DETAILED ACTION
This Action is in consideration of the Applicant’s response on October 29, 2025. No amendments are made by the Applicant. Claims 1 – 15, where Claims 1, 6, and 15 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed October 29, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued:
a) Regarding Claim 1, Aissi presents a solution to a different technical problem than the current application.
b) Regarding Claim 1, Aissi does not disclose or suggest of “decrypting the tracing clue ciphertext.”
c) Regarding Claim 1, Aissi does not disclose or suggest of “a shared key agreed by the client and a trusted hardware execution environment.”
The Office respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertions.
1. With regards to a), in response to applicant's argument that Aissi does not need to protect search word or tracing clue ciphertext from attack [See Remarks, Pg. 7, 3rd Para. And Pg. 9,1st Para.], a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
The claims presented do not describe any technical features or structural differences from how Aissi presents and processes an encrypted database query. Therefore, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
2. With regards to b), the Applicant argues that the hashed searchable field index values are not decrypted [See Remarks, Pg. 8]. While the Applicant is correct in that the hashed searchable field index value are not decrypted in Aissi, the communication itself is encrypted and decrypted. Aissi discloses the use of encryption keys used to communicate with the client computers [Para. 0040]. An encrypted communication channel between the client and the data encryption computer (via the data encryption module) uses encryption keys to encrypt and decrypt data within the communication channel. In other words, the HMAC searchable field index value sent in the search query would be encrypted by the client and decrypted by the data encryption computer. The claim does not specify where in the communication protocol the clue ciphertext is encrypted. Therefore, the claim limitation is not distinguishable over the cited art.
3. With regards to b), the Applicant argues that the encryption keys are not related to a trusted hardware execution environment [See Remarks, Pg. 8, last Para.]. The Applicant acknowledges that the data encryption module may be a TPM and may distribute the encryption keys [See Remarks, Pg. 8, last Para.]. However, the Applicant argues that the keys are not agreed upon by the client and the trusted hardware execution environment.
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)].
The claim does not describe any type of agreement protocol or how the key is determined to be used by the client and the trusted hardware execution environment. The mere use of the same symmetrical key to encrypt and decrypt communications is an agreed key used by the communicating parties. If the client computer accepts a key generated by the data encryption module to use in encrypted communications, the client agreed to use the key. Therefore, the claim limitation is not distinguishable over the cited art.
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”).
4. 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
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].
5. 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].
6. 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].
7. 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].
8. 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
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 on Monday - Friday (10:00 AM - 6:30 PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Jorge Ortiz-Criado, can be reached on (571) 272-7624. The fax phone number for submitting all Official communications is (703) 872-9306. The fax phone number for submitting informal communications such as drafts, proposed amendments, etc., may be faxed directly to the examiner at (571) 270-2979.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free).
/TAE K KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2496