DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final office action on the merits. The action is a second non-final because it contains new grounds of rejection under 112(b) that were not necessitated by amendment. See MPEP 706.07.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the Office) has received claims 1–20 in application number 18/478,917.
No claims have been added or canceled.
Claims 1, 9, 11, and 19 are currently amended.
Claims 1–20 are pending and have been examined on the merits.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
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, 10, and 11–20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 2 and 12. Both claims 2 and 12 contain the limitation “h) regenerating and displaying the CPS file to the individuals, as appropriate.” (emphasis added). A claim term that requires the exercise of subjective judgment without restriction may render the claim indefinite. MPEP 2173.05(b)(IV). The phrase “as appropriate” is subjective and makes claims 2 and 12 indefinite because the specification does not provide an objective standard for one of skill in the art to ascertain when performing “regenerating and displaying” is “appropriate.” Therefore, the metes and bounds of claims 2 and 12 is unclear to one of skill in the art, and the claims are indefinite.
Regarding claims 10 and 20. Claims 10 and 20 each recite, “wherein the temporary token is further stored in the system and matched to the user prior to release and regeneration of the CPS file.” There is no antecedent basis for “the system” in claims 1, 9, 11, or 19 so it is not clear if applicant intends this phrase to introduce “a system” or to refer back to a previously recited element, and in the latter case which previously recited element is being referred to. As a result, one of skill in the art would not be able to determine the scope of claims 10 and 20 to avoid infringement, i.e., the claims are indefinite.
Regarding claims 11–20. Claim 11 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium, i.e., an apparatus. MPEP 2173.05(p) states that a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Here, claim 11 claims the apparatus as well as:
creating, by a user, a Digital Directive account, the Digital Directive account allowing the user to direct the dispensation of a CPS file;
initiating, by the user, storage of the CPS file comprising confidential, private or secret information of the user; and
designating, by the user, recovery instructions including naming individuals authorized to recreate and access the CPS file.
Accordingly, claim 11 recites both an apparatus and the user using that apparatus to perform the steps of “creating,” “initiating,” and “designating.” Therefore, the claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether infringement occurs when one creates a product that allows the user to create, initiate, and designate, or whether infringement occurs when the user actually creates, initiates, and designates. Claims 12–20 are indefinite because they incorporate the indefinite limitations of claim 11 by dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1–20. In the present application, claims 1–10 are directed to a method (i.e., process) and claims 11–20 are directed to a product. Thus, the eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A.1.
The limitations of independent claim 11 are representative of independent claim 1. The judicial exceptions recited in claim 11 are identified in bold below:
A non-transitory computer readable medium configured to store instruction that when executed by at least one processor included in a computing device, cause the computing device to perform a method for storing and regenerating a CPS file comprising:
creating, by a user, a Digital Directive account, the Digital Directive account allowing the user to direct the dispensation of a CPS file;
validating, by the processor, the identity of the user using Live-ID;
initiating, by the user, storage of the CPS file comprising confidential, private or secret information of the user;
designating, by the user, recovery instructions including naming individuals authorized to recreate and access the CPS file; and
validating, by the processor, the named individuals using Live-ID.
The limitation of claim 11 under the broadest reasonable interpretation recite an abstract idea that fall under “certain methods of organizing human activity,” including commercial or legal interactions because the steps/functions closely follow traditional legal or contractual arrangements. Specifically, the bolded language recites a user creating an account that allows the user to create a file and then dictate rules around how that file can be accessed and copied. This is similar to designating a power of attorney so that certain individuals can access confidential files that might, for instance, stored with an attorney or in a safety deposit box, where the attorney or bank would have a list of people who the file owner has given permission to access that file. There are also waivers to release certain medical information or files to certain individuals other than the patient. These interpretations are consistent with applicant’s disclosure which is titled, and also describes, issues in wills, trusts, and estate law regarding estate administration, i.e., who can access and take ownership over or dispense of assets when the owner dies. Accordingly, claims 1 and 11 recite an abstract idea and the analysis proceed to Step 2A.2.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements:
a non-transitory computer readable medium configured to store instruction that when executed by at least one processor included in a computing device, cause the computing device to (perform method steps) and
that some method steps are done “by the processor.”
First, the additional element are recited at a high level of generality (e.g., consistent with Applicant’s specification at 0097 et seq.). As such the claim amounts to no more than instructions to carry out the abstract idea by “applying it” on a generic computer. Other aspects of the claim such as the account being a “digital directive” account or using “Live-ID” merely label the account or identification technique. They do not have patentable weight because they do not affect how any positively recited steps or functions are performed. Accordingly, the additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the combination of additional elements, and the claim as a whole, merely provides instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea and the analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
The additional elements, both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because when the considerations of Step 2A, prong 2 are reconsidered, the result is the same. In short, claims 1 and 11 lack additional elements or a combination of additional elements to provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claims 1 and 11 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2 and 12 elaborate on the abstract idea while reciting these steps are “by the processor.” Claims 2 and 12 are ineligible for the same reason as claims 1 and 11 above.
Dependent claims 3 and 13 recite the step of verifying that a person trying to access the protected file meets certain authentication factors. This not only elaborates on the abstract idea in claims 1 and 11, but introduces an ID-based authentication which can be characterized as evaluation, judgment, or opinion, which fall under the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. There are no new additional elements in claims 3 and 13 for consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B, so the claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 4, 5, 14, and 15 elaborate on the authentication factors and content of the protected file but do not positively recite further methods steps. Accordingly, these claims do not further limit the scope of claims 1 and 11, so they are ineligible for the same reasons as claims 1 and 11.
Dependent claims 6, 7, 16, and 17 further recite that “using Live-ID” in claims 1 and 11 includes confirmation of the user as a person, the identification of the user based on one or more biometrics, and confirmation that the user is also the individual who created the account and wherein the biometric identification is chosen from one or more of fingerprints, voice recognition, facial recognition, or eye scans. The claims do not specify the technique other than using biometrics which can be done practically in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion. There are no new additional elements in claims 6, 7, 16, or 17. Accordingly, there are no additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and these dependent claims are ineligible for the same reasons as claims 1 and 11.
Dependent claims 8 and 18 elaborates on the abstract idea of claims 6 and 16 by confirming user identity based on a stored image. This also recites a mental process and there are no new additional elements so claims 8 and 18 are ineligible for the same reason as claims 6 and 16 above.
Dependent claims 9 and 19 recite a further step of generating a temporary token for identification of the user. The claim does not constrain how the token is created or what type of token it is, so there are no additional elements that can integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and continues to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 10 and 20 further recite that the token of claims 9 and 19 is stored in “the system” without reciting what that system is. Therefore, the claim does not recite any additional elements beyond those in claims 1/9 and 11/19 and claims 10 and 20 are ineligible for the same reasons as the claims above.
In summary, the dependent claims considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1–8 and 11–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chintala (US 2019/0147554 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chintala teaches:
A method for storing and regenerating a confidential, private or secret (CPS) file comprising:
a) creating, by a user, a Digital Directive account, the Digital Directive account
allowing the user to direct the dispensation of a CPS file [0041; 0043; 0053; 0055; 0072; 0075 “the user 102 selects and assigns custodians…that they have been granted access to the digital locker...”; 0082; 0094; 0119];
b) validating, by a processor, the identity of the user using Live-ID [0041; 0065; 0163 “verifying, by the processor, identity of the participants…by one or more verification techniques such as, identity card issued by an authorized personnel, voice verification, fingerprint verification or retinal scan verification of the participants.”; 0170; Claim 11];
c) initiating, by the user, storage of the CPS file comprising confidential, private or secret
information [0039 “The user 102 has digital contents recorded or stored in a digital locker… The digital contents in a digital locker correspond to images, music and documents comprising personal and business information of the user 102. In an embodiment, the digital contents of the digital locker are remotely stored in the server 124 and/or the database 126. The user 102 provides authorized access to at least a part of the digital locker to custodians 114, 118. The custodians 114, 118 are authorized to access at least a part of the digital locker based on a degree of access provided by the user 102 via the devices 116, 120, respectively. In an embodiment, the user 102 provides access to the digital locker legally by signing one or more authorization documents in a virtual presence of the notary 106 and the witness 110. It must be
noted that the witness 110 and the notary 106 are shown for example purposes only and more than one witness and notary may be required for signing the one or more authorization documents. Moreover, the authorization documents may be signed either electronically, physically or a combination of virtual and physical presence of the user 102, the notary 106 and the witness 110. For example, the user 102 may be present in a remote location and may sign authorization documents electronically whereas the notary 106 and the witness 110 may be physically sign the authorization document in the virtual presence of the user 102 (also referred to as 'a testator 102').”; 0055; 0113 “…In an embodiment, the user can also upload any relevant documents, including but not limited to, MPoA files, such as, health condition, healthy history and diagnostic records.”; 0149];
d) designating, by the user, recovery instructions including naming individuals
authorized to recreate and access the CPS file [0035 - 0036” Digital contents of the digital locker (of a user) can be accessed by custodians assigned by the user…” ; 0039; 0040; 0043; 0046; 0048; 0053; 0072 “the user 102 creates assignees (e.g., the custodians 114, 118) for his/her digital locker.”; 0075; 0113; 0158 “The user may secure the digital contents…to assign the digital contents…to at least one custodian who may access/avail the digital contents based on instructions of the user… ”]; and
e) validating, by the processor, the named individuals using Live-ID [0040; 0041 “the notary 106 creates the live-sign event…verifies identity of the participants…by
multiple ways, such as but not limited to identity cards, facial recognition, biometric fingerprints, voice and retinal scan…”; 0064; 0065; 0076; 0087; 0145]. Claim 11 recites similar language and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Chintala teaches the invention above. Chintala further teaches
f) receiving, by the processor, a request to regenerate the CPS file [0040; 0045; 0094; 0100; 0134];
g) validating, by the processor, the identity of the individuals authorized to
recreate and access the CPS file [0056; 0094; 0102; 0105; 0109; 0110; 0135]; and
h) regenerating and displaying the CPS file to the individuals, as appropriate [0056; 0094; 0135].
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Chintala teaches the invention in Claims 1 and 11. Chintala further teaches
verifying the user or named individuals via one or more authentication factors
prior to Live-ID [0041; 0059; 0065; 0109; 0135; 0160; 0163].
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Chintala teaches the invention above. Chintala further teaches:
wherein the authentication factors are chosen from passwords, phone numbers, social security numbers, fingerprints, voice recognition, facial recognition, eye scans, digital certificates, or authentication tokens [0041; 0059; 0065; 0135; 0160; 0163].
The Examiner notes, “wherein the authentication factors are chosen from…” only describes characteristics of the authentication factors, which is stored data, and these characteristics are not processed or used to carry out any functionality that specifically relies on these particular characteristics. Therefore, the limitations recites non-functional descriptive material and does not serve to differentiate the claims from the prior art. When descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in terms of patentability. It has been held that where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability …. [T]he critical question is whether there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate (In re Ngai 367 F.3d 1336, 1339, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Ex parte Nehls 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1888-1889 (BPAI 2008); In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP § 2111.05; Cf. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Chintala teaches the invention in Claims 1 and 11. Chintala further teaches:
wherein the CPS file contains one or more keys or passwords [0059; 0160].
The Examiner notes, “wherein the CPS file contains…” only describes characteristics of the file, which is stored data, and these characteristics are not processed or used to carry out any functionality that specifically relies on these particular characteristics. Therefore, the limitations recites non-functional descriptive material and does not serve to differentiate the claims from the prior art. When descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in terms of patentability. It has been held that where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability …. [T]he critical question is whether there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate (In re Ngai 367 F.3d 1336, 1339, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Ex parte Nehls 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1888-1889 (BPAI 2008); In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP § 2111.05; Cf. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Chintala teaches the invention in Claims 1 and 11. Chintala further teaches:
wherein Live-ID includes confirmation of the user as a person, the identification of the user based on one or more biometrics, and confirmation that the user is also the individual who created the account [0041; 0065].
The Examiner notes, “wherein Live-ID includes…” only describes characteristics of Live-ID, which is stored data, and these characteristics are not processed or used to carry out any functionality that specifically relies on these particular characteristics. Therefore, the limitations recites non-functional descriptive material and does not serve to differentiate the claims from the prior art. When descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in terms of patentability. It has been held that where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability …. [T]he critical question is whether there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate (In re Ngai 367 F.3d 1336, 1339, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Ex parte Nehls 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1888-1889 (BPAI 2008); In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP § 2111.05; Cf. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Chintala teaches the invention above. Chintala further teaches:
wherein the biometric identification is chosen from one or more of fingerprints, voice recognition, facial recognition, or eye scans [0041; 0059; 0065; 0135; 0160; 0163].
The Examiner notes, “wherein the biometric identification is chosen from…” only describes characteristics of biometric identification, which is stored data, and these characteristics are not processed or used to carry out any functionality that specifically relies on these particular characteristics. Therefore, the limitations recites non-functional descriptive material and does not serve to differentiate the claims from the prior art. When descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in terms of patentability. It has been held that where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability …. [T]he critical question is whether there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate (In re Ngai 367 F.3d 1336, 1339, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Ex parte Nehls 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1888-1889 (BPAI 2008); In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP § 2111.05; Cf. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Chintala teaches the invention in Claims 6 and 16. Chintala further teaches:
wherein confirmation of the user identity as the account creator is based upon a stored image [0109].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 9, 10, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chintala in view of Bernardi (US 20240185191 A1).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Chintala teaches the invention in Claims 1 and 11. Chintala does not explicitly teach further comprising identification of the user based on one or more temporary tokens.
However, Bernardi teaches
further comprising identification of the user based on one or more temporary tokens [0297 “…creates an ephemeral symmetric key and encrypts the file to be sent…”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of digital rights management, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to encryption as disclosed by Bernardi to facilitate secure, transparent and decentralized asset management.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, The combination of Chintala in view of Bernardi teaches the invention above. Bernardi further teaches:
wherein the temporary token is further stored in the system and matched to the user prior to release and regeneration of the CPS file [0297].
The Examiner notes, the language “wherein the temporary token is further stored…matched…” is not positively recited and does not have patentable weight (see MPEP 2111.04). The rationale for combining this feature of Bernardi is the same as provided for claims 9 and 19 above.
Response to Remarks
112 Rejections
Notwithstanding applicant’s remarks on pages 6–7 regarding the rejections under 112(a) and 112(b), the examiner has reconsidered the rejections in view of the amended claims and finds the amendments overcome the rejections.
101 Rejection
On pages 8–9 applicant argues that “the rejection only focuses on the individual elements and not the claim in its entirety” and “as opposed to looking at the claim as a whole, the outstanding rejection effectively ignores features of the claims as set forth above.” The remarks cite various case law to establish legal principles that allegedly show the rejection was based on an overbroad characterization and ignoring claim elements. However, none of the remarks apply these principles to the facts of the present claims, or specifically explain where the previous rejection errored or was too overbroad or what elements were “ignored.”
Nonetheless, the rejection has been reformatted in the current non-final office action to more clearly show the analysis that supports the rejection. The present rejection addresses every element of the claims as either reciting an abstract idea or being an additional element, and fully analyzes and explains the basis for identifying them as such. The rejection also provides explanation to support its conclusion consistent with the guidance in MPEP 2106. The applicant has not shown where the previous or current rejection is actually inconsistent with the guidance in MPEP 2106, and accordingly the claims remain rejected under 101.
Prior art rejection
The arguments on pages 10–11 assert that the prior art rejection was in error because some of the claim language was improperly characterized as not having patentable weight. Notwithstanding whether that claim interpretation was correct, the prior art was mapped to those limitations to support compact prosecution. However, the remarks did not explain how the claims distinguish over the prior art relied upon in the rejection. Therefore, the remarks fail to show where the prior art does not teach the claimed invention and amount to an allegation of patentability, and are not persuasive. Accordingly, the prior art rejection has been maintained.
Relevant Prior Art Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. The additional cited art, including but not limited to the excerpts below, further establishes the state of the art at the time of Applicant’s invention and shows the following was known:
According to one exemplary embodiment, the computer-implemented method further can include: d) receiving, by the at least one computer processor, permission data granting at least one of: permission, opt-in; or opt-out, about providing selective access to the data about the first person to allow selectively sharing a selected portion of the data about the first person to the at least one second person, or selectively choosing at least one portion, or all of the data about the first person with at least one of: the at least one second person; or at least one additional person. (Kshepakaran)
Similarly, the blockchain management node 106 may also verify that the accessing node 104B has permissions to access the data associated with the new smart contract. Accordingly, the blockchain management node 106 may query the permissions database to determine an access level associated with the accessing node 104B. If the accessing node 104B has insufficient permissions to receive access to the data associated with the new smart contract, the blockchain management node 106 may discard the request. (Magerkurth)
In other words, the permissions blockchain may be used to implement control plane functionality, as blockchain (or digital ledger) technology can confer tamper-resistance and immutable trust to guarantee that unauthorized entities cannot enter transactions into the permissions blockchain without the knowledge and/or consent of the client device (and/or a user of the client device). For example, as mentioned elsewhere herein, the permissions blockchain may allow only the client device to make entries that grant access to the cryptographic keys needed to encrypt and/or decrypt data associated with the client device by requiring that any such entries be signed using the private key of the client device. However, the permissions blockchain may further permit the HSM(s) in the privacy layer to enter certain transactions into the permissions blockchain for the purpose of migrating the session of the client device to another compute node. (Caceres)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Patrick McAtee whose telephone number is (571)272-7575. The examiner can normally be reached Weekdays 8:30am - 4:30pm ET.
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, Tariq Hafiz can be reached at (571) 272-5350. 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.
Patrick McAtee
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698