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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 17, 2026 has been entered.
Remarks
Pending claims for reconsideration are claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, and 12-18. Applicant has
Amended claims 1, 10, and 12.
Canceled claim 4.
Previously canceled claims 2, 9, and 11
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on June 01, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks, applicant argues in substance:
In response to argument (Page 12, Para: 1-3) - Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s argument that Metzer failed to disclose “…two parts are linked cryptographically to one another by a hash value of the first part and a signature…” in regard to independent claim 12. Metzer discloses generating of hash of multiple part for blockchain and where a signature is also generated (Metzer, Para 0045-0047).
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 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. To being with claim 12 recites:
sending data comprising two parts…
composing the two parts into a single data set…
…two parts are linked cryptographically to one another…
The limitation of sending and composing, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “distributed database” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “distributed database” language, sending and composing in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performing the act. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional element – using a “distributed database” to perform the information sending and composing steps. The “distributed database” in the step are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of information sending and composing) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does 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.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a “distributed database” to perform the mental steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims 13-18 which depends on independent claim 12, respectively as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind/mathematical calculation but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Therefore, the dependent claims fail to obviate such rejections and are themselves rejected under this title for they are also abstract ideas.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, and 10 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding independent claims 1, and 10:
The primary prior art applied in the Final Office action Metzger et al. (US 2019/0289018 A1) discloses distributing the data object to multiple satellites, where a portion of the data object i.e., “splitting data” into two or more portions and storing at different satellites, where the satellites distributes the data objects to a receiving/transmitting station on the ground i.e., object of interest (boat, truck, etc.) and Para 0065, also discloses obtaining the data objects from multiple satellites (Para 0041-0042).
A newly found prior art Rabadi et al. (US 2013/0159717 A1) discloses:
[0021] The firmware FW is split into first and second firmware parts FW1 and FW2 at the repository 42. The data file repository 42 will use a hash function to hash the first firmware part FW1 and then encrypt the hashed first firmware part FW1 using the manufacturer's private key MPv to generate the signature Sig(MPv, H(FW1)). Further, the data file repository 42 will use a hash function to hash the second firmware part FW2 and send the hashed second firmware part FW2 as a message H(FW2) to the OnStar.TM. facility 44 on line 50. The file transfer from the repository 42 to the OnStar.TM. facility 44 can be any suitable connection, such as wirelessly or over the telephone lines. The OnStar.TM. facility 44 will sign the hash of the second firmware part FW2 using the OnStar.TM. private key ONPv to generate the signature Sig(ONPv, H(FW2)). It is noted that the OnStar.TM. facility 44 does not have the firmware files FW, FW1 or FW2. It is also noted that the data file repository 42 will hash and sign the first firmware part FW1, hash the second firmware FW2 and send the hashed second firmware part H(FW2) to the OnStar.TM. facility 44 at some time near to when the repository 42 receives the firmware part FW from the manufacturer or supplier, and before the firmware FW is actually needed to be downloaded to the vehicle ECU.
However, the prior arts alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the claimed limitation of independent claims 1, and 10 [as identified by applicant’s remarks of 06/01/2026] “...after the first part is transmitted, using the first component to calculate a hash value of the first part and sign the first part with a local private key of the first component;
receiving the hash value of the first part and a public key from the first component;
appending the hash value of the first part and a signature of the first component to the second part; and
transmitting the second part using one of the at least two components…” along with other limitations independent claims 1, and 10.
For this reason, the specific claim limitations recited in the independent claims 1, and 10 taken as whole are allowed.
The dependent claims 3, and 5-8 which are dependent on the above independent claims 1, and 10 being further limiting to the independent claim, definite and enabled by the specification are also allowed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance”.
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.
Claims 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Metzger et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: US 2019/0289018 A1 / or “Metzger” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 12, Metzger discloses “A method for transmitting data from a transmission source to a transmission target using two components of a network moving relative to the transmission source and/or transmission target, the method comprising” (Abstract: methods, systems, and software for managing data stored in satellites; and Para 0034: storing data on plurality of satellites i.e., “two components of a network moving”; and Para 0035: a subset of satellites are selected; and Para 0042: a portion of the data object may be stored at different satellites):
“sending data comprising two parts using a distributed database” (Para 0041-0042: distributing the data object to multiple satellites, where a portion of the data object i.e., “splitting data” into two or more portions and storing at different satellites, where the satellites distributes the data objects to a receiving/transmitting station on the ground i.e., object of interest (boat, truck, etc.) and Para 0065, also discloses obtaining the data objects from multiple satellites),
“wherein the two parts are transmitted by the at least two components” (Para 0046: satellites with distributed database generates new blocks and distributes them);
“and composing the two parts into a single data set” (Para 0054” “…maintain full copies of the blockchain for an application executing across a subset of satellites 710-713…”);
“wherein the at least two parts are linked cryptographically to one another by a hash value of the first part and a signature of a first component appended to the second part” (Para 0045: lines 3-6, the blocks are cryptographically linked to each other through hash and signature).
Regarding claim 13, in view of claim 12, Metzger discloses “wherein the at least two components comprise at least one vehicle” (Para 0041: vehicle).
Regarding claim 14, in view of claim 12, Metzger discloses “wherein one of the at least two parts is transmitted by a respective one of the components” (Para 0045: lines 3-6, the blocks are cryptographically linked to each other).
Regarding claim 15, in view of claim 12, Metzger discloses “wherein in each case one of the two parts is transmitted multiple times by way of a respective one of the at least two components” (Para 0042: distributes the data to one more satellites).
Regarding claim 16, in view of claim 12, Metzger discloses “wherein the moving components are not used to transmit in each case all parts of the distributed database, but rather at most an actual partial set of the parts of the distributed database” (Para 0046: satellites with distributed database generates new blocks and distributes them i.e., only new blocks are distributed).
Regarding claim 17, in view of claim 12, Metzger discloses “wherein: the parts are linked cryptographically to one another such that the parts are arranged in at least one sequence in relation to one another; each part of the sequence that follows a preceding part is provided with at least one hash value of this preceding part” (Para 0045: the blocks are cryptographically linked to each other by calculating hash).
Regarding claim 18, in view of claim 12, Metzger discloses “wherein in each case a signature of the parts is requested or received in each case by a component by way of which these parts are transmitted” (Para 0045: signature is generated).
Relevant Prior Arts
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Watanabe et al. (US 2014/0298034 A1) discloses
[Abstract] A data authenticity assurance method carried out by a management computer including: a first step of receiving the first data piece from the computer; a second step of selecting a plurality of second data pieces at predetermined intervals in chronological order from among the plurality of second data pieces held in the data holding part; a third step of performing an arithmetic operation for each of the hash values of the selected plurality of second data pieces; a fourth step of generating signature target data by combining the first data piece received from the computer with the hash values of the selected plurality of second data pieces; and a fifth step of generating a second data piece by assigning the digital signature to the signature target data by using the preset key, and holding the generated second data piece in chronological order sequentially in the data holding part.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDULLAH ALMAMUN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3392. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynn Feild can be reached on (571) 272-2092. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDULLAH ALMAMUN/Examiner, Art Unit 2431
/LYNN D FEILD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2431
Prosecution Insights