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
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 28 April 2025 has been entered.
2. Claims 21-23, 25-39 and 41-43 remain Pending and Rejected.
Responses to the Argument
3. The applicant’s arguments filed on 28 April 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the Remarks, the applicant has argued in substance:
Argument:
Applicant respectfully submits that even if, ad arguendo, Yang suggests "generating ... a hash tag ... [and] the hash tag is used to validate an integrity of the data block," as recited in independent claim 21, and that, ad arguendo, Hou suggests "storing, by the encryption device, the hash tag in a local memory," as recited in independent claim 1, Yang appears to describe saving hash values on cloud storage servers specifically, such that a cloud storage management node can manage the cloud storage servers by requesting the hash value from the specific cloud storage server. In other words, modifying Yang with Hou as asserted in the Action would change the principle of operation of Yang. As such, there is no proper motivation to modify the references as asserted in the Action. Accordingly, the claims are patentably distinguishable of the cited references.
Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, Yang teaches, cloud storage integrity protection using hash value of the data block. user stored on the cloud data by frequent insertion, modification, deletion and other operations, the data is dynamically updated, to data dynamic update overhead caused by dynamic data integrity protection scheme is thereby provided. cannot be suitable for direct use in the environment integrity verification method of dynamic data to static data in the cloud environment.
On the other hand, examiner relied on Hou the mechanism of storing hashtag in a local memory, if we add this storing mechanism to primary reference Yang it would not break the system of Yang, rather it would perform same function in the same way intended as yang, since the primary art uses also storing function; storing a particular type of data in a local memory will not break the system and modification still perform the same underlying mechanism.
Therefore, combination does not alter the fundamental principle of operation of primary reference, Yang.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 21-23, 25-39 and 41 are rejected 35 U.S.C §102 (a)(2) as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (CN Publication No. 105320899), hereinafter Yang and Hou et al. (CN 1707450), hereinafter Hou.
Regarding claim 21:
receiving, by an encryption device, a data block to be stored remotely (Yang, pages 1, paragraph 1, Abstract, page 2, paragraph 3).
generating, by the encryption device, a hash tag from a hash of the data block, wherein the hash tag is used to validate an integrity of the data block (Yang, page 5, paragraph 2, page 9, paragraph 6).
storing, by the encryption device, the hash tag in a local memory (Hou, page 11, paragraph, 1, 4).
and writing, by the encryption device, the data block to a remote storage (Yang, page 5, paragraph 3, page 15, paragraph 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the method of data integrity using hash tag of Yang with the method of storing hash information locally disclosed in Hou to protect data confidentiality. stated by Hou at page 5, para.2-3).
Regarding claim 22:
further comprising storing an identifier with the hash tag, wherein the identifier is associated with the stored data block (Yang, page 9, paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 23:
wherein the identifier is an address provided by a file system used to store the data block (Yang, page 9, paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 25:
wherein the encryption device is attached to a local device (Yang, page 19, paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 26:
wherein the local memory is in encryption device (Hou, page 11, paragraph, 1, 4).
Same motivation for combining the respective features of Yang and Bowman applies herein, as discussed in the rejection of claim 21.
Regarding claim 27:
wherein the remote storage is a first remote storage, and wherein storing the hash tag comprises sending the hash tag over a network to a second remote storage to be stored in memory (Yang, page 7, paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 28:
wherein the encryption device is configured to generate an additional hash of the data block when the data block is read from the remote storage and to compare the additional hash to the stored hash tag (Yang, page 5, paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 29:
wherein the encryption device is further configured to determine, based on comparing the additional hash to the stored hash tag, whether the read data block is valid (Yang, page 10, paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 30:
wherein the encryption device is further configured to, in response to determining the read data block is valid, send the read data block to a local data device (Yang, page 22, paragraph 6).
Regarding claim 31:
wherein comparing the additional hash to the stored hash tag comprises retrieving the stored hash tag from a second remote storage (Yang, page 19, paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 32:
observe a data block being written out from a local data device to a remote storage device (Yang, page 3, paragraph 1, 4).
generate a hash of the data block (Yang, page 19, paragraph 4, page 5, paragraph 2).
encrypt the data block (Yang, page 18, paragraph 5).
store the encrypted data block to the remote storage device (Yang, page 18, paragraph 5).
and store the hash of the data block in local memory (Hou, page 11, paragraph, 1, 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the method of data integrity using hash tag of Yang with the method of storing hash information locally disclosed in Hou to protect data confidentiality. stated by Hou at page 5, para.2-3).
Regarding claim 33:
wherein storing the encrypted data block to the remote storage device comprises: establishing a transport session between an encryption device and a remote storage device; and transmitting the encrypted data block to the remote storage device through the transport session (Yang, page 7, paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 34:
wherein the hash is stored in a look-up table on the remote storage device (Yang, page 21, paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 35:
an encryption device configured to generate a hash tag for at least one data block, the hash tag comprising a data block identifier and cryptographic hash of the data block (Yang, page 5, paragraph 2, page 9, paragraph 6).
memory configured to store the hash tag, wherein memory is configured as local storage within the encryption device (Hou, page 11, paragraph , 1, 4).
and a communication interface configured to transmit the at least one data block to a remote storage device and for retrieving the data block from the remote storage device (Yang, page 19, paragraph 1, page 19, paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 36:
wherein the encryption device is configured to: retrieve the hash tag; recalculate the cryptographic hash of the at least one data block retrieved from the remote storage device; and compare the retrieved hash tag with the recalculated cryptographic hash to verify an integrity of the at least one data block (Yang, page 15, paragraph 5).
Regarding claim 37:
wherein the encryption device comprises a systolic matrix packet engine (Yang, page 19, paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 38:
wherein the hash tag is a keyed cryptographic hash tag generated and stored using a cryptographic key (Yang, page 8, paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 39:
wherein the data block identifier comprises a file system block address (Yang, page 9, paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 41:
wherein the encryption device is configured to: receive a file object from the remote storage device; retrieve metadata maintained with the file object; derive a payload key from the metadata; and decrypt the file object using the payload key (Yang, page 9, paragraph 6, page 10, paragraph 1).
7. Claims 42 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C §103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Hou and in view of Bowman et al. (CN Publication No. 108701076), hereinafter Bowman.
Regarding claim 42:
wherein the encryption device is configured to: receive a file from a client device in a form of at least one packet (Bowman, page 9, paragraph 1, page 46, paragraph 2); retrieve, from a header of the at least one packet, information used to extract a key for decrypting the file (Bowman, page 68, paragraph 2, page 46, paragraph 2); receive the file from the remote storage device (Bowman, page 26, paragraph 2); and decrypt the file using the key (Bowman, page 27, paragraph 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made filed to include the method of data integrity using hash tag of Yang with the method of reading header file disclosed in Bowman to have undisturbed data file in the storage. stated by Bowman at page 21, para.2).
Regarding claim 43:
wherein the encryption device is configured to: associate a payload key to at least one of a client device, or a data object received from the client device; wherein associating the payload key is based at least in part on information from a cloud server protocol associated with the remote storage device (Bowman, page 58, paragraph 1).
Same motivation for combining the respective features of Yang and Bowman applies herein, as discussed in the rejection of claim 42.
Conclusion
5. 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure (See form “PTO-892 Notice of reference cited).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONJUR RAHIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3890.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shewye Gelagay can be reached on 571-272-4219. 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.
/Monjur Rahim/
Patent Examiner
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Art Unit: 2436; Phone: 571.270.3890
E-mail: monjur.rahim@uspto.gov
Fax: 571.270.4890