, line 3, “the initial hash value that is encrypted with the at least one contemporaneous characteristics is communicated to the server”).
As per claims 3 and 16, Paczkowski furthermore discloses wherein the record is a newly added block in a blockchain and wherein the first hash is hash of a previous block in the blockchain (column 13, line 63- column 14, line 8, “by encrypting the new hash value using the private key that is associated with the user device in the trusted execution environment (TEE) operating on the user device, and by encrypting a new contemporaneous characteristic with the new hash value using the public key associated with the private network. In an embodiment, the user device communicates, in addition to the initial hash value, the modified media file and the new hash value that is encrypted with the new contemporaneous characteristic to the server on the private network for storage in the distributed electronic ledger”).
As per claim 4, Paczkowski furthermore discloses, wherein the record is a transaction block in a blockchain and wherein the encrypted hash is a hash of the blockchain and/or a hash of the transaction block (column 7, lines 21-33, “…the DLT operating in the private network 102 enables confidential transactions”).
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paczkowski in view of Yang, further in view of Yong (US Publication No. 2019/0282906), hereinafter Yong.
As per claim 5, Paczkowski furthermore discloses wherein the record is a block in a blockchain (column 7, lines 40-46, “The data store 126 can store one or more records and can maintain a blockchain 128 of records, in embodiments. For example, hash values and other information that corresponds to an instance of a particular media file, as discussed hereinafter, can be stored as discrete records in a blockchain for that particular media file”). Paczkowski as modified does not explicitly disclose, but in an analogous art, Yong discloses, wherein the encrypted hash uses a hashing algorithm that is different from hashing algorithm generating another hash in the block in the blockchain (paragraph [0031], using different hash algorithm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the modified Paczkowski with Yong. This would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to optimize security and preventing modification of the transaction ).
Claims 6, 7 , 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paczkowski in view of Yang, further in view of Versteege et al. (US Publication No. 2019/0305968), hereinafter Versteege.
As per claim 6 and 17, Paczkowski as modified does not explicitly disclose, but in an analogous art, Versteege disclose, wherein storing the encrypted hash in the record comprises replacing the first hash with the encrypted hash (paragraph [0033], the contents of the previous block hashes replaced with the new hash value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the modified Paczkowski with Versteege. This would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to update hash values.
As per claim 7, Versteege furthermore discloses, wherein the first hash is a hash of a previous block in a blockchain (paragraph [0033], “previous-block-hashes”). The motivation is similar to the motivation provided in claim 6.
As per claim 13, Paczkowski as modified does not explicitly disclose, wherein the encrypted hash replaces a fourth hash that is stored in the record and wherein the fourth hash uses a second hashing algorithm different from the hashing algorithm generating the first hash. However in an analogous art Versteege discloses, wherein the encrypted hash replaces a [fourth] hash that is stored in the record and wherein the [fourth] hash uses a [second] hashing algorithm (paragraph [0033], the contents of the previous block hashes replaced with the new hash value).
It is noted that Versteege instead of replacing a fourth hash discloses replacing previous hashes. However, function or method of replacing a hash does not depend on the number of the hash or the hash algorithm. Such replacement would have been performed the same regardless of the hash number and algorithm. Versteege would have been able to perform the same steps applied for replacing the previous hashes to replace any other hashes (i.e., second, third, fourth, etc.) and any other hashing algorithm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the modified Paczkowski with Versteege. This would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to update hash values.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paczkowski in view of Yang, further in view of Lin (US Publication No. 2020/0235988), hereinafter Lin.
As per claims 8 and 18, Paczkowski as modified does not explicitly disclose, but in an analogous art, Lin discloses wherein the first hash comprises a plurality of hashes of previous blocks in a blockchain and wherein each of the plurality of previous hashes of the previous blocks are encrypted using the first encryption key to produce a linked list of encrypted hashes in the blockchain (paragraph [0056], “The blockchain includes one or more blocks. Each block in the blockchain is linked to a previous block immediately preceding the block by using an encrypted hash that includes the previous block in the blockchain. Each block further includes a timestamp, an encrypted hash of the block, and one or more transactions”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the modified Paczkowski with Lin. This would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to ensure that the blocks cannot be tampered with.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paczkowski in view of Yang, further in view of Castagna (US Publication No. 2018/0139186), hereinafter Castagna.
As per claim 9, Paczkowski as modified does not explicitly disclose, but in an analogous art, Castagna discloses, wherein at least a portion of the record is encrypted using a second encryption key and/or the encryption algorithm (paragraph [0041], the second data record is encrypted using a second cryptographic public key) and wherein the encrypted hash is of the at least a portion of the record before the at least a portion of the record was encrypted (paragraph [0046]-[0047], each data record in a private blockchain comprises at least one cryptographic hash generated by a cryptographic hash function. The input that generates the merger hash 201, first shared hash 211, and second shared hash 221 comprises a cryptographic public key).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the modified Paczkowski with Castagna. This would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for the benefit of providing a secure and reliable way for sharing data between different entities.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paczkowski in view of Yang, further in view of McKervey et al. (US Patent No. 11,062,042), hereinafter McKervey.
As per claim 10, Paczkowski as modified does not explicitly disclose, but in an analogous art, McKervey discloses, wherein the record is a blockchain that comprises a plurality of different types of blocks (claim 1, “the distributed ledger system stores a plurality of blocks of a blockchain”) and wherein the encrypted hash comprises a plurality of encrypted hashes of the plurality of different types of blocks that are encrypted (column 62, lines 49-55, “encrypt the generated hash using a private key of a key pair, and send the encrypted hash along with the block entry to the distributed ledger system”) using different encryption algorithms and/or encryption keys (column [0073], lines 49-52, “encrypt entries using different key pairs associated with different customers or users”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the modified Paczkowski with McKervey. This would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to identify unauthorized use of each data records.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paczkowski in view of Yang, further in view of Ekberg (US Publication No. 2018/0367307), hereinafter Ekberg.
As per claim 11, Paczkowski as modified does not explicitly disclose, but in an analogous art, Ekberg discloses, wherein the encrypted hash has an associated authentication level in order to unencrypt the encrypted hash (paragraph [0062], the third-level delegation subsecrets are leaf nodes of the hash tree, and usable in authentication with a resource. In some embodiments, the first-level subsecrets and the second-level subsecrets are not as such usable in accessing the resource; paragraph [0087], “delegation of access right”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the modified Paczkowski with Ekberg. This would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide access to resources based on access rights.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paczkowski in view of Yang, further in view of Churchhill (US Publication No. 2021/0286861), hereinafter Churchhill.
As per claim 12, Paczkowski does not explicitly disclose, but in an analogous art, Churchhill discloses, wherein the encrypted hash comprises a plurality of encrypted hashes associated with a plurality of tenants, wherein the first encryption key comprises a plurality of encryption keys associated with the plurality of tenants, and wherein each of the plurality of encrypted hashes has an associated authentication level to access one or more of the plurality of encryption keys for each of the plurality of tenants (paragraph [0006], “Permission to access the digital asset at different authorization levels”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the modified Paczkowski with Churchhill. This would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide access to content of digital asset based on a preset permission.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paczkowski in view of Yang, further in view of Ishikawa et al. (US Publication No. 2009/0193522), hereinafter Ishikawa.
As per claim 19, Paczkowski discloses a system comprising: a microprocessor; and a computer readable medium, coupled with the microprocessor and comprising microprocessor readable and executable instructions (column 20, lines 54-64) that, when executed by the microprocessor, cause the microprocessor to: retrieve a first hash of a record from a communication device encrypted by a hashing algorithm; encrypt by an encryption algorithm different form the hashing algorithm the first hash of the record using a first encryption key to produce an encrypted hash (column 10, line 66-column 11, line 26,at block 306, the initial hash value is encrypted, and at block 308, at least one contemporaneous characteristic is encrypted with the initial hash value using a public key), wherein the encrypted hash is stored in the record and wherein storing the encrypted hash in the record comprises one of:
[replacing the first hash with the encrypted hash or] adding the encrypted hash to the record (column 11, lines 21-26, initial hash value is added to or combined with contemporaneous characteristics and are encrypted, corresponding to encrypted hash stored in the record. It is noted that the encrypted hash and contemporaneous characteristics are considered as a record of the stored cache. Column 11, line 67-column 12, line 3, “the initial hash value that is encrypted with the at least one contemporaneous characteristics is communicated to the server”);
send the encrypted hash of the record to the computing device; validate the record (column 11, lines 16- 25, TEE pass the encrypted initial hash value , generate and combine a contemporaneous characteristics with initial hash value and combination is encrypted and passed to device to be sent to the server; and column 15,lines 49-51, server proceeds to determine whether media file has been suspiciously modified); by at least one of: unencrypting the encrypted hash using the first encryption key and encryption algorithm to produce third hash (column 12, lines 38-45, “the server can decrypt the initial hash value using the public key associated with the service provider and/or using the private key associated with the user device”); and comparing the second hash to the third hash form the encrypted hash; in response to any comparison being the same, [send a message to] validate the record [to the communication device]; and in response to any comparison not being the same, [send a message to] invalidate the record [to the communication device] (column 15, lines 52-54, a hash value (second hash) of the present instance of the media file is generated,; column 16, lines 32-57, “At block 408, it is determined whether the hash value of the present instance is different from the previously-stored hash value of the previous instance. As discussed above, a hash value of the initial instance of the media file was generated using the public key and was stored in the distributed electronic ledger to create a digital provenance for the particular media file. As such, the present hash value can be compared to the hash value of the initial instance of the media file, in embodiments. When the present instance of the media file has not been modified relative to the previous instance of the media file, then the present hash value generated from the present instance of the media file and the previously-stored hash value of the previous instance of the media file are the same (i.e., hash values are the same). When the present instance of the media file has been modified relative to the previous instance of the media file, the present hash value generated from the present instance of the media file is different from the previously stored hash value of the previous instance of the media file (i.e., hash values are different)”).
While Paczkowski discloses validate the record, Paczkowski does not explicitly disclose but in an analogous art Yang discloses receive a first hash and request to validate the record form the communication device; wherein the request to validate the record comprises a second hash of the record;(paragraph [0063], the server sends hash value to client , paragraph[0072]- [0073], “the client sends a verification request that includes a hash value to the database server; and the database server receives the verification request to verify integrity of a personal asset change record that corresponds to the hash value in the blockchain-type ledger, and returns a verification result”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Paczkowski with Yang. This would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve the predictable result of validating integrity of data record.
Further, while Paczkowski discloses validating or invalidating the record based on comparison being the same or not being the same, Paczkowski as modified does not explicitly disclose send a message to validate or invalidate the record to the communication device. However, in an analogous art, Ishikawa discloses sending a message to validate or invalidate the record to the communication device based on comparison being the same or not being the same (paragraph [0119]-[0121], the base application hash value comparing unit 202 compares the acquired hash value with the hash value received from the user terminal device 10 and checks if the hash values coincide with each other. When the hash values do not coincide with each other, the verification processing control unit 207 in the authentication station server device 20 transmits an access denial notification containing the information on the base application whose hash value does not coincide to the user terminal device 10 (step S113), and proceeds to step S108 depicted in FIG. 12A. When the hash values coincide with each other, the verification processing control unit 207 in the authentication station server device 20 transmits a verification execution notification to the user terminal device 10 ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the modified Paczkowski with Yang. This would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to verifying computer resources introduced into a client device.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paczkowski in view of Yang and Ishikawa, further in view of Castagna .
As per claim 20, Paczkowski as modified does not explicitly disclose, but in an analogous art, Castagna discloses, wherein the receive first hash is hashed using a different hashing algorithm than the hashing algorithm generating the first hash before being encrypted using the first encryption key (paragraph [0046]-[0047], each data record in a private blockchain comprises at least one cryptographic hash generated by a cryptographic hash function. The input that generates the merger hash 201, first shared hash 211, and second shared hash 221 comprises a cryptographic public key).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the modified Paczkowski with Castagna This would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for the benefit of providing as secure and reliable way for sharing data between different entities.
Although Castagna does not explicitly disclose using different hash algorithm, it is noted that using different hashing algorithm is old and well known in the art of computer security. It would have been obvious to an ordinary skill in the art to implement different hashing algorithms, for the benefit of improving data integrity verification.
References Cited, Not Used
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pillai et al. (US Publication No.2020/0042494) discloses, a system, method and apparatus for using a distributed ledger to control searching for information stored in a distributed storage system. The system comprises at least one apparatus, the system comprising: identifier storing means for causing, at least in part, an identifier to be stored in the distributed ledger, the identifier enabling a determination
of where at least a portion of the information is stored in the distributed storage system in dependence on finding the identifier in the distributed ledger.
Beardsworth et al. (US Publication No.2022/0058289) discloses, a method for providing and searching a searchable encrypted database. The system obtains plain text data and first and second encryption keys. The plain text data is parsed using a priori knowledge of the plain text data
structure to identify data blocks and associated metadata components. The data blocks are encrypted using the first encryption key to provide encrypted data blocks. The metadata
components are encrypted with the second encryption key to provide encrypted metadata components. The encrypted data blocks and encrypted metadata components are stored in a storage vault to provide a searchable encrypted database whilst discarding the plain text data and
the first encryption key.
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 extension fee 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 Ali Abyaneh whose telephone number is (571) 272-7961. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from (8:00-5:00). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alexander Lagor can be reached on (571) 270-5143. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned as (571) 273-8300 Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/ALI S ABYANEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2437