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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
First authentication value calculator in claims 1, 3 and 6.
Second authentication value calculator in claims 1 and 3.
Terminal device in claims 2, 9 and 11.
Authentication value calculator in claims 4, 5 and 6.
An information code generator in claim 10.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-11 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 limitation “first authentication value calculator”, “second authentication value calculator” and “authentication value calculator” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The structure described in the specification does not perform the entire function in the claim. The specification in paragraph 27 discloses “The first hash value calculator 30 calculates the hash value A that is a value unique to the evidence data” and in paragraph 28 discloses “The second hash value calculator 32 calculates the hash value B, which is a value unique to the evidence data, at a timing different from the calculation of the hash value A by the first hash value calculator 30”. However, there are no algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the function are found explained at all or in sufficient detail. The specification does not recite a hash algorithm in order to hash a value. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Dependent claims 2-11 fall together accordingly as they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Re. claim 1 recite “a first authentication value calculator that is configured to calculate a first authentication value that is a value uniquely associated with the data at a first timing; a second authentication value calculator that is configured to calculate a second authentication value that is a value uniquely associated with the data at a second timing different from the first timing of calculating the first authentication value by the first authentication value calculator”. No algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the function are found explained at all or in sufficient detail and simply the specification restates the function recited in the claim. In fact, the only portion of the specification relating to " a first authentication value calculator, second authentication value calculator and authentication value calculator" is found in paragraph 6 of the originally filed specification and it states " a first authentication value calculator that is configured to calculate a first authentication value that is a value uniquely associated with the data at a first timing; a second authentication value calculator that is configured to calculate a second authentication value that is a value uniquely associated with the data at a second timing different from the first timing of calculating the first authentication value by the first authentication value calculator". Also, the specification in paragraph 27 discloses “The first hash value calculator 30 calculates the hash value A that is a value unique to the evidence data” and in paragraph 28 discloses “The second hash value calculator 32 calculates the hash value B, which is a value unique to the evidence data, at a timing different from the calculation of the hash value A by the first hash value calculator 30”. However, the specification does not recite a hash algorithm in order to hash a value.
Dependent claims 2-11 fall together accordingly as they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1
Step 2A-Prong1: Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a first authentication value calculator that is configured to calculate a first authentication value that is a value uniquely associated with the data at a first timing; a second authentication value calculator that is configured to calculate a second authentication value that is a value uniquely associated with the data at a second timing different from the first timing of calculating the first authentication value by the first authentication value calculator; a comparator that is configured to compare the first authentication value and the second authentication value; and a register that is configured to register the data by storing the data in a storage device when the comparator determines that the first authentication value is equal to second authentication value, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or with pen and paper, there is nothing the claim element precludes the step from being performed in the mind and with pen and paper. For example, calculating two values, comparing the two values and storing information based on the comparison. The mere nominal recitation of a generic data authenticity proving system, server and terminal device do not the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus claim 1 recites a mental process.
Step 2A-Prong2: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements such as generic data authenticity proving system, server and terminal device, which are well -know parts of a computer system. The generic computer components (e.g., data authenticity proving system, server and terminal device) are recited at a high-level of generality (e.g., compare the first authentication value and the second authentication value) such that its amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The first authentication value calculator step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means pre-solution activity or post-solution), which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, and merely automates the first authentication value calculator step. The second authentication value calculator step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means pre-solution activity or post-solution), which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, and merely automates the second authentication value calculator step. The register step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means storing data when the values match), which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, and merely automates the register step. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of calculate a first authentication value that is a value uniquely associated with the data at a first timing; calculate a second authentication value that is a value uniquely associated with the data at a second timing different from the first timing of calculating the first authentication value by the first authentication value calculator; compare the first authentication value and the second authentication value; and register the data by storing the data in a storage device when the comparator determines that the first authentication value is equal to second authentication value. No inventive concept: elements are conventional in data integrity verification systems. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Claim 1 is not patent eligible. Therefore claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 2-11 have also been fully analyzed. Each of these dependent claims are mere recites additional abstract idea or an insignificant, extra-solution activity. Therefore, the dependent claims also fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Moreover, the claims have also been analyzed regarding whether they recite significantly more than the abstract idea. The dependent claims fail to add significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, dependent claims 2-11 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 12
Step 2A-Prong1: Regarding claim 12, the claim recites calculating a first authentication value that is a value uniquely associated with the data and is calculated at a first timing; calculating a second authentication value that is a value uniquely associated with the data and is calculated at a second timing different from the first timing of calculating the first authentication value by the first authentication value calculator; comparing the first authentication value and the second authentication value; and registering the data by storing the data in a storage device when the comparator determines that the first authentication value is equal to the second authentication value, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or with pen and paper, there is nothing the claim element precludes the step from being performed in the mind and with pen and paper. For example, calculating two values, comparing the two values and storing information based on the comparison. The mere nominal recitation of a terminal device do not the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus claim 1 recites a mental process.
Step 2A-Prong2: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements such as generic terminal device, which are well -know parts of a computer system. The generic computer components (e.g., terminal device) are recited at a high-level of generality (e.g., compare the first authentication value and the second authentication value) such that its amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The calculating a first authentication value step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means pre-solution activity or post-solution), which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, and merely automates the first authentication value calculator step. The calculating a first authentication value step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means pre-solution activity or post-solution), which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, and merely automates the second authentication value calculator step. The register step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means storing data when the values match), which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, and merely automates the register step. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of calculating a first authentication value that is a value uniquely associated with the data and is calculated at a first timing; calculating a second authentication value that is a value uniquely associated with the data and is calculated at a second timing different from the first timing of calculating the first authentication value by the first authentication value calculator; comparing the first authentication value and the second authentication value; and registering the data by storing the data in a storage device when the comparator determines that the first authentication value is equal to the second authentication value. No inventive concept: elements are conventional in data integrity verification systems. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Claim 12 is not patent eligible. Therefore claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 13
Step 2A-Prong1: Regarding claim 13, the claim recites calculate a first authentication value that is a value uniquely associated with the data at a first timing; calculate a second authentication value that is a value uniquely associated with the data at a second timing different from the first timing of calculating the first authentication value; compare the first authentication value and the second authentication value; and register the data by storing the data in a storage device upon determining that the first authentication value is equal to second authentication value, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or with pen and paper, there is nothing the claim element precludes the step from being performed in the mind and with pen and paper. For example, calculating two values, comparing the two values and storing information based on the comparison. The mere nominal recitation of a generic data authenticity proving system, server processor, memory, and terminal device do not the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus claim 1 recites a mental process.
Step 2A-Prong2: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements such as generic data authenticity proving system, server processor, memory, and terminal device, which are well -know parts of a computer system. The generic computer components (e.g., data authenticity proving system, server processor, memory, and terminal device) are recited at a high-level of generality (e.g., compare the first authentication value and the second authentication value) such that its amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The calculating a first authentication value step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means pre-solution activity or post-solution), which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, and merely automates the first authentication value calculator step. The calculating a first authentication value step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means pre-solution activity or post-solution), which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, and merely automates the second authentication value calculator step. The register step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means storing data when the values match), which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, and merely automates the register step. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of calculate a first authentication value that is a value uniquely associated with the data at a first timing; calculate a second authentication value that is a value uniquely associated with the data at a second timing different from the first timing of calculating the first authentication value; compare the first authentication value and the second authentication value; and register the data by storing the data in a storage device upon determining that the first authentication value is equal to second authentication value. No inventive concept: elements are conventional in data integrity verification systems. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Claim 13 is not patent eligible. Therefore claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
Claims 1-2, 8, 9 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Troia et al. (US 20200313861, hereinafter Troia) in view of Kim et al. (US 20210271774, hereinafter Kim).
Re. claim 1, Troia discloses a data authenticity proving system: a first authentication value calculator that is configured to calculate a first authentication value that is a value uniquely associated with the data at a first timing (Troia discloses circuitry 210 can generate (e.g., calculate) a different run-time cryptographic hash for the data stored in each respective one of the first number of segments [0046]);
a second authentication value calculator that is configured to calculate a second authentication value that is a value uniquely associated with the data at a second timing different from the first timing of calculating the first authentication value by the first authentication value calculator (Troia discloses circuitry 210 can generate a different run-time cryptographic hash for the data stored in each respective one of the second number of segments, and compare the run-time cryptographic hash generated for the data stored in each respective segment to the golden hash for that respective segment stored in register 216-3 [0052]);
a comparator that is configured to compare the first authentication value and the second authentication value ([Troia discloses compare the run-time cryptographic hash generated for the data stored in each respective segment to the golden hash for that respective segment stored in register 216-3. validating the data stored in each respective one of the second number of the plurality of segments can be analogous to the process of validating the data stored in each respective one of the first number of the plurality of segments [0052]);
and a register that is configured to register the data by storing the data in a storage device (Troia discloses hashes may be stored in a non-volatile register [0043][0046]).
Although, Troia discloses a register, Troia does not explicitly teach but Kim teaches data authenticity proving system that is configured to prove that data received by a server from a terminal device operated by a user is not tampered with (Kim teaches determining data tampering and an electronic device for supporting the same, capable of determining whether or not content data selected by a user is tampered with during a clipboard function operation to allow or block storage of the content data on the clipboard [0004]); register the data by storing the data in a storage device when the comparator determines that the first authentication value is equal to second authentication value (Kim teaches it is determined that the calculated interval time is equal to or greater than the specified threshold value, the data is stored in a storage device [0088]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Troia to include register the data by storing the data in a storage device when the comparator determines that the first authentication value is equal to second authentication value as disclosed by Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated for the purpose of determining whether or not the data is tampered with or has a possibility of being tampered with (Kim [0046]).
Re. claim 2, Troia-Kim teach the data authenticity proving system of claim 1, wherein the terminal device is configured to generate the data and transmit the data to the server without storing the data in the terminal device (Kim teaches commands or data may be transmitted or received between the electronic device 901 and the external electronic device 904 via the server 908 coupled with the second network 999 [0140]).
Re. claim 8, Troia-Kim teach the data authenticity proving system of claim 1, further comprising: a determiner that is configured to determine that the received data is not authentic when a time difference between a timing of receiving the data and a timing of generating the data exceeds a predetermined time (Kim discloses it is determined that the calculated interval time is equal to or greater than the specified threshold value, the data is stored in a storage device [0088]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Troia to include a determiner that is configured to determine that the received data is not authentic when a time difference between a timing of receiving the data and a timing of generating the data exceeds a predetermined time as disclosed by Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated for the purpose of determining whether or not the data is tampered with or has a possibility of being tampered with (Kim [0046]).
Re. claim 9, Troia-Kim teach the data authenticity proving system of claim 2, wherein when the terminal device cannot transmit and receive the data to/from the server and cannot transmit generated data to the server, the terminal device is configured to store the data in a storage area where access to the data is prohibited (Kim teaches the electronic device 100 may determine whether to operate the temporary storage space (or a separate storage device) based on the result of determining whether or not the content data is tampered with or has the possibility of being tampered with. For example, the electronic device 100 may block storage of the content data in the temporary storage space (or a separate storage device) if it is determined that the selected content data is tampered with or has the possibility of being tampered with [0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Troia to include wherein when the terminal device cannot transmit and receive the data to/from the server and cannot transmit generated data to the server, the terminal device is configured to store the data in a storage area where access to the data is prohibited as disclosed by Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated for the purpose of prevent various security issues (Kim [0039]).
Re. claim 12, claim 12 is rejected with the same rationale as applied in claim 1 above.
Re. claim 13, claim 13 is rejected with the same rationale as applied in claim 1 above. Troia further teaches at least one processor (Troia discloses processor [0036]); and at least one memory storing computer program code, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor (Troia discloses data stored in memory [0021]. processor [0036]. Sends commands to performs operations program among other operations [0038][0040][0099]).
Claim 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Troia et al. (US 20200313861, hereinafter Troia) in view of Kim et al. (US 20210271774, hereinafter Kim) and in further view of Guan et al. (US 11314731, hereinafter Guan).
Re. claim 3, Troia-Kim teach the data authenticity proving system of claim 1, wherein the server includes the first authentication value calculator, the second authentication value calculator, the comparator, and the register (Troia discloses circuitry 210 can generate a different run-time cryptographic hash for the data stored in each respective one of the second number of segments, and compare the run-time cryptographic hash generated for the data stored in each respective segment to the golden hash for that respective segment stored in register 216-3 [0052]), (b) the user confirmed, using the terminal device, the data as target data to be registered (Troia discloses Register 216-4 can be a volatile register that can provide an indication of the status of the validation of the data stored in each respective one of the plurality of segments (e.g., an indication of whether the validation of the data has been done) [0049], the claim limitation “to be” is intended result).
Troia-Kim discloses first authentication value and second authentication value but Troia-Kim do not explicitly teach but Guan teaches the first authentication value calculator is configured to calculate the first authentication value from the data received from the terminal device, and the second authentication value calculator is configured to calculate the second authentication value from the data after (a) the first authentication value was calculated (Guan teaches the ledger server 320 transmits to the trust time server 350 a timestamp request for authenticating a time of a block in a blockchain. The timestamp request can include information of the block, e.g., a hash of the block. The time server 350 can generate and transmit timestamp information including the timestamp and associated signature for the block or a hash of the timestamp and associated signature [Col 15 line 61- Col 16 line 13]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Troia-Kim to include the first authentication value calculator is configured to calculate the first authentication value from the data received from the terminal device, and the second authentication value calculator is configured to calculate the second authentication value from the data after (a) the first authentication value was calculated as disclosed by Guan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated for the purpose of validate before storing. Authenticates to determine that the information has not been altered (Guan [Col 1 lines 30-41][Col 5 lines 1-18]).
Re. claim 4, Troia-Kim-Guan teach the data authenticity proving system of claim 3, wherein the comparator in the server is configured to compare the first authentication value and the second authentication value after comparing the authentication value and the first authentication value (Kim teaches compare the stored process information with the process information after the second user input is generated, and if it is determined that the two items of process information correspond to or match each other, may compare the time stamp information on the first user input with the time stamp information on the second user input to further determine whether or not the interval time between the time stamps corresponds to a specified threshold value or more [0090]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Troia to include wherein the comparator in the server is configured to compare the first authentication value and the second authentication value after comparing the authentication value and the first authentication value as disclosed by Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated for the purpose of determining whether or not the data is tampered with or has a possibility of being tampered with (Kim [0046]).
Troia-Kim discloses first authentication value and second authentication value but Troia-Kim do not explicitly teach but Guan teaches the terminal device includes an authentication value calculator that is configured to calculate an authentication value that is a value uniquely associated with the data and is configured to transmit the data and the authentication value to the server (Guan teaches the ledger server 320 transmits to the trust time server 350 a timestamp request for authenticating a time of a block in a blockchain. The timestamp request can include information of the block, e.g., a hash of the block. The time server 350 can generate and transmit timestamp information including the timestamp and associated signature for the block or a hash of the timestamp and associated signature [Col 15 line 61- Col 16 line 13]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Troia-Kim to include the terminal device includes an authentication value calculator that is configured to calculate an authentication value that is a value uniquely associated with the data and is configured to transmit the data and the authentication value to the server as disclosed by Guan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated for the purpose of validate before storing. Authenticates to determine that the information has not been altered (Guan [Col 1 lines 30-41][Col 5 lines 1-18]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Troia et al. (US 20200313861, hereinafter Troia) in view of Kim et al. (US 20210271774, hereinafter Kim) in view of Guan et al. (US 11314731, hereinafter Guan) and in further view of Masini (US 20190314726).
Re. claim 5, Troia-Kim-Guan teach the data authenticity proving system of claim 4, Troia-Kim-Guan do not explicitly teach but Masini teaches wherein the authentication value calculator is configured to acquire the authentication value by changing the calculated authentication value based on a predetermined rule (Masini teaches the transaction is validated. Different validation rules may include a timing mechanism for when the validation rules are to be implemented. For example, a change to a validation rule may be stored in a block on the blockchain. However, if the time for the implementation of the validation rule has not been reached, the blockchain client will use the older rule to validate the transaction. For example, a fee change may be set to take place on the 1st of the month. While this rule may be identified, if the 1st of the month has not been reached yet, the blockchain client will still use the old fee instead [0083]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Troia-Kim-Guan to include wherein the authentication value calculator is configured to acquire the authentication value by changing the calculated authentication value based on a predetermined rule as disclosed by Masini. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated for the purpose of including a timing mechanism for when the validation rules are to be implemented, improves validation (Masini [0083]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Troia et al. (US 20200313861, hereinafter Troia) in view of Kim et al. (US 20210271774, hereinafter Kim) in view of Guan et al. (US 11314731, hereinafter Guan) and in further view of McKervey et al. (US 11062042, hereinafter McKervey).
Re. claim 6, Troia-Kim-Guan teach the data authenticity proving system of claim 4, Troia-Kim-Guan do not explicitly teach but McKervey teaches wherein the authentication value calculator and the first authentication value calculator are configured to calculate the authentication value and the first authentication value from the data divided into a plurality of data pieces (McKervey teaches the system 108 generates a hash for each data slice of a chunk of data, the block entry can include the hash of each data slice and the hash of the chunk of data or hash of the hashes of the data slices [Col 71 lines 49-67]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Troia-Kim-Guan to include wherein the authentication value calculator and the first authentication value calculator are configured to calculate the authentication value and the first authentication value from the data divided into a plurality of data pieces as disclosed by McKervey. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated for the purpose of obfuscate identifying information about the chunk of data. Managing, understanding and effectively utilizing the data (McKervey [Col 61 lines 34-54][Col 1 lines 27-40]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Troia et al. (US 20200313861, hereinafter Troia) in view of Kim et al. (US 20210271774, hereinafter Kim) in view of Guan et al. (US 11314731, hereinafter Guan) and in further view of Asano et al. (US 20200184083, Asano).
Re. claim 7, Troia-Kim-Guan teach the data authenticity proving system according to claim 4, Troia-Kim-Guan do not explicitly teach but Asano teaches wherein the authentication value calculator and the first authentication value calculator are configured to calculate the authentication value and the first authentication value from other data added to the data (Asano teaches receives the encryption key and the date/time information from the management server 300 and generates the encrypted data by using these pieces of information [0056]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Troia-Kim-Guan to include wherein the authentication value calculator and the first authentication value calculator are configured to calculate the authentication value and the first authentication value from other data added to the data as disclosed by Asano. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated for the purpose of improving falsification by analyzing more information [0044].
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Troia et al. (US 20200313861, hereinafter Troia) in view of Kim et al. (US 20210271774, hereinafter Kim) and in further view of Lee (US 11050567).
Re. claim 10, Troia-Kim teach the data authenticity proving system of claim 1, Troia-Kim do not explicitly teach but Lee teaches wherein the server includes an information code generator that is configured to generate an information code used for reading the data stored in the storage device, and the information code is transmitted from the server to the terminal device (Lee teaches the security authentication server 300 may generate the one time use authentication information in the form of a QR code image, that is, a two dimensional bar code having encrypted data embedded therein, and transmit the generated one time use authentication information to a screen of the user terminal 100 such that the one time use authentication information is displayed on the screen of the user terminal 100 [Col 12 lines 33-40]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Troia-Kim to include wherein the server includes an information code generator that is configured to generate an information code used for reading the data stored in the storage device, and the information code is transmitted from the server to the terminal device as disclosed by Guan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated for the purpose of obtain information to determine whether the information is genuine. Enhance user engagement
Re. claim 11, Troia-Kim teach the data authenticity proving system of claim 1, Troia-Kim do not explicitly teach but Lee teaches wherein information code indicative of identification information of the data is generated in advance, the terminal device is configured to transmit the information code and the data to the server, and the register is configured to register the data in the storage device in association with identification information indicated by the information code (Lee teaches the security authentication server 300 may generate the one time use authentication information in the form of a QR code image, that is, a two dimensional bar code having encrypted data embedded therein, and transmit the generated one time use authentication information to a screen of the user terminal 100 such that the one time use authentication information is displayed on the screen of the user terminal 100 [Col 12 lines 33-40]. the security authentication server 300 makes the generated one time use authentication information into a database (DB), and stores the DB in an additional storage device 350 [Col 12 lines 41-44]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Troia-Kim to include wherein information code indicative of identification information of the data is generated in advance, the terminal device is configured to transmit the information code and the data to the server, and the register is configured to register the data in the storage device in association with identification information indicated by the information code as disclosed by Guan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated for the purpose of obtain information to determine whether the information is genuine. Enhance user engagement
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tokunaga (US 20230163971) discloses user terminal including a biometric authentication unit, a presence proof request information generation unit, and a data storage unit, a base station including a start time information generation unit, a verification unit, and a presence proof generation unit. The base station transmits, to the user terminal, a start time of presence proof processing, the user terminal transmits, to the base station, an authentication time when the biometric authentication is performed, when the start time, the authentication time, and a verification time in the verification unit are arranged in time series and a difference between the start time and the verification time is within a predetermined range, the base station transmits the presence proof to the user terminal, and the user terminal stores data related to the presence proof received from the base station in a data storage unit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN A AYALA whose telephone number is (571)270-3912. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8AM-5PM; Friday: Variable 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, Jorge Ortiz-Criado can be reached at 571-272-7624. 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.
/KEVIN AYALA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2496