DETAILED ACTION
This Action is in consideration of the Applicant’s response on June 2, 2026. Claims 1, 6, and 11 are amended by the Applicant. Claims 1 – 15, where Claims 1, 6, and 11 are in independent form, are presented for examination.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 2, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed June 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued:
a) Regarding Claim 1, the combination of Aissi and Li does not disclose or suggest that “the targe tracing clue cannot be known by a server.”
The Office respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertions.
1. With regards to a), the Office reminds the Applicant that the pending claims must be "given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification" [In re Prater, 162 USPQ 541 (CCPA 1969)] and "consistent with the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach" [In re Cortright, 49 USPQ2d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1999)]. In the current context, the claimed “server” can be any server within the system, not the server containing the claimed trusted hardware execution environment. Therefore, any server that cannot decrypt the tracing clue ciphertext meets the claimed limitation.
The Office reiterates the rebuttal submitted in the Advisory Action dated May 21, 2026 and in the Final Rejection dated March 2, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PGPub. 2014/0052999 (hereinafter “Aissi”), in view of PGPub. 2021/0359841 (hereinafter “Li”).
2. Regarding Claims 1, 6, and 11, Aissi discloses of an electronic device [Figs. 2 and 10; server], comprising:
a processor and a memory, wherein the memory stores machine-readable instructions executable by the processor [Fig. 10, Para. 0112-113, 0115], the processor is used for executing the machine-readable instructions stored in the memory, and when the machine-readable instructions are executed by the processor, the processor implements the steps of a data processing method [Fig. 10, Para. 0112-113, 0115], comprising:
receiving a data execution environment [Para. 0039-40, 0043; encrypted communications], and wherein the target and cannot be known by a server [Fig. 7; Para. 0093; merchant computer does not have access to encryption key used in communication or searchable index field];
decrypting the
searching for target data matched with the target
wherein the database is used for storing the corresponding relationship between the data identification information and the data and supporting query access of the data [Para. 0070; HMAC searchable field index value in searchable field index]; and
in response to the data
Aissi, however, does not specifically disclose that the data request or the clue ciphertext are a data tracing request or a tracing clue ciphertext.
Li discloses a system and method for linking data to prior versions of that data is a storage system [Abstract]. Li further discloses of obtaining backtracking (tracing) request with a version identifier of target data, where a plurality of additional data versions that can be retrieved based on an initial version of the data [Abstract; Para. 0029-39; 0054-59]. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to incorporate the teachings of Li with Aissi since both systems provide data requested by a user. The combination would enable the Aissi system to associate and verify the changes that have been made to the requested data. The motivation to do so is to provide authenticity of the accessed data to prevent using outdated or inaccurate data [Li; Para. 0006].
3. Regarding Claims 2, 7, and 12, Aissi, view of Li, discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 6, and 11. The combination of Aissi and Li further discloses that the determining a target tracing result according to the target data comprises:
in the case where the data identification information in the corresponding relationship stored in the database is a ciphertext, using the found target data by search as a target tracing result [Aissi, Para. 0026].
4. Regarding Claims 3, 8, and 13, Aissi, view of Li, discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 6, and 11. The combination of Aissi and Li further discloses that the determining a target tracing result according to the target data comprises:
in the case where the data identification information in the corresponding relationship stored in the database is a plaintext, encrypting the target data according to the found target data by search and using the encrypted target data as the target tracing result [Aissi, Para. 0026].
5. Regarding Claims 4, 9, and 14, Aissi, view of Li, discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 6, and 11. The combination of Aissi and Li further discloses that in response to the data tracing request, feeding back the target tracing result to the client comprises:
signing the target tracing result to obtain a target signature of the target tracing result [Para. 0036-37]; and
returning the target tracing result and the target signature to the client [Para. 0036-37].
6. Regarding Claims 5, 10, and 15, Aissi, view of Li, discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 6, and 11. The combination of Aissi and Li further discloses that the corresponding relationship between the data identification information and the data is stored in a table format [Para. 0027-28; Table 2].
Conclusion
As a courtesy, the Office Action is made Non-Final although the Action could have been made final.
Contacts
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAE K KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1979. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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 5712727642. 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.
/TAE K KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2496
Prosecution Insights