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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 – 4, 6, and 8 – 24 are pending.
Any references to applicant’s specification are made by way of applicant’s U.S. pre-grant printed patent publication.
This action is in response to the communication filed on 03/04/26.
All objections and rejections not set forth below have been withdrawn.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/04/26 has been entered.
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 3, 6, 8, 12, 15, 17, and 20 are 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.
Regarding claim 3, the recitation of “the sample number” lacks sufficient antecedent basis within the claims. Thus, the scope of the claims are rendered indefinite.
Regarding claim 6, the recitation of “sample segment” lacks sufficient antecedent basis within the claims. Thus, it is unclear as to what “sample segment” the applicant is attempting to reference by the limitation “…wherein … each sample segment in the response…”.
Regarding claim 8, the recitation of “the buyer” lacks sufficient antecedent basis within the claims. Thus, the scope of the claims are rendered indefinite.
Regarding claim 12, the recitation of “the sample number” lacks sufficient antecedent basis within the claims. Thus, the scope of the claims are rendered indefinite.
Regarding claim 15, the recitation of “sample segment” lacks sufficient antecedent basis within the claims. Thus, it is unclear as to what “sample segment” the applicant is attempting to reference by the limitation “…wherein … each sample segment in the response…”.
Regarding claim 17, the recitation of “the sample number” lacks sufficient antecedent basis within the claims. Thus, the scope of the claims are rendered indefinite.
Regarding claim 20, the recitation of “the sample number” lacks sufficient antecedent basis within the claims. Thus, the scope of the claims are rendered indefinite.
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.
Claims 1 – 4, 6, and 8 – 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ateniese et al. (Ateniese), “Provable Data Possession at Untrusted Stores”, in view of Shen et al. (Shen), “Secure Cloud Auditing with Efficient Ownership Transfer”.
Regarding claim 1, Ateniese discloses:
A method for proving a fixity of a catalog of documents (e.g. Ateniese, pg. 2, par. 4; pg. 14: Remarks 1, 3 – e.g. an catalog of astronomy documents, etc.), the method comprising:
splitting each document of the catalog of documents into a plurality of segments (e.g. Ateniese, pg. 2, par. 3; pg. 14: Remark 3; pg. 3, section 2; pg. 7:sect. 4.1 – each file is divided into blocks).
calculating, using a fixity function, a fixity value for each segment (e.g. Ateniese, pg. 2, par. 3; pg. 14: Remark 3; pg. 10:S-PDP overview; a fixity value T = h(Wi) is calculated);
building a manifest including fixity values corresponding to documents of the catalog (e.g. Ateniese, pg. 8, Setup: Ʃ = (Tm1 … Tmn) sent to the server; pg. 14, Remark 3; the collection of Tags, i.e. a “manifest”, is sent to the server for storage along with the files).
Ateniese discloses a provable data possession scheme, wherein a “manifest” of fixities (i.e. set of verification tags), is generated to enable a client to challenge the veracity of data possession (e.g. Ateniese, Abstract). However, Ateniese does not appear to explicitly disclose that the “manifest” of fixities is sent to an “auditor”.
However, Shen also discloses a provable data possession scheme, wherein an auditor is provided with a “manifest” of fixities (i.e. a set of verification tags), thus enabling the auditor to perform a proof of possession challenge operation (e.g. Shen, abstract; Introduction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the teachings of Shen, for transferring a set of verification tags, or “manifest” of fixities, to an auditor, within the system of Ateniese. This would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the teachings that data stored within the cloud should be able to be transferred to new owners, who may require to perform a proof of possession function to audit the stored cloud data (e.g. Shen, abstract; Introduction) and for the reason that Shen explicitly references the teachings of Ateniese as compatible with his own (e.g. Shen, sect. 1.2, Related Work).
Thus, the combination enables:
transmitting the manifest to an auditor (e.g. Ateniese, pg. 8, Setup: Ʃ = (Tm1 … Tmn) sent by the original data owner; Shen, Abstract; Introduction – the “manifest” of fixities is transferred to the new data owner or “auditor”).
receiving a challenge identifying one segment for each of a sample of documents (e.g. Ateniese, pg. 5, par. 2; pg. 8, “Challenge”; pg. 14: Remark 3 – a server receives a challenge to prove possession of one or more sample files within a collection of documents, wherein the challenge identifies at least one block, i.e. “segment”, of a file to be verified);
retrieving the identified segments (e.g. Ateniese, pg. 8, “GenProof” – the corresponding blocks of the sample files are identified);
and verifying by recomputing the fixity function on the retrieved segments, that the recomputed fixity values correspond to the fixity values recorded in the manifest (e.g. Ateniese, pg. 8, “GenProof”, “CheckProof”; pg. 11: “CheckProof”; pg. 22-23, “Query”).
Regarding claim 2, the combination, while disclosing the need to use cryptographically secure and collision resistant hash functions (e.g. Ateniese, pg. 10, 11, hash and encode, cryptographic hash; Shen, sect. 2.2; pg. 6, sect. 3.2; pg. 9, sect. 4.2; pg. 11), the combination does not appear to explicitly teach the use of SHA256, SHA512, or SHA3 functions. However, the examiner takes official notice that each of the SHA256, SHA512, or SHA3 hash functions were well-known and commonly used for creating secure hashes, and thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use any one of these types of hash functions within the system of Ateniese and Shen so as to achieve the hashing security such functions provide. Thus, the combination enables:
wherein the fixity function is a cryptographic hash function including one of a secure hashing algorithm 256 (SHA256), SHA512, or SHA3 (e.g. Ateniese, pg. 10, 11, hash and encode, cryptographic hash; Shen, sect. 2.2; pg. 6, sect. 3.2; pg. 9, sect. 4.2; pg. 11)
Regarding claim 3, the combination enables:
wherein the sample number of documents is at least two orders of magnitude smaller than a number of documents in the catalog of documents (e.g. Ateniese, pg. 2, par. 4; pg. 11, “GenProof”; pg. 14: Remark 3 – e.g. herein a sample number, e.g. one file out of a multitude of stored files, such as in an entire multi-terabyte catalog of astronomy files (“at least two orders of magnitude smaller”), may be challenged).
Regarding claim 4, the combination enables:
wherein the manifest includes titles and descriptions of the catalog of documents (e.g. Ateniese, pg. 10, S-PDP overview; pg. 14: Remark 3 – the collection of Tags includes indices and file identifiers for each of the files within the catalog of documents).
Regarding claim 6, the combination enables:
wherein the fixity of each sample segment is calculated by the auditor applying the fixity function on each sample segment in the response (e.g. Ateniese, pg. 8, “GenProof”, “CheckProof”; pg. 11: “CheckProof”; pg. 22-23, “Query”) .
Regarding claim 8, the combination enables:
further comprising notifying the buyer that the catalog of documents in possession of the prover and that the documents are not impaired, when all verifications are valid (e.g. Shen, pg. 3, pg. 6, sect. 3.2; pg. 9, sect. 4.2 – TagTrans; pg. 7 – Correctness). Herein, the new data owner (i.e. auditor) is also a purchaser of the transferred data, and is thus the “buyer” who is notified of the audit results.
Regarding claim 9, the combination enables:
wherein the challenge further includes a request for a second number of complete documents, wherein the second number is substantially smaller than the sample number (e.g. Ateniese, pg. 5 – scalable solution; sect. 5.1 – the challenge can comprise a request for a sample number of segments, e.g. 460, for a complete file of 1 – i.e. “substantially smaller”).
Regarding claim 21, the combination enables:
wherein the manifest stores a fixity value for each document derived from fixity values of the segments (e.g. Ateniese, pg. 8, Setup: Ʃ = (Tm1 … Tmn); pg. 14, Remark 3; the collection of Tags, i.e. a “manifest”, stores one or more fixity values h(W) for each document or file).
Regarding claim 22, the Ateniese does not appear to explicitly disclose, but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize:
wherein the challenge identifies exactly one segment for each selected document.
This would have been obvious because Ateniese explicitly teaches that the probabilistic determination, resulting from the number of challenge blocks or segments, is dictated by a concrete mathematical equation (e.g. Ateniese, pg. 4, 5; fig. 3; sect. 5.1; Px ≥ (1 – ((n – t) / n)c ). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art is taught by Ateniese to choose any number for “C” (i.e. challenge segments from 1 to the 10,000, for example), as motivated by individuals desired system performance goals and level of probabilistic guarantee.
Regarding claim 23, the combination enables:
wherein verifying comprises recomputing the fixity function on the retrieved segments and comparing recomputed fixity values with manifest entries (e.g. Ateniese, pg. 8, “GenProof”, “CheckProof”; pg. 11: “CheckProof”; pg. 22-23, “Query”).
Regarding claims 10 – 20, and 24 they are system and medium claims, essentially corresponding to the method claims above, and they are rejected, at least, for the same reasons, and furthermore, because:
Ateniese discloses a system and medium for performing the above method (e.g. Ateniese, sect. 5.2), including regarding claim 10, Ateniese discloses:
A system for proving a fixity of a catalog of documents (e.g. Ateniese, sect. 5.2), the system comprising:
A prover to split documents into segments and compute segment fixity values using a fixity function (e.g. Ateniese, pg. 2, par. 3; pg. 14: Remark 3; pg. 3, section 2; pg. 7:sect. 4.1 – a data owner, i.e. “prover” divides each file into blocks and computes a fixity value for each block);
the prover to generate a manifest including document fixity values derived from the segment fixity values (e.g. Ateniese, pg. 2, par. 3; pg. 14: Remark 3; pg. 10:S-PDP overview; a fixity value T = h(Wi) is calculated; pg. 8, Setup: Ʃ = (Tm1 … Tmn); pg. 14, Remark 3; the collection of Tags, i.e. a “manifest” of document fixity values created from fixity values of the segments).
an auditor configured to receive the manifest and generate a challenge identifying segments associated with selected documents (e.g. Ateniese, pg. 8, Setup: Ʃ = (Tm1 … Tmn) sent by the original data owner; Shen, Abstract; Introduction; Ateniese, pg. 5, par. 2; pg. 8, “Challenge”; pg. 14: Remark 3 – the “manifest” of fixities is transferred to the new data owner or “auditor” who then generates a challenge so as to audit).
the auditor configured to verify fixity by recomputing the fixity function on segments provided in response to the challenge (e.g. Ateniese, pg. 8, “GenProof”, “CheckProof”; pg. 11: “CheckProof”; pg. 22-23, “Query”; e.g. Shen, pg. 6, sect. 3.2; pg. 9, sect. 4.2 – Audit – the new data owner, i.e. “the auditor” verifies the returned proof).
Regarding claim 14, the combination enables:
wherein the prover cryptographically signs the manifest (e.g. Ateniese, pg. 2 – homomorphic tags; pg. 10, FDH signature).
Regarding claim 15, the combination enables:
wherein the fixity of each sample segment is calculated by the auditor applying the fixity function on each sample segment in the response (e.g. Ateniese, pg. 8, “GenProof”, “CheckProof”; pg. 11: “CheckProof”; pg. 22-23, “Query”; e.g. Shen, pg. 6, sect. 3.2; pg. 9, sect. 4.2 – Audit – the new data owner, i.e. “the auditor” verifies the returned proof).
Regarding claim 16, the combination enables:
wherein the auditor is a representative agent of a buyer of the catalog of documents (e.g. Shen, pg. 3, pg. 6, sect. 3.2; pg. 9, sect. 4.2 – TagTrans; pg. 7 – Correctness). Herein, the computing device (i.e. a “representative agent”) of the new data owner is used to perform the auditing of the transferred data from the original data owner to the buyer or new data owner.
Regarding claim 17, the combination enables:
wherein the challenge further includes a request for a second number of complete documents, wherein the second number is substantially smaller than the sample number (e.g. Ateniese, pg. 5 – scalable solution; sect. 5.1 – the challenge can comprise a request for a sample number of segments, e.g. 460, for a complete file of 1 – i.e. “substantially smaller”).
.
Regarding claim 24, the combination enables:
wherein the auditor verifies fixity by recomputing the fixity function on segments received from the prover (e.g. Ateniese, pg. 8, Setup: Ʃ = (Tm1 … Tmn) sent by the original data owner; Shen, Abstract; Introduction – the “manifest” of fixities is transferred to the new data owner or “auditor”; e.g. Ateniese, pg. 8, “GenProof”, “CheckProof”; pg. 11: “CheckProof”; pg. 22-23, “Query”; e.g. Shen, pg. 6, sect. 3.2; pg. 9, sect. 4.2 – Audit – the new data owner, i.e. “the auditor” verifies the returned proof).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFERY L WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-7965. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 am - 4:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached on 571-272-3739. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JEFFERY L WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2495