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
This communication is in response to the application Request for Continued Examination filed on 02/04/2026 in which Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/04/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to amended claims have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 10-13, 19-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11265169 B1 (hereinafter " Rowe") in view of SUN US 20190163913 A1, in further view of Khan US 20240143834 A1.
As to claim 1, Rowe teaches a system comprising: a microprocessor; and a non-transitory computer readable medium, coupled with the microprocessor and comprising microprocessor readable and executable instructions that, when executed by the microprocessor, cause the microprocessor to (Rowe Col. 8 Lines 47-63) [one or more processor(s) 112 and a memory 114. The one or more processor(s) 112 can include one or more general-purpose processors (e.g., central processing units (CPUs)) or special-purpose processing units capable of executing machine-readable instructions stored on the memory 114]: generate a first hash and a second hash of information (Rowe Col. 2 Lines 41-46) [calculating a hash value (read first hash) of at least a portion of the request, and including the hash value in the request transaction. Moreover, retrieving the reply transaction may include retrieving a second hash value included in the reply transaction and comparing calculated hash value to the second hash value.], wherein the first hash and the second hash of the information are used to validate if the information has changed, and wherein the first hash and the second hash of the information are generated locally (Rowe Col. 6 Lines 42-56) [The confirmation entity application can then analyze the reply to determine whether the third party validated the information in the request or provided the requested information. To analyze the reply, the confirmation entity application can compare a hash of the information available to the confirmation entity (e.g., the information that the target entity furnished to the confirmation entity) to a hash in the reply. If the hashes are identical, then the confirmation entity application can verify that the information at the confirmation entity matches the information of the third party]; send the first hash and the second hash of the information to a trusted authority, wherein the trusted authority is a service that is managed by an external party (Rowe Col. 3 Lines 19-35) [a confirmation entity can verify information regarding a target entity by receiving evidence from a third party. The third party, for instance, may maintain information regarding the target entity or on behalf of the target entity]; detect a validation event associated with the information; send a request for the first hash and the second hash of the information to the trusted authority (Rowe Col. 12 Lines 46-65) [the information may be a statement or a record of the target that the confirming entity would like to verify. In some implementations, the request may include the information. However, in other, preferred embodiments, to prevent sharing of confidential information, the request includes a hash of the information rather than the information itself. The request may ask the third party whether the third party agrees with the information included in the request]; receive, from the trusted authority, the first hash and the second hash of the information (Rowe Col. 15 Lines 28-50) [he third party blockchain application 138 can compare the information in the request to information in the third party's records. For example, the third party blockchain application 138 can compare a hash of the information in the third party's records (e.g., in the third party database 138) to the hash of the information in the request. If the hashes match, the third party blockchain application 138 can determine that the third party's information matches with the confirmation entity's information. The reply can include a flag indicating that the third party blockchain application 136 verifies the information in the request as accurate, and/or can include the hash of the information in the third party's records so that the confirmation entity blockchain application 116 can also verify that the hashes are identical.]
It is noted that Rowe does not appear explicitly disclose generate a third hash and a fourth hash of the information, wherein the third hash and the fourth hash of the information is generated locally; and compare the received first hash of the information to the generated third hash of the information and the received second hash of the information to the generated fourth hash of the information to determine if the received first hash of the information is the same as the second third hash of the information and if the received second hash of the information is the same as the fourth hash of the information, wherein the comparison is done locally.
However, SUN discloses generate a third hash and a fourth hash of the information, wherein the third hash and the fourth hash of the information is generated locally (SUN Pa. [0091]) [compared and determined that the fourth hash value in the reading information is consistent with the third hash value]; and compare the received first hash of the information to the generated third hash of the information and the received second hash of the information to the generated fourth hash of the information to determine if the received first hash of the information is the same as the second third hash of the information and if the received second hash of the information is the same as the fourth hash of the information, wherein the comparison is done locally (SUN Pa. [0093]) [The secure operating system run by the processor parses and acquires the fourth hash value from the reading information, and compares the fourth hash value with the third hash value calculated in step S730. If the two hash values are consistent, the read data is correspondingly processed; if not, the read data is discarded]
Thus, it would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that applying the known technique taught by SUN to the cyber-security system of Rowe would have yield predictable results and resulted in an improved system, namely, a system that would provide a root key processing method and an associated device (SUN Pa. [0002])
Furthermore, the combination Rowe and SUN fails to disclose and wherein uniquely identifying information for the first hash and the second hash is sent to the trusted authority for storage therein in association with the first hash and the second hash.
However, Khan discloses wherein uniquely identifying information for the first hash and the second hash is sent to the trusted authority for storage therein in association with the first hash and the second hash (Khan Pa. [0268]) [a computer readable storage medium having stored therein instructions, which when executed by a device, cause the device to: receive a first hash value of a sensitive information identifier from a second computing entity. The second computing entity is configured to obtain a sensitive information identifier and to communicate with the device that is configured to access a set of sensitive information identifiers; determine that the first hash value matches a second hash value of a plurality of hash values in an association relationship that maps a respective one of the plurality of hash values to a corresponding sensitive information identifier in the set of sensitive information identifiers] [0128] [The processing system 200 may also include a storage unit 208, which may include a mass storage unit such as a solid state drive, a hard disk drive, a magnetic disk drive and/or an optical disk drive]
Thus, it would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that applying the known technique taught by Khan to the cyber-security system of Rowe and SUN would have yield predictable results and resulted in an improved system, namely, a system that would provide privacy protection and, anonymously identifying sensitive information identifiers (Khan Pa. [0001])
As to claim 2, the combination Rowe, SUN, and Khan teaches wherein the information is a software application and/or a software component, wherein the validation event determines whether to load the software application and/or the software component, and wherein the microprocessor readable and executable instructions further cause the microprocessor to (Rowe Col. 8 Lines 50-60) [other types of persistent memory, etc. In addition, the confirmation entity device 110 may include components not shown in FIG. 1, such as a display, a user interface, an input/output (I/O) interface, an operating system (OS), and/or one or more communication interfaces such as hardware, software, and/or firmware enabling communications via the network]: in response to the received first hash of the information being the same as the third hash of the information and the received second hash of the information being the same as the fourth hash of the information, load the software application and/or the software component (SUN Pa. [0093]) [The secure operating system run by the processor parses and acquires the fourth hash value from the reading information, and compares the fourth hash value with the third hash value calculated in step S730. If the two hash values are consistent, the read data is correspondingly processed]
Further, Rowe in claim 20 compare first hash value to the second hash value.
Nevertheless, the comparation of hashes relates to well-known option in the field of protected information, therefore, the inter-comparation of first, second, third and fourth hashes in order to secure data that the skilled person would consider with no inventive skills.
Thus, it would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that applying the known technique taught by SUN to the cyber-security system of Rowe would have yield predictable results and resulted in an improved system, namely, a system that would provide a root key processing method and an associated device (SUN Pa. [0002])
As to claim 3, Rowe teaches wherein the first hash comprises a plurality of hashes of a plurality of blocks in a blockchain (Rowe Col. 15 Lines 28-50) [he third party blockchain application 138 can compare the information in the request to information in the third party's records. For example, the third party blockchain application 138 can compare a hash of the information in the third party's records (e.g., in the third party database 138) to the hash of the information in the request. If the hashes match)
As to claim 4, Rowe teaches wherein the blockchain is not part of a distributed ledger (Rowe Col. 4 Lines 10-14) [while the distributed ledgers discussed herein are referred to in the context of a blockchain, this is merely one example of a distributed ledger. The techniques of this disclosure could be applied to other types of distributed ledgers besides blockchains.]
As to claims 10 & 19, 12-13, claims 10 & 19, 12-13 recite the claimed that contain respectively similar limitations as claims 1, 3-4; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
As to claims 11 and 20, claims 11 and 20 recite the claimed that contain respectively similar limitations as claim 2, therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 5-7, 9 and 14-18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11265169 B1 (hereinafter " Rowe") in view of SUN US 20190163913 A1, Khan US 20240143834 A1, in further view of Chan US No. 9374373 B1.
As to claim 5, the combination Rowe, SUN, and Khan teaches wherein the first hash and the second hash comprise one of (Rowe claim 20) [compare first hash value to the second hash value]:
The combination Rowe, SUN, and Khan fails to disclose a first forward hash of the information and a first reverse hash of the information; the first forward hash of the information using a first hashing algorithm and a second forward hash of the information using a second hashing algorithm; and the first reverse hash of the information using the first hashing algorithm and a second reverse hash of the information using the second hashing algorithm.
However, Chan discloses a first forward hash of the information and a first reverse hash of the information; the first forward hash of the information using a first hashing algorithm and a second forward hash of the information using a second hashing algorithm; and the first reverse hash of the information using the first hashing algorithm and a second reverse hash of the information using the second hashing algorithm (Chan Col. 4 lines 40-54) [generating dual hash chains for use in generating content keys for encrypting and decrypting content is shown. In FIG. 2, a forward hash chain having an initial value (FwK.sub.0) 210 and a backward (read reverse) hash chain having an initial backward hash chain value (BwK.sub.0) 222 are shown]
Thus, it would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that applying the known technique taught by Chan to the cyber-security system of Rowe, SUN, and Khan would have yield predictable results and resulted in an improved system, namely, a system that would encrypt content, using dual hash chains and proxy re-encryption, and techniques for sharing encrypted content (Chan Col. 1)
As to claim 6, the combination Rowe, SUN, Khan and Chan teaches wherein the information is an authentication credential, wherein the validation event is determining whether to authenticate a user using the authentication credential, and wherein the microprocessor readable and executable instructions further cause the microprocessor to (Chan Col. 26 lines 34-44) [for validating a credential in connection with providing access to encrypted content is shown as a method 1300. In an embodiment, the method 1300 may be performed by the second device 120 of FIGS. 1 and 10. In an embodiment, the method 1200 may be stored as instructions in a memory (e.g., the memory of the second device]: in response to the received first hash of the information not being the same as the third hash of the information or the received second hash of the information not being the same as the fourth hash of the information, not authenticating the user (SUN Pa. [0093]) [The secure operating system run by the processor parses and acquires the fourth hash value from the reading information, and compares the fourth hash value with the third hash value calculated in step S730. If the two hash values are consistent, the read data is correspondingly processed; if not, the read data is discarded]
Further, Rowe in claim 20 compare first hash value to the second hash value.
Nevertheless, the comparation of hashes relates to well-known option in the field of protected information, therefore, the inter-comparation of first, second, third and fourth hashes in order to secure data that the skilled person would consider with no inventive skills.
Thus, it would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that applying the known technique taught by Chan to the cyber-security system of Rowe, SUN, and Khan would have yield predictable results and resulted in an improved system, namely, a system that would encrypt content, using dual hash chains and proxy re-encryption, and techniques for sharing encrypted content (Chan Col. 1)
As to claim 7, the combination Rowe, SUN, Khan and Chan teaches wherein the first hash and the second hash are hashes of an encrypted authentication credential (Chan Col. 26 lines 34-44) [for validating a credential in connection with providing access to encrypted content is shown as a method 1300. In an embodiment, the method 1300 may be performed by the second device 120 of FIGS. 1 and 10. In an embodiment, the method 1200 may be stored as instructions in a memory (e.g., the memory of the second device]
Thus, it would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that applying the known technique taught by Chan to the cyber-security system of Rowe, SUN, and Khan would have yield predictable results and resulted in an improved system, namely, a system that would encrypt content, using dual hash chains and proxy re-encryption, and techniques for sharing encrypted content (Chan Col. 1)
As to claim 9, the combination Rowe, SUN, Khan and Chan teaches wherein the information comprises a plurality of authentication credentials, and wherein the first hash and the second hash further comprise an overall hash of the plurality of authentication credentials (Chan Col. 26 lines 34-44) [for validating a credential in connection with providing access to encrypted content is shown as a method 1300. In an embodiment, the method 1300 may be performed by the second device 120 of FIGS. 1 and 10. In an embodiment, the method 1200 may be stored as instructions in a memory (e.g., the memory of the second device]
Thus, it would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that applying the known technique taught by Chan to the cyber-security system of Rowe, SUN, and Khan would have yield predictable results and resulted in an improved system, namely, a system that would encrypt content, using dual hash chains and proxy re-encryption, and techniques for sharing encrypted content (Chan Col. 1)
As to claims 14-16, 18, claims 14-16, 18 recite the claimed that contain respectively similar limitations as claims 5-7, 9 therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
As to claim 17, the combination Rowe, SUN, Khan and Chan teaches wherein the information comprises a plurality of authentication credentials (Chan Col. 26 lines 34-44) [for validating a credential in connection with providing access to encrypted content is shown as a method 1300. In an embodiment, the method 1300 may be performed by the second device 120 of FIGS. 1 and 10. In an embodiment, the method 1200 may be stored as instructions in a memory (e.g., the memory of the second device]
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVANS DESROSIERS whose telephone number is (571)270-5438. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 8:00 am - 5:30 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, William Korzuch can be reached at (571)272-7589. 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.
/EVANS DESROSIERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491