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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US patent publication 20230060347 granted to EOM et al.
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)
Regarding claim 2, EOM 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].
Regarding claim 3, EOM 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].
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.
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 10-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent publication 20230060347 granted to EOM et al. and further in view of US patent publication 20240388427 granted to Pettit et al.
Regarding claim 10, EOM discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 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 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 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 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW B SMITHERS whose telephone number is (571)272-3876. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:00 (Teleworking).
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, Alexander Lagor can be reached at 571-270-5143. 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.
/MATTHEW SMITHERS/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2437