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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-21 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EOM in view of Khoury (US 2017/0093817)
Regarding claim 1,
EOM meets the claimed limitations as follows:
"A financial transaction system for completing a transaction using individual distribution
keys based on multi-party computation (MPC), comprising: a processor configured to:
divide a first private key corresponding to a first user into a first plurality of private key
pieces;" see paragraph [0084] (generate a plurality of private key fragments by dividing
the private key of the corresponding user into the number corresponding to the plurality
of users)
"generate a first distribution key corresponding to the first user by using a first private
key piece corresponding to the first user among the first plurality of private key pieces, a
second private key piece among a second plurality of private key pieces of a second
private key corresponding to a second user, and a third private key piece among a third
plurality of private key pieces of a third private key corresponding to a third user;" see
paragraph [0088] (each authentication terminal may receive the other user's
private key fragments encrypted with the encoding key of the corresponding user. For
example, user A may receive a user B's private key fragment and a user C's
private key fragment each encoded with the user A's encoding key. In this case, user A
may decode the received private key fragments with his/her own decoding key that is
being stored)
"generate a first signature value by signing the transaction with the first distribution key;"
see paragraphs [0040] (authentication terminal 100 may be configured to support
private key/public key management and to perform multiple signatures on a signature
target, such as a transaction); and [0089] (authentication terminal 100 may generate a
private key for multi-signature by combining the user-specific private key fragments)
"and verify a combined signature of the transaction, the combined signature including
the first signature value and at least one of a second signature value of the transaction
signed by a second distribution key corresponding to the second user and a third
signature value of the transaction signed by a third distribution key corresponding to the
third user." see paragraphs [0101] (the authentication terminal 100 may be configured to
directly perform the authentication of the validity of the multi-signer authentication
information); and [0108] (authenticating the validity of multi-signature by a trusted virtual
user)
EOM does not explicitly teach store a combination of the first second and third private key piece as a first distribution key corresponding to the first user;
Khoury (US 2017/0093817) teaches store a combination of the first second and third private key piece as a first distribution key corresponding to the first user (Paragraph [0046] teaches the user’s master key comprises three pieces, a first, second and third private key piece 406, 410, 414, see Fig. 4)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify EOM with the combination key method of Khoury and the results would be predictable (i.e. there would be a combination key with a first, second and third key piece)
Regarding claim 2,
EOM and Khoury meets the claimed limitations as follows:
"The financial transaction system of claim 1, wherein the at least one of the second
signature value and the third signature value comprises only the second signature value
and the third user is designated as a beneficiary of the transaction." see paragraph
[0087] of EOM.
Regarding claim 3,
EOM and Khoury meets the claimed limitations as follows:
"The financial transaction system of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
generate a common public key based on the first distribution key, a second distribution
key, and a third distribution key, the second distribution key corresponding to the
second user generated using a fourth private key piece corresponding to the second
user among the second plurality of private key pieces, a fifth private key piece
corresponding to the first user among the first plurality of private key pieces, and a sixth
private key piece corresponding to the third user among the third plurality of private key
pieces, and the third distribution key corresponding to the third user generated using a
seventh private key piece corresponding to the third user among the third plurality of
private key pieces, an eight private key piece corresponding to the first user among the
first plurality of private key pieces, and a ninth private key piece corresponding to the
second user among the second plurality of private key pieces; and generate the
combined signature of the transaction, wherein the combined signature is verified by
using the common public key to confirm the transaction." see paragraphs [0041]; [0054];
and [0093] of EOM.
Claims 4-6 are method claims that are substantially equivalent to system claims 1-3.
Therefore claims 4-6 are rejected by a similar rationale.
Claims 7-9 non-transitory computer-readable recording claims that are substantially
equivalent to system claims 1-3. Therefore claims 7-9 are rejected by a similar rationale.
Claims 10-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US
patent publication 20230060347 granted to EOM et al. and Khoury and further in view of US patent publication 20240388427 granted to Pettit et al.
Regarding claim 10,
EOM and Khoury discloses everything claimed as applied above (seeclaim 3), however EOM fails to specifically teach wherein the processor is configured to divide the first private key into the first plurality of private key pieces using a Shamir secret guarantee sharing algorithm. In an analogous art, Pettit teaches a system for generating cryptographic key shares using a Shamir secret guarantee sharing algorithm (see paragraphs [0094] and [0103]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Pettit's system for generating cryptographic key shares with EOM's multi-signature authentication system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the two in order to gain the advantage of preventing both the single point-of-
failure and bag-of-keys problems commonly found in shared key architectures (see
Pettit; paragraph [0016]).
Regarding claim 11,
EOM and Khoury discloses everything claimed as applied above (see
claim 10), in addition Pettit teaches the processor is configured to control to transmit the
fifth private key piece to a second MPC device configured to generate the second
distribution key based on the fourth private key piece, the fifth private key piece, and the
sixth private key piece, and transmit the eight private key piece to a third MPC device
configured to generate the third distribution key based on the seventh private key piece,
the eight private key piece, and the ninth private key piece (see paragraphs [0101] and
[0109]-[0115]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Pettit's system for generating
cryptographic key shares with EOM's multi-signature authentication system. One of
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the two in order to gain
the advantage of preventing both the single point-of-failure and bag-of-keys problems
commonly found in shared key architectures (see Pettit; paragraph [0016]).
Regarding claim 12,
EOM and Khoury discloses everything claimed as applied above (see
claim 11), in addition EOM teaches the processor is configured to generate a first
computation result value using a first computation process on the first distribution key,
and generate the common public key based on the first computation result value, a
second computation result value generated by the second MPC device using a second
computation process on the second distribution key, and a third computation result
value generated by the third MPC device using a third computation process on the third
distribution key (see paragraphs [0041] and [0093]).
Regarding claim 13,
EOM and Khoury discloses everything claimed as applied above (see
claim 12), in addition Pettit teaches the processor is configured to control to transmit the
fifth private key piece and the eight private key piece by using zero-knowledge proof
encryption, receive the second private key piece from the second MPC device and the
third private key piece from the third MPC device from the third MPC device using zero-
knowledge proof encryption, and receive the second computation result value and the
third computation result value by using zero-knowledge proof encryption (see
paragraphs [0101] and [0109]-[0115]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Pettit's
system for generating cryptographic key shares with EOM's multi-signature
authentication system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
combine the two in order to gain the advantage of preventing both the single point-of-
failure and bag-of-keys problems commonly found in shared key architectures (see
Pettit; paragraph [0016]).
Claims 14-17 are method claims that are substantially equivalent to system claims 10-
13. Therefore claims 14-17 are rejected by a similar rationale.
Claims 18-21 are non-transitory computer-readable recording claims that are
substantially equivalent to system claims 10-13. Therefore claims 18-21 are rejected by
a similar rationale.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARRIS C WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1462. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30.
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, LUU PHAM can be reached at 571-270-5002. 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.
/HARRIS C WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2439
