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
In the Office Action of 30 September 2025, the Examiner noted that there was no connection between the obtaining and storing of first media data and the obtaining and verifying of second media data in the invention. Applicant’s remarks and amendment of 22 December 2025 did not fix this issue.
On 27 February 2026, the Examiner contacted Applicant to request a connection between the first media data and the verification of second media in the independent claims. Applicant amended the independent claims to have a classification of the first media data and removed the verification of second media data. New rejections are issued in this Office Action concerning this amendment.
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 2 and 16 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.
Claim 2 refers to “second verification information”. However, “first verification information” was removed from claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 2.
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 1, 7, 10, 15, 26, and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madl et al. (US 2020/0252202) in view of Semenov et al. (US 2020/0110728).
In regard to claim 1, Madl disclosed a method implemented by a first client in a data storage system, wherein the method comprises:
obtaining a data storage request carrying first media data, (Madl [0042]) wherein the data storage request instructs to store first transaction data associated with the first media data on a blockchain system (Madl [0043]) and store the first media data in a storage resource pool, wherein the data storage system comprises the storage resource pool shared by a plurality of clients and a plurality of blockchain systems, and provides a data storage interface and a data query interface for the plurality of clients; Madl [0042]
invoking the data storage interface; Madl [0042]
sending the data storage request through the data storage interface; Madl [0042]
Madl failed to disclose:
wherein the first transaction data comprises attribute information of the first media data, wherein the attribute information comprises a classification category to which the first media data belongs, wherein the classification category comprises finance, energy, aviation, agriculture, livelihood, and logistics, wherein the first storage node is determined based on classification of the first media data according to the classification category
However, Semenov disclosed:
wherein the first transaction data comprises attribute information of the first media data, wherein the attribute information comprises a classification category to which the first media data belongs, …, wherein the first storage node is determined based on classification of the first media data according to the classification category. (Semenov [0004], [0033], where data is classified as critical data or noncritical data, and the critical data is stored in an object data block on a blockchain whereas the noncritical data is stored in a distributed file system. This is “wherein the first storage node is determined based on classification of the first media data according to the classification category.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to classify data in Madl based on Semenov’s classification in order to store the data in Madl in the appropriate location.
Madl and Semenov failed to explicitly disclose the categories of finance, energy, aviation, agriculture, livelihood, and logistics. Semenov did disclose the categories of critical and noncritical data. Semenov [0033]. Semenov further suggested other categories of use in electronic commerce in Semenov [0030]-[0032]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply any categorization of data to Madl / Semenov in order to classify data based on the needs of the user.
In regard to claim 7, Madl disclosed:
receiving a data storage request carrying first media data; Madl [0042]
determining first transaction data associated with the first media data; Madl [0042]
storing the first transaction data on a blockchain system; Madl [0043]
Madl failed to disclose:
storing the first media data in a storage resource pool of the data storage system by:
classifying, based on attribute information of the first media data, the first media data to obtain a classification result, wherein the attribute information comprises a classification category to which the first media data belongs, wherein the classification category comprises finance, energy, aviation, agriculture, livelihood, and logistics;
determining, based on the classification result, a first storage node from a plurality of storage nodes in the storage resource pool; and
storing the first media data in the first storage node.
However, Semenov disclosed:
storing the first media data in a storage resource pool of the data storage system by:
classifying, based on attribute information of the first media data, the first media data to obtain a classification result, wherein the attribute information comprises a classification category to which the first media data belongs, …;
determining, based on the classification result, a first storage node from a plurality of storage nodes in the storage resource pool; and
storing the first media data in the first storage node. (Semenov [0004], [0033], where data is classified as critical data or noncritical data, and the critical data is stored in an object data block on a blockchain whereas the noncritical data is stored in a distributed file system. This is “wherein the first storage node is determined based on classification of the first media data according to the classification category.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to classify data in Madl based on Semenov’s classification in order to store the data in Madl in the appropriate location.
Madl and Semenov failed to explicitly disclose the categories of finance, energy, aviation, agriculture, livelihood, and logistics. Semenov did disclose the categories of critical and noncritical data. Semenov [0033]. Semenov further suggested other categories of use in electronic commerce in Semenov [0030]-[0032]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply any categorization of data to Madl / Semenov in order to classify data based on the needs of the user.
In regard to claim 10, Madl disclosed wherein receiving the data storage request comprises receiving, from a first client and through a service management end, the data storage request. Madl [0042]
Claim 15 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
In regard to claim 26, Semenov further disclosed:
obtaining source information of second media data in the storage resource pool, wherein the source information comprises first verification information and second attribute information of the second media data, wherein the storage resource pool stores multi-source cross-field media data based on the classification; and (Semenov [0033])
sending, through the data query interface, a data obtaining request carrying the source information. Semenov [0033]
In regard to claim 28, Semenov disclosed wherein the first transaction data further comprises a storage location of the first media data in the first storage node, and wherein the storage location enables verification of the first media data when retrieved from the first storage node. Semenov [0033]
In regard to claim 29, Semenov disclosed wherein the attribute information further comprises data features of the first media data. Semenov [0033]
Claims 2, 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madl in view of Semenov as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lahetkangas (US 2023/0171327).
In regard to claim 2, Madl in view of Semenov failed to disclose wherein the data storage request further carries first verification information, and wherein the method further comprises:
performing, based on the first verification information and through the data storage interface, verification on the first media data; and
further sending, through the data storage interface, the data storage request when the verification succeeds.
However, Lahetkangas disclosed wherein the data storage request further carries first verification information, (Lahetkangas [0043]) and wherein the method further comprises:
performing, based on the first verification information and through the data storage interface, verification on the first media data; and Lahetkangas [0043]
further sending, through the data storage interface, the data storage request when the verification succeeds. Lahetkangas [0043]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to verify the file in Madl / Semenov before uploading the file to ensure the file is correct.
Claim 8 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 2.
Claim 16 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 2.
Claims 3, 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madl in view of Semenov as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 12,423,475).
In regard to claim 3, Madl in view of Semenov failed to disclose wherein the data storage request further carries first signature information, and wherein the data storage request is based on a signature of the first media data with a first private key, and wherein the method further comprises:
performing, based on a first public key and through the data storage interface, verification on the first signature information; and
further sending, through the data storage interface, the data storage request when the verification succeeds.
However, Wang disclosed wherein the data storage request further carries first signature information, and wherein the data storage request is based on a signature of the first media data with a first private key, and wherein the method further comprises: Wang column 14 lines 57-67
performing, based on a first public key and through the data storage interface, verification on the first signature information; and Wang column 15 lines 1-10
further sending, through the data storage interface, the data storage request when the verification succeeds. Wang column 15 lines 1-10
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to verify the data in Madl / Semenov using a signature created by a private key and perform the verification using a public key, to ensure the data has not been modified.
Claim 9 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 3.
Claim 17 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 3.
Claims 4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madl in view of Semenov as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hepper et al. (US 7,801,895).
In regard to claim 4, Madl in view of Semenov failed to disclose wherein sending the data storage request comprises sending, to a service management end and through the data storage interface, the data storage request, and wherein the data storage request further instructs the service management end to determine a first server from a plurality of servers and send the data storage request to the first server.
However, Hepper disclosed wherein sending the data storage request comprises sending, to a service management end and through the data storage interface, the data storage request, and wherein the data storage request further instructs the service management end to determine a first server from a plurality of servers and send the data storage request to the first server. Hepper column 2, lines 18-29.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select a node to store data on in Madl / Semenov based on the classification of the data being stored.
Claim 18 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 4.
Claims 12-14 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madl in view of Semenov as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Abrams Jr. et al. (US 2005/0135682).
In regard to claim 12, Madl / Semenov failed to disclose:
receiving a data obtaining request carrying source information of third media data;
querying, based on the source information, the third media data from the storage resource pool to obtain a second query result; and
sending the second query result.
However, Abrams disclosed:
receiving a data obtaining request carrying source information of third media data; Abrams Jr. [0026]
querying, based on the source information, the third media data from the storage resource pool to obtain a second query result; and Abrams Jr. [0026]
sending the second query result. Abrams Jr. [0026]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to verify the data requested in Abrams when using the Madl blockchain in order to verify the authenticity of the file being requested.
In regard to claim 13, Abrams further disclosed wherein the source information comprises third verification information, and wherein querying the third media data comprises:
performing, based on the third verification information, verification on found third media data; and Abrams Jr. [0026]
obtaining the second query result when the verification succeeds, wherein the second query result carries the found third media data. Abrams Jr. [0026]
In regard to claim 14, Abrams further disclosed wherein the source information comprises third verification information, wherein the storage resource pool comprises a primary resource pool and a backup resource pool, and wherein querying the third media data comprises:
querying, based on the source information, the third media data from the primary resource pool; Abrams Jr. [0026]
performing, based on the third verification information, first verification on fourth media data found from the primary resource pool; Abrams Jr. [0026]
when the first verification fails, or when the fourth media data is not found from the primary resource pool: Abrams Jr. [0026]
querying, based on the source information, the third media data from the backup resource pool; Abrams Jr. [0026]
performing, based on the third verification information, second verification on fifth media data found from the backup resource pool; and Abrams Jr. [0026]
obtaining the second query result when the second verification succeeds, wherein the second query result carries the fifth media data. Abrams Jr. [0026]
In regard to claim 27, Madl and Semenov failed to disclose:
receiving, through the data query interface, a first query result carrying found second media data retrieved from the storage resource pool based on the source information; and
performing, based on the first verification information and through the data storage interface, verification on the found second media data to ensure authenticity of the found second media data.
However, Abrams disclosed:
receiving, through the data query interface, a first query result carrying found second media data retrieved from the storage resource pool based on the source information; and Abrams [0026]
performing, based on the first verification information and through the data storage interface, verification on the found second media data to ensure authenticity of the found second media data. Abrams [0026]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to verify the data requested in Abrams when using the Madl blockchain in order to verify the authenticity of the file being requested.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madl in view of Semenov as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lakshmeshwar (US 11,922,191).
In regard to claim 30, Madl and Semenov failed to disclose wherein the first transaction data further comprises a digest of the first media data, and wherein the method further comprises:
calculating a verifiable code of the first media data using a verification coding algorithm, and comparing the verifiable code with the digest; and
sending the data storage request in response to determining that the verifiable code matches the digest.
However, Lakshmeshwar disclosed wherein the first transaction data further comprises a digest of the first media data, and wherein the method further comprises:
calculating a verifiable code of the first media data using a verification coding algorithm, and comparing the verifiable code with the digest; and
sending the data storage request in response to determining that the verifiable code matches the digest.
Lakshmeshwar column 6 lines 8-43
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to compare digests in Madl and Semenov when verifying the data in the Madl / Semenov combination.
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 Jeffrey R. Swearingen whose telephone number is (571)272-3921. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 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, Oscar Louie can be reached at 571-270-1684. 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.
Jeffrey R. Swearingen
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2445
/Jeffrey R Swearingen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445