DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is response to communication: response to election filed on 12/08/2025.
Claims 1-4 and 6-20 are currently pending in this application. Claims 9-14 and 19-20 have been withdrawn.
No new IDS has been filed for this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments concerning the 112 rejections have been withdrawn in resposne to applicants’ amendments/arguments.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the 103 rejections have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. See rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The prior 112 rejections have been withdrawn in response to applicant’s amendments/arguments.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-8, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong et al. US Patent Application Publication 2021/0044575 (Kong), in view of Lee et al. US Patent Application Publication 2020/0265418 (Lee), and further in view of Sengupta US Patent Application Publication 2019/0116034 (Sengupta)
As per claim 1, Kong teaches an electronic device comprising: a memory (Figure 2); a first processor coupled to the memory and configured to control the electronic device in a normal execution environment (REE) (paragraph 57, Figure 2, with processor); and a second processor coupled to the memory and configured to control the electronic device in a secure execution environment (TEE) (paragraph 57, Figure 2, with SEE or TEE); and wherein the second processor is configured to, based on the request from the first processor, generate the verification data of the data chunk by using key information of the electronic device, sign the verification data (paragraph 60 with key information; see paragraph 64 with signing data for verification using key; also see paragraph 79 and throughout reference with signing data; see paragraph 60 wherein secure processor is connected to main processor and my perform communications and perform actions based on communicatons/requests); and transmit, to an external electronic device, the block comprising the signed verification data (paragraph 80-83 with transmitting signed data to external device).
Although Kong teaches communication between the REE and the TEE, Kong does not exlcitly teach wherein the first processor in the REE is configured to transfer, to the second processor in the TEE, a request for generating a block comprising verification data of a data chunk. However, sending a request from a normal execution environment to a secure execution environment is well known in the art. For example, see Lee (paragraph 120 with sending a signature request from a normal OS to a secure OS).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Kong with Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to create more security (paragraph 6).
Although the Kong combination teaches transmitting to an external electronic device the block comprising signed verification data, , the combination does nto explicitly teach transmitting, to a device in a network within a predetermined number of units of time, the block comprising the signed verification data, causing a validity of the block to be identified based on a propagating timestamp comprised in the block, wherein the signed verification data and the propagating timestamp are included in a propagation header of the block. However, such limtations would have been obvious. For example, see Sengupta (see paragraph 47, wherein new block includes header, which includes hash/signed data of previous block header such as timestamp; the hash and timestamp provide a data and block reference value which provides validity of block; see paragraph 47 wherein new data submissions to blockchain must be within a predetermined number of units of time, such as wherein the present time is not outside of the associated period of time; see paragraph 48 wherein blocks may be transmitted to one or more ndoes in blockchain network)
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Sengupta with the King combination. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to control the participation in a blockchain based on time (paragraph 4 of Sengupta).
As per claim 3, the Kong combination teaches wherein the key information comprises at least one of a unique user key of the electronic device, a unique device key of the electronic device, and physical device information acquired during manufacturing of the electronic device (Kong paragraph 60 with security key).
As per claim 6, the Kong combination teaches wherein the timestamp information for the block and the hash information for the block are included in the propagation header in the block (Sengupta paragraphs 47 and throughout, with hash and timestamp are included in header).
As per claim 7, the Kong combination teaches wherein the propagation header further comprises identifier information of a previous node (Sengupta paragraph 47 and throughout with header including hash of previous block information).
As per claim 8, the Kong combination teaches wherein the data chunk is comprised by at least one of the block, a contract, trusted data, content, and a blockchain (Kong paragraph 64 and throughout wherein data chunk is data, which is content or trusted data; also see throughout Sengupta with block and blockchain).
Claim 15 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 1 above.
Claim 17 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 3 above.
Claim(s) 2 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Kong combination as applied, and further in view of Bando et al. US Patent Application Publication 2017/0237732 (Bando).
As per claim 2, the Kong combination teaches verification data including hash information for the block configured to be tamper-proof, based on key information (Lee paragraph 97, 158, and throughout with hash values for verification which is based on key information), but does not explicitly teach wherein the verification data comprises: timestamp information for the block configured to be tamper-proof, based on the key information and at least one of a reference clock and nonce; and hash information for the block configured to be tamper-proof, based on at least one of the reference clock and the nonce. However, utilizing nonces for verification is well known in the art. See Kong in paragraph 65, 93, 94, and throughout with utilizing random number as nonces that may be used for hashes and verification. To show the obviousness of utilizing a reference clock and timestamps, see Bando (paragraph 97 with timestamp utilizing a value from a real time clock RTC/reference clock and using values for verification; see also pargraph 97 with a random value as a nonce; see further paragraph 97 and throughout with utilizing such values for calculating a hash).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the Kong combination with Bando. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to increase security by preventing information from being altered (paragraph 4 of Bando).
Claim 16 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 2.
Claim(s) 4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Kong combination as applied, and further in view of King CA 3009326 (King).
As per claim 4, it would have been obvious over the Kong combination wherein the block comprising the signed verification data comprises: a block size indicating a size of the block; (obvious over Bandol Bando teaches obviousness of identifying such information; see paragraph 40-43 with block size). However, the Kong combination does not explicitly teach the data including at least one transaction indicating digital data exchanged between nodes within a network and transaction coutner indicating a number of transactions in the block. However, including such information would have been obvious. For example, see King (page 20 lines 12-25 with each block including the transaction information and a transaction counter).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of King with the Kong combination. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to create more security by ensuring reliable and secure transactions (page 2 lines 1-8).
Claim 18 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 4 above.
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 JASON KAI YIN GEE whose telephone number is (571)272-6431. The examiner can normally be reached on Monda-Friday 8:30-5:00 PST Pacific.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached on (571) 272-3739. 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).
/JASON K GEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2495