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 .
Claim status in the amendment received on 11/25/2025:
Claims 1, 8 and 15 have been amended.
Claims 5, 12 and 19 have been canceled.
New claims 21 and 22 have been added.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-9, 11, 13-16, 18 and 20-22 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 21 and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities.
As to claims 21 and 22 the limitations “SOCOSLO” and “FIPOSLO” should be spelt out in each respective claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claims 21 and 22, the claims recite the terms “SOCOSLO” and “FIPOSLO”, respectively. However, based on the specifications, at least in paragraph [0037] and figs. 4-5, the terms seem to cover a collection of functions and algorithms named by the applicant as “SOCOSLO” and “FIPOSLO”. The claims are rejected for being indefinite in that they fail to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language “SOCOSLO” and “FIPOSLO”.
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) 1-2, 4, 6-9, 11, 13-16, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (Pub. No.: US 20140222813 A1) in view of Rohan et al. (Patent No.: US 8230329 B2) and Iila et al. (Pub. No.: US 20230090190 A1) and further in view of Decoux et al. (Pub. No.: US 20210258168 A1).
As to claim 1, Yang teaches a system for cryptographic verifiability comprising:
a plurality of logger devices (fig. 2, 220);
at least one distiller device (fig. 2, 232); and
at least one cold storage server (fig. 2, 210), wherein each logger device is adapted to: generate a log, wherein the log comprises a plurality of entries and each entry is associated with a digital signature (fig. 5); provide the generated log to the at least one distiller device (fig. 3, 302), wherein the at least one distiller device is adapted to: receive a log from each of the logger devices (fig. 3, 302), and for each received log from a logger device: validate each entry in the log using the associated digital signature (fig. 3, 304); for each entry in the log that is validated: batch the validated entries and associated digital signatures (fig. 3, 306); and provide the batched validated entries to the at least one cold storage server (fig. 3, 308); wherein the at least one cold storage server is adapted to: receive the batched validated entries (fig. 3, 308).
Yang further teaches batching entries and associated digital signatures as shown above.
Yang does not explicitly teach storing invalid data, viewing and auditing entries and generating elliptic-curve based aggregated signatures.
However, in the same field of endeavor (transaction analysis and reporting)
Rohan teaches for each entry in the log that is not validated: batch the not validated entries (col. 12, line 66- col. 13, line 5); and provide the batched not validated entries to the at least one cold storage server, receive the batched not validated entries (col. 12, line 66- col. 13, line 5).
Based on Yang in view of Rohan, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate storing invalid data (taught by Rohan) with data collection and validation (taught by Yang) in order to further analyze the invalid data.
Yang in view of Rohan does not explicitly teach viewing and auditing entries and generating elliptic-curve based aggregated signatures.
However, in the same field of endeavor (data collection) Lila teaches audit at least some of the batched validated entries (paragraph [0340]); and allow one or more external users to view the batched validated and not validated entries (paragraph [0340]).
Based on Yang in view of Rohan and further in view of Lila, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate viewing and auditing entries (taught by Lila) with storing invalid data (taught by Rohan) with data collection and validation (taught by Yang) in order to further analyze the invalid data and in order to allow users to access the desired data.
Yang in view of Rohan and further in view of Lila does not explicitly teach generating elliptic-curve based aggregated signatures.
However, in an analogous art (computer data security) Decoux teaches generate an aggregate signature for data based on a digital signature associated with each entry (fig. 1, “R” teaches an aggregate signature, “x1-x8” teaches digital signature associated with each entry “A1-A8”), wherein the aggregate signature is an elliptic-curve based aggregate signature (paragraph [0080], “…digital signatures associated with the leaf nodes according to a certain grouping of the leaf nodes. In case of a binary tree, the digital signatures associated with the first intermediate level nodes are respectively calculated by digitally signing (e.g. with a one-way hash function H, or a one-way elliptic curve function . . . ) a concatenation of the digital signatures associated with two consecutive leaf nodes…”); provide the generated log and the aggregate signature to a device (paragraph [0187]).
Based on Yang in view of Rohan and Lila and further in view of Decoux, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate generating elliptic-curve aggregated signatures (taught by Decoux) with viewing and auditing entries (taught by Lila) with storing invalid data (taught by Rohan) with data collection and validation (taught by Yang) in order to further analyze the invalid data and in order to allow users to access the desired data and in order to further improve the security of the log.
As to claim 2, Yang teaches wherein each logger of the plurality of loggers is an internet- of-things device (paragraph [0004]).
As to claim 4, Yang teaches wherein the at least one distiller device is adapted to, for each received log from a logger device: receive a public key associated with the at logger device (paragraph [0053]); and validate each entry in the log using the aggregated digital signature and the received public key (paragraph [0053]).
As to claim 6, Decoux further teaches wherein each logger generates the aggregate signature using a tree-based seed data structure (paragraph [0159]). The limitations of claim 6 are rejected in view of the analysis of claim 1 above, and the rationale to combine, as discussed in claim 1, applies here as well.
As to claim 7, Yang teaches wherein the distiller adapted to provide the batched validated entries to the at least one cold storage server comprises the distiller adapted to generate an aggregated digital signature for the batched validated entries, and provide the generated digital signature with the batched validated entries (paragraph [0055]).
As to claims 8-9, 11 and 13-14, the claims are substantially similar or broader in scope to claims 1-2, 4 and 6-7, respectively. Please refer to each respective claim above.
As to claims 15-16, 18 and 20, the claims are substantially similar or broader in scope to claims 1-2, 4 and 6, respectively. Please refer to each respective claim above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDULKADER M ALRIYASHI whose telephone number is (313)446-6551. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8AM - 5PM Alt, Friday, EST.
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, JOON HWANG can be reached at (571)272-4036. 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.
/Abdulkader M Alriyashi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447 12/24/2025