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 .
This written action is responding to the amendment dated on 07/10/2025.
Claims 1-2, 10, 13-15 have been amended, Claims 16-18 newly added and all other Claims are previously presented.
Claims 1-15 are submitted for examination.
Claims 1-18 are pending.
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.
Priority
This 371 application filed on August 15, 2023 claims priority of PCT application PCT/EP2021/061196 filed on April 28, 2021 and foreign application EP21158208 filed on February 19, 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The following Information Disclosure Statements in the instant application submitted in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, and thus, have been fully considered:
IDS filed on 14 November 2023.
IDS filed on 03 February 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment, filed on July 10, 2025, has Claims 1-2, 10, 13-15 amended, Claims 16-18 newly added and all other Claims are previously presented. Among the amended claims, claims 1 and 13 are independent ones, and thus, the amendment necessitates a new ground of rejection.
The prior 35 U.S.C. 112(f) Claim Interpretation of Claim 13 has been withdrawn in view of the amendment received on July 10, 2025.
The prior 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of Claim 13 has been withdrawn in view of the amendment received on July 10, 2025.
The prior 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of Claim 10 has been withdrawn in view of the amendment received on July 10, 2025.
Applicant’s remark, filed on July 10, 2025 on top of page 9 regarding, “Hoshino fails to disclose or suggest the foregoing features of amended claims 1 and 13” and further remark on bottom of page 9 regarding, “Amended claim 1 further clarifies that the signer-specific secret (x) is "unique to the signer." The system parameter p of Hoshino is not unique to any agent, much less a signer that is also required to implement other steps of claims 1 and 13” has been considered and found persuasive, however applicant amendment necessitates a new ground of rejection. Accordingly newly cited NPL art by Chandana teaches, generating a secret x that is unique to the signer and the secret is generated similarly to describe in instant application’s publication paragraph 20 which describes, “According to an embodiment, the signer-specific secret x may be generated by using a cryptographic hash function H. The hash function H may be defined as H( ): {0,1}*.fwdarw.Z.sub.q, where q denotes the order of the finite cyclic group G, and wherein the signer-specific secret x is picked randomly from Z.sub.q.”. The art by Chandana teaches, similarly generating secret x utilizing a hash function, H( ): {0,1}*.fwdarw.Z.sub.q. “Ho {O, 1}* -> Z*q, where G1 is an additive cyclic group of prime order q for some large prime q. The KGC randomly chooses a secret value x € R Z*q and securely store it”. (Section III, “An Efficient ID-Based Ring Signature Scheme”).
Applicant’s remark, filed on July 10, 2025 on top of page 10 regarding, “Moreover, the signer-specific secret (x) of claims 1 and 13 and the system parameter p of Hoshino are used for completely different purposes. For example, claims 1 and 13 go on to recite to augment a message to be signed with a message-unique value that is related to the signer-specific secret (x), whereas the system parameter p of Hoshino is merely used by each agent to generate a key pair. Thus, it is respectfully submitted that Hoshino also fails to disclose or suggest these further features of claims 1 and 13 as well” has been considered and found persuasive, however newly cited NPL art by Chandana teaches this feature by generating secret and public keys and signing a message where a message to be signed is augmented with a message unique value that is related to the signer specific secret. (Please see Section III, “An Efficient ID-Based Ring Signature Scheme b) Key generation, c) Signing”).
Applicant’s remark, filed on June 10, 2025 on bottom of page 10 regarding “claim 4 recites that "the signing of an arbitrary message by the signer comprises: generating a tuple including the message to be signed, a message-unique parameter (g) and an additional parameter (fl) that ties the message to be signed to the signer-specific secret (x)," and "signing the tuple."”, has been considered, however is not found persuasive. Hoshino teaches, “signature processing performed by the signature generation unit 120 will be described with reference to FIG. 5. FIG. 5 is a flowchart showing an example of the signature generation processing in the embodiment of the present invention. In the signature processing shown in FIG. 5, a case will be described in which the signature generation apparatus 10 of the certain signer belonging to the ring L generates (creates) a signature. First, the signature generation unit 120 takes as input the private key x, a message m, and an agent public key g.sub.A. At this time, the signature generation unit 120 takes as input an agent public key g.sub.A that is made public by an agent specified by the signer. Subsequently, the signature generation unit 120 generates a signature σ such that σ.fwdarw.(.sup.xH (ρ, m), .sup.xg.sub.A). ρ used here is the system parameter ρ that is generated and made public by the system parameter generation apparatus 40. Lastly, the signature generation unit 120 outputs the signature σ”. (Fig. 5, ¶138-¶141). “First, the anonymization unit 220 takes as input the identifier i of the signer, the signature σ of the signer, a ring L, a list y.sub.L of public keys of signers belonging to the ring L, a message m corresponding to the signature σ, and an agent private key w.”. (Fig. 6, ¶145). Newly cited art by Chandana teaches, generating secret x utilizing a hash function, H( ): {0,1}*.fwdarw.Z.sub.q. “Ho {O, 1}* -> Z*q, where G1 is an additive cyclic group of prime order q for some large prime q. The KGC randomly chooses a secret value x € R Z*q and securely store it”. (Section III, “An Efficient ID-Based Ring Signature Scheme”). A person having an ordinary skill in the art would have combined Hoshino with Chandana to teach the recited claim limitations. The motivation/suggestion for doing so would be to maintain privacy of the member that has created the anonymous electronic signature message, from being arbitrarily identified from the signature.
Applicant’s remark, filed on June 10, 2025 on bottom of page 10 and top of page 11 regarding, “it is respectfully submitted that Hoshino fails to disclose or suggest the additional features of claim 4 for at least these additional reasons. Enkhtaivan and Khanna, alone or in combination with each other and/or Hoshino, fail to remedy the deficiencies of Hoshino also with respect to the features of claim 4” has been considered and addressed in above paragraph 16.
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 1-10 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fumitaka Hoshino (US PGPUB. # US 2022/0247574, hereinafter “Hoshino”), provided by the applicant in an IDS), and further in view of Chandana Gamage et al. (NPL – “An Identity-based Ring Signature Scheme with Enhanced Privacy, hereinafter “Chandana”).
Referring to Claims 1 and 13:
Regarding Claim 1 Hoshino teaches,
A method for enhancing an anonymous signature scheme with user-controlled linkability, the method comprising:
generating, by a signer of a ring signature scheme or a group signature scheme, [a signer-specific secret (x) that is unique to the signer] and storing a secret key of the ring signature scheme or the group signature scheme and [generated secret (x)]; (Abstract, Fig. 1, ¶98, “The outputted private key x is stored, for example, in an auxiliary storage device or the like of the signature generation apparatus 10”, Fig. 4(S303), ¶136, i.e. a private key (secret key) is stored)
signing, by the signer, the [augmented] message with the secret key of the signer; (Fig. 1, ¶99, “the signature generation unit 120 takes as input a private key x, a message m, and an agent public key g.sub.A, and outputs a signature σ”, Fig. 5, ¶139-¶141, i.e. a message is signed) and
anonymously publishing, by the signer, the produced proof for verification by a third-party verifier. (Fig. 6, ¶144-¶159, “the signature generation unit 120 takes as input a private key x, a message m, and an agent public key g.sub.A, and outputs a signature σ”, i.e. a verifiable ring signature is published anonymously).
Hoshino does not teach explicitly,
[generating, by a signer of a ring signature scheme or a group signature scheme], a signer-specific secret (x) that is unique to the signer and storing [a secret key of the ring signature scheme or the group signature scheme and] generated secret (x);
augmenting, by the signer, a message to be signed with a message-unique value that is related to the signer-specific secret (x) thereby generating an augmented message;
[signing, by the signer], the augmented message [with the secret key of the signer];
producing, by the signer, a proof that an arbitrary set of signed messages embed the same specific secret (x);
However, Chandana teaches,
[generating, by a signer of a ring signature scheme or a group signature scheme], a signer-specific secret (x) that is unique to the signer and storing [a secret key of the ring signature scheme or the group signature scheme and] generated secret (x); (Section III, “Ho {O, 1}* -> Z*q, where G1 is an additive cyclic group of prime order q for some large prime q. The KGC randomly chooses a secret value x € R Z*q and securely store it”, i.e. Examiner submits that similar to instant application Chandana teaches, a signer generates a specific secret (x) and stores the generated secret x);
augmenting, by the signer, a message to be signed with a message-unique value that is related to the signer-specific secret (x) thereby generating an augmented message; (Section III, b) Key generation, c) Signing, i.e. Chandana teaches, in order to sign a message, the message is augmented utilizing the signer-specific secret (x) which is a part of the signer’s secret key)
[signing, by the signer], the augmented message (Section III, b) Key generation, c) Signing, i.e. Chandana teaches, in order to sign a message, the message is augmented utilizing the signer-specific secret (x) which is a part of the signer’s secret key) [with the secret key of the signer];
producing, by the signer, a proof that an arbitrary set of signed messages embed the same specific secret (x); (Section III, c) Signing, d)Verification, i.e. Chandana teaches, signing the message with the signer secret key that includes signer specific secret x and the signature is verified indicates that the signer produced a proof of arbitrary signed message that embed the signer specific secret x).
As per KSR vs Teleflex, combining prior art elements according to known methods (device, product) to yield predictable results may be used to create a prima facie case of obviousness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the teachings of Chandana with the invention of Hoshino.
Hoshino teaches, generating a ring signature and signing a message to publish anonymously. Chandana teaches generating a verifiable message using signer specific secret to publish the message anonymously. Therefore, it would have been obvious to generate a verifiable message using signer specific secret to publish the message anonymously of Chandana with generating a ring signature and signing a message to publish anonymously Hoshino to maintain privacy of the member that has created the anonymous electronic signature message, from being arbitrarily identified from the signature.
KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
Regarding Claim 13 it is a network device claim of above method claim 1 and therefore claim 13 is rejected with the same rationale as applied against claim 1 above.
Referring to Claims 2 and 16:
Regarding Claim 2 rejection of Claim 1 is included and for the same motivation Hoshino teaches,
The method according to claim 1, further comprising:
generating, by the signer, a key-pair used for signing messages, the key-pair including the secret key and a public key of the ring signature scheme or the group signature scheme; (Abstract, Fig. 1, ¶98, “outputs a private key x and a public key y”, Fig. 4(S303), ¶134, i.e. a private key (secret key) and public key are generated) and
publishing the public key of the key-pair via the communication network used for anonymous communication within the signature scheme. (Fig. 4, ¶136, “the public key y is made public to an agent”).
Regarding Claim 16 rejection of Claim 13 is included and claim 16 is rejected with the same rationale as applied against claim 2 above.
Regarding Claim 3 rejection of Claim 1 is included and for the same motivation Hoshino teaches,
The method according to claim 1, wherein the signing of an arbitrary message by the signer comprises:
choosing an arbitrary ring or group of public keys to protect an identity of the signer; (Fig. 6, ¶145) and
anonymously publishing a generated signature along with a signed message and the arbitrary ring or group of public keys used to sign the message. (Fig. 6, ¶146-¶158).
Referring to Claims 4 and 14:
Regarding Claim 4 rejection of Claim 1 is included and for the same motivation Hoshino teaches,
The method according to claim 1, wherein the signing of an arbitrary message by the signer comprises:
generating a tuple including the message to be signed, a message-unique parameter (g) and an additional parameter (β) [that ties the message to be signed to the signer-specific secret (x)]; (Fig. 5, ¶138-¶141, Fig. 6, ¶145) and
signing the tuple. (Fig. 5, ¶141-¶142, Fig. 6, ¶158-¶159).
Hoshino does not teach explicitly,
[generating a tuple including the message to be signed, a message-unique parameter (g) and an additional parameter (β)] that ties the message to be signed to the signer-specific secret (x);
However, Chandana teaches,
[generating a tuple including the message to be signed, a message-unique parameter (g) and an additional parameter (β)] that ties the message to be signed to the signer-specific secret (x); (Section III, b) Key generation, c) Signing).
Regarding Claim 14 rejection of Claim 13 is included and claim 14 is rejected with the same rationale as applied against claim 4 above.
Referring to Claims 5 and 15:
Regarding Claim 5 rejection of Claim 4 is included and for the same motivation Hoshino teaches,
The method according to claim 4, wherein the message-unique parameter (g) is chosen randomly, and wherein the message-unique parameter (g) serves as a generator of a finite cyclic group (G). (Fig. 2, ¶116-¶122, Fig. 4, ¶132-¶135, Fig. 5, ¶139-¶141).
Regarding Claim 15 rejection of Claim 14 is included and claim 15 is rejected with the same rationale as applied against claim 5 above.
Regarding Claim 6 rejection of Claim 4 is included and for the same motivation Hoshino teaches,
The method according to claim 4, wherein additional parameter (β) is determined to be calculated as β=g.sup.x. (¶114).
Regarding Claim 7 rejection of Claim 1 is included and for the same motivation Hoshino teaches,
The method according to claim 1, wherein the signer-specific secret (x) is generated using a cryptographic hash function (H). (¶123).
Regarding Claim 8 rejection of Claim 7 is included and for the same motivation Hoshino does not teach explicitly,
The method according to claim 7, wherein the cryptographic hash function (H) is defined as HO: {0,1} *.fwdarw.*Z.sub.q, where q denotes the order of the finite cyclic group (G), and wherein the signer-specific secret (x) is picked randomly from Z.sub.q.
However, Chandana teaches,
The method according to claim 7, wherein the cryptographic hash function (H) is defined as HO: {0,1} *.fwdarw.*Z.sub.q, where q denotes the order of the finite cyclic group (G), and wherein the signer-specific secret (x) is picked randomly from Z.sub.q. (Section III, “Ho {O, 1}* -> Z*q, where G1 is an additive cyclic group of prime order q for some large prime q. The KGC randomly chooses a secret value x € R Z*q and securely store it”)
Regarding Claim 9 rejection of Claim 4 is included and for the same motivation Hoshino teaches,
The method according to claim 4, wherein verifying a proof produced by a signer with regard to the linkage of a specific set of signatures comprises:
checking whether the discrete log of the respective parameters (β) with respect to the respective parameters (g) is the same for all signatures of the specific set of signatures. (¶123, Fig. 7, ¶166-¶168).
Regarding Claim 10 rejection of Claim 1 is included and for the same motivation Hoshino teaches,
The method according to claim 1, wherein verifying a proof produced by a signer with regard to the linkage of a specific set of signatures comprises:
checking the validity of each signature of the specific set of signatures; and
in response to all signatures of the specific set of signatures and the proof are valid, determining the signatures of the specific set of signatures to be valid signatures issued by a same party. (Fig. 7, ¶162-¶168).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fumitaka Hoshino (US PGPUB. # US 2022/0247574, hereinafter “Hoshino”), provided by the applicant in an IDS), and further in view of Chandana Gamage et al. (NPL – “An Identity-based Ring Signature Scheme with Enhanced Privacy, hereinafter “Chandana”), and further in view of Batnyam Enkhtaivan (US PGPUB. # US 2022/0051314, hereinafter “Enkhtaivan”).
Regarding Claim 11 rejection of Claim 1 is included and combination of Hoshino and Chandana does not teach explicitly,
The method according to claim 1, wherein a determination that the signatures of a specific set of signed user registration transactions at a blockchain that pertain to different identities used by a user with different service providers are valid signatures issued by the same user is used as a necessary condition for transferring a user asset between the service providers.
However, Enkhtaivan teaches,
The method according to claim 1, wherein a determination that the signatures of a specific set of signed user registration transactions at a blockchain that pertain to different identities used by a user with different service providers are valid signatures issued by the same user is used as a necessary condition for transferring a user asset between the service providers. (Fig. 22, Fig. 23, Fig. 25, ¶320-¶327, Fig. 26, ¶332-¶337, i.e. Examiner submits that different bids submitted by the participant is interpreted as registering with different service provider and after validating all signatures in the bids, highest bidder is identified and wins the auction).
As per KSR vs Teleflex, combining prior art elements according to known methods (device, product) to yield predictable results may be used to create a prima facie case of obviousness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the teachings of Enkhtaivan with the invention of Hoshino in view of Chandana.
Hoshino in view of Chandana teaches, generating a ring signature and signing a message to publish anonymously and generating a verifiable message using signer specific secret to publish the message anonymously. Enkhtaivan teaches, validating user’s signatures that are signed using different identities. Therefore, it would have been obvious to validating user’s signatures that are signed using different identities of Enkhtaivan with Hoshino in view of Chandana to ensure same user has signed different transactions.
KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fumitaka Hoshino (US PGPUB. # US 2022/0247574, hereinafter “Hoshino”), and further in view of Chandana Gamage et al. (NPL – “An Identity-based Ring Signature Scheme with Enhanced Privacy, hereinafter “Chandana”), and further in view of Shayaan Khanna (US PGPUB. # US 2020/0364735).
Regarding Claim 12 rejection of Claim 10 is included and Hoshino teaches,
The method according to claim 10, wherein a determination that the signatures [of a specific set of measurement reports of IoT devices towards a service provider] are valid signatures issued by the same party [is used as a necessary condition for providing the party targeted offers from the service provider]. (Fig. 7, ¶161-¶168)
Combination of Hoshino and Chandana does not teach explicitly,
The method according to claim 10, [wherein a determination that the signatures] of a specific set of measurement reports of IoT devices towards a service provider [are valid signatures issued by the same party] is used as a necessary condition for providing the party targeted offers from the service provider.
However, Khanna teaches,
The method according to claim 10, [wherein a determination that the signatures] of a specific set of measurement reports of IoT devices towards a service provider [are valid signatures issued by the same party] is used as a necessary condition for providing the party targeted offers from the service provider. (¶8, Fig. 1, ¶36-¶41).
As per KSR vs Teleflex, combining prior art elements according to known methods (device, product) to yield predictable results may be used to create a prima facie case of obviousness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the teachings of Khanna with the invention of Hoshino in view of Chandana.
Hoshino in view of Chandana teaches, generating a ring signature and signing a message to publish anonymously and generating a verifiable message using signer specific secret to publish the message anonymously. Khanna teaches IOT devices providing data to a blockchain records. Therefore, it would have been obvious for IOT devices providing data to a blockchain records of Khanna into the teachings of Hoshino in view of Chandana to directly reward nodes based on the relative accuracy of the data itself.
KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fumitaka Hoshino (US PGPUB. # US 2022/0247574, hereinafter “Hoshino”), and further in view of Chandana Gamage et al. (NPL – “An Identity-based Ring Signature Scheme with Enhanced Privacy, hereinafter “Chandana”), and further in view of Jeong et al. (NPL-Ring Signature with Weak Likability and Its Applications, hereinafter “Jeong”).
Regarding Claim 17 rejection of Claim 4 is included and Hoshino does not teach explicitly,
The method according to claim 4, wherein the signer-specific secret (x) is embedded in the arbitrary message before signing the tuple, and wherein additional parameter (p) is a one-way function of the signer-specific secret (x).
However, Chandana teaches,
The method according to claim 4, wherein the signer-specific secret (x) is embedded in the arbitrary message before signing the tuple, (Section III, c) Signing, d)Verification, i.e. Chandana teaches, signing the message with the signer secret key that includes signer specific secret x and the signature is verified indicates that the signer produced a proof of arbitrary signed message that embed the signer specific secret x) [and wherein additional parameter (p) is a one-way function of the signer-specific secret (x)].
As per KSR vs Teleflex, combining prior art elements according to known methods (device, product) to yield predictable results may be used to create a prima facie case of obviousness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the teachings of Chandana with the invention of Hoshino.
Hoshino teaches, generating a ring signature and signing a message to publish anonymously. Chandana teaches generating a verifiable message using signer specific secret to publish the message anonymously. Therefore, it would have been obvious to generate a verifiable message using signer specific secret to publish the message anonymously of Chandana with generating a ring signature and signing a message to publish anonymously Hoshino to maintain privacy of the member that has created the anonymous electronic signature message, from being arbitrarily identified from the signature.
KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
Combination of Hoshino and Chandana does not teach explicitly,
The method according to claim 4, [wherein the signer-specific secret (x) is embedded in the arbitrary message before signing the tuple], and wherein additional parameter (p) is a one-way function of the signer-specific secret (x).
However, Jeong teaches,
The method according to claim 4, [wherein the signer-specific secret (x) is embedded in the arbitrary message before signing the tuple], and wherein additional parameter (p) is a one-way function of the signer-specific secret (x). (Page-1146, Section 4 Our Linkable Ring Signature Scheme with Strong Anonymity and Weak Linkability, Steps 1-4 teaches, that additional parameter is a one-way function of the signer specific secret).
As per KSR vs Teleflex, combining prior art elements according to known methods (device, product) to yield predictable results may be used to create a prima facie case of obviousness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the teachings of Jeong with the invention of Hoshino in view of Chandana.
Hoshino in view of Chandana teaches, generating a ring signature and signing a message to publish anonymously and generating a verifiable message using signer specific secret to publish the message anonymously. Jeong teaches, an additional parameter is a one way function of signer specific secret. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have an additional parameter is a one way function of signer specific secret of Jeong into the teachings of Hoshino in view of Chandana to provide a convertible (verifiable) ring signature scheme and an efficient ring signature scheme.
KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
Regarding Claim 18 rejection of Claim 17 is included and for the same motivation Hoshino does not teach explicitly,
The method according to claim 17, further comprising using the secret key of the signer to create a ring signature over the tuple.
However, Chandana teaches,
The method according to claim 17, further comprising using the secret key of the signer to create a ring signature over the tuple. (Section III, c) Signing, i.e. Chandana teaches, signing the message with the signer secret key that includes signer specific secret x).
Conclusion
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of References Cited for a listing of analogous art.
El Kaafarani et al. (US PGPUB. # US 2020/0349616) discloses, implementing an anonymous reputation system for managing user reviews. In one arrangement, an anonymous reputation system is constructed from a group of group signature schemes run in parallel. Each item of a plurality of items is associated uniquely with one of the group signature schemes. A user is allowed to join the group signature scheme associated with the item when information indicating that the user has performed a predetermined operation associated with the item is received. The user can submit a review of the item when the user has joined the group signature scheme associated with the item (6). The anonymous reputation system is publicly linkable and non-frameable (8a, 8b).
McDonald-Maier et sl. (US PGPUB. # US 2020/0099521) discloses, a method for generating an authentication key for providing a digital signature at a device for authenticating an output from a ring comprising a plurality of peers, the method comprising generating respective security credentials for each peer of a plurality of peers constituting a ring of peers, at least one security credential being generated in dependence on one or more feature of the respective peer device; generating a ring key in respect of the ring in dependence on the respective security credential of each peer constituting the ring; and generating an authentication key in dependence on the ring key, a security credential of a first peer and respective security credentials of at least one of the other peers.
Chen (US PGPUB. # US 2012/0278628) discloses, a digital signature method, a method for initialising a digital signature scheme, a system for digitally signing a message and a computer program product are described. At least the digital signature method involves a signer having a weak security parameter. The signer retrieves a cryptographic element from each of a plurality of computing entities. Each cryptographic element is a function of a commitment supplied by the signer and the commitment includes a cryptographic function of a weak security parameter provided by the signer. A strong cryptographic security parameter is generated using a plurality of said elements. A message is then signed according to the digital signature scheme using the strong cryptographic security parameter to generate a digital signature.
Canard et al. (US PGPUB. # US 2012/0072732) discloses, a method for the anonymous authentication and the identification of a user entity (U.sub.i) respectively by a checking entity (D) and an identifying entity (O). According to this method, the checking entity (D) receives (130) from the user entity (U1) at least one first signature (.sigma.) and a first message (m), and checks (140) the first signature (.sigma.) using the first message (m) in order to authenticate the user (U), and the identifying entity (O) receives (150) from the checking entity (D) a second signature (.sigma.') connected to the first signature (.sigma.) and identifies (160) the user using the second signature and a secret key particular thereto. The invention also relates to a cryptographic system for implementing said method.
Gentry (US PGPUB. # US 2008/0133926) discloses, generating and verifying signatures of digital messages communicated between signers and verifiers. Using bilinear mappings, such as Weil or Tate pairings, these methods and systems enable generation and verification of efficient multisignatures, identity-based ring signatures, hierarchical proxy signatures, and hierarchical online/offline signatures.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARSHAN I DHRUV whose telephone number is (571)272-4316. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-5:00 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, Yin-Chen Shaw can be reached on 571-272-8878. 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.
/DARSHAN I DHRUV/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2498