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 .
Response to Arguments
In response to 35 USC 103, filed 12/08/2025 on pages 8-11 of the remarks. Applicant argues that Independent claims 42 and 44 are not obvious over Sharma in view of Yang.
The examiner does not concede. As indicated Sharma discloses CDR. Yang discloses the use of blockchain which protects data records. Thus, the combination of Sharma-Yang would teach integrity protection of CDRs.
Yang teaches “compute a hash value of the CDR”. Yang discloses “hash value of the data block and the data record [0026]”.
Yang teaches “store the hash value and a CDR identifier of the CDR in a blockchain ledger”. Yang discloses “where in the blockchain-type ledger, except an initial data block, each data block includes at least one data record, each data block includes a hash value of the data block determined based on a hash value of a previous data block and the data record included in the data block. Determining location information of the data record in the ledger, where the location information includes a block height of a data block in which the data record is located and an offset of the data record in the data block [0007]”.
Yang teaches “obtain an index for the hash value stored in the blockchain ledger”. Yang discloses “write the location information into an index that uses specified identifiers as primary keys; where in the blockchain-type ledger, except an initial data block, each data block includes at least one data record, each data block includes a hash value of the data block determined based on a hash value of a previous data block and the data record included in the data block [0085]”. Yang shows an index for hash values stored in the blockchain.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Also, MPEP §2144 II “The rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (setting forth test for implicit teachings); In re Eli Lilly & Co., 902 F.2d 943, 14 USPQ2d 1741 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (discussion of reliance on legal precedent); In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401, 1403, 7 USPQ2d 1500, 1502 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (references do not have to explicitly suggest combining teachings); Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985) (examiner must present convincing line of reasoning supporting rejection); and Ex parte Levengood, 28 USPQ2d 1300 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993) (reliance on logic and sound scientific reasoning).” In this case, as seen in the Office Action, Examiner has provided reasoning for combining the references which has also been explained above. To further elaborate, one of ordinary skill in the art would modify the blockchain technology into the CDF device in order to having an immutable and tamper-proof record and verification.
In response to 35 USC 103, filed 12/08/2025 on pages 12-13 of the remarks. Applicant argues that Independent claims 43 and 45 are not obvious over Sharma in view of Yang.
The examiner does not concede. As indicated Sharma discloses CDR. Yang discloses the use of blockchain which protects data records. Thus, the combination of Sharma-Yang would teach integrity protection of CDRs.
Yang teaches “obtain, from a blockchain ledger, a first hash value using the first index”. Yang recites “write the location information into an index that uses specified identifiers as primary keys; where in the blockchain-type ledger, except an initial data block, each data block includes at least one data record, each data block includes a hash value of the data block determined based on a hash value of a previous data block and the data record included in the data block [0085]”.
Yang teaches “compute a second hash value of the CDR and compare with the first hash value obtained from the blockchain ledger”. Yang recites “the hash value of the data record itself and the hash value of the data block in which the data record is located are recalculated in the database and compared with locally stored hash values [0031]. Obtaining a hash value of a previous data block, and recalculating a hash value of a current data block based on a data record of the current data block and the hash value of the previous data block by using the same algorithm used for generating the hash value of the current data block [0033]”.
Yang teaches “perform processing of the CDR responsive to the first hash value matching with the second hash value”. Yang recites “a result after verification [0077]”.
Yang teaches “compute a third hash value of the processed CDR”. Yang recites “determine a hash value of each data record, where the to-be-stored data records here can be various consumption records of an individual user of a client, or can be a service result, an intermediate state, an operation record, etc. [0025]”. Applicant further argues that Yang’s database server merely receives the record and stores it, and paragraph 26 explains how records hashing is performed. The examiner does not concede. Yang discloses determine a hash value for each data record. Meaning that there is a third hash. The prior art is not limited to just one hash value. The data records and hash are stored in the blocks of the blockchain. There is processing of the storing the record.
Yang teaches “store, in the blockchain ledger, the third hash value and the first index of the first hash value”. Yang recites “determine a hash value of each data record, where the to-be-stored data records here can be various consumption records of an individual user of a client, or can be a service result, an intermediate state, an operation record, etc. [0025]. The user can obtain a hash value of a corresponding data record and a hash value of a data block in which the data record is located, store the hash value, and initiate integrity verification based on the hash value [0031]. Write the location information into an index that uses specified identifiers as primary keys; where in the blockchain-type ledger, except an initial data block, each data block includes at least one data record, each data block includes a hash value of the data block determined based on a hash value of a previous data block and the data record included in the data block [0085]”.
Applicant further argues that Yang is unrelated to the processing of individual data records to obtain process data records, with hashing of both the unprocessed and processed versions of the data record.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., to the processing of individual data records to obtain process data records) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claim does not recite “individual” and “unprocessed”. Furthermore, applicant should amend that claims in order to indicate what “processing” there are referring to. For example in page 14 of the specification lines 8-18 recites “the processing may include that the CGF device 104 determines that a CDR is not well formatted, or otherwise incorrect or corrupt”.
In response to 35 USC 103, filed 12/08/2025 on pages 13-14 of the remarks. Applicant argues that Independent claims 62 are not obvious over Sharma in view of Yang and Griffin.
As shown above and below. That Sharma and Yang disclose integrity protection of a CDR. Sharma in view of Yang and Griffin teaches claim 62.
Applicant further argues that there is no third hash. The Examiner does not concede. Yang teaches “compute a third hash value of the processed CDR”. Yang recites “determine a hash value of each data record, where the to-be-stored data records here can be various consumption records of an individual user of a client, or can be a service result, an intermediate state, an operation record, etc. [0025]”. Yang discloses determine a hash value for each data record. Meaning that there is a third hash. The prior art is not limited to just one hash value. The data records and hash are stored in the blocks of the blockchain. There is processing of the storing the record.
Applicant further argues that there is no obtaining of a “third hash” of a processed CDR or other processed version of an underlying data record. The examiner does not concede. Griffin recites “verify that blocks N′ 270, N″ 280, and N′″ 290 contain the same data as block N. For example, the owner, the adverse party, and the government can compare the previous block hash 234, the block identifier 236, and the merkle root 238 located within each party's respective copy of block N with the information located in block N at the time each copy of block N was created. If the information matches, the user has verified that the data in the copied blocks contains the same data as block N. The government can verify that the data contained in each party's respective copied block is the same data that was originally in block N. [Col 13 lines 18-40][Col 4 lines 34-49]”. As indicated that Yang discloses third hash of the processed CDR from the blockchain ledger. Griffin discloses the owner, the adverse party and the government obtains pervious hash (“third hash”) from the blockchain. Every contains a record as seen in [Col 4 lines 23-33].
In response to 35 USC 103, filed 12/08/2025 on page 14 of the remarks. Applicant argues that the dependent claims are not obvious at least because the independent claims are not obvious.
The dependent claims are obvious at least because the independent claim are obvious.
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 42-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al. (US 20170374203, hereinafter Sharma) in view of Yang et al. (US 20200334382, hereinafter Yang).
Re. claim 42, Sharma discloses a Charging Data Function (CDF) device for providing integrity protection of a Charging Data Record (CDR), the CDF device comprising: a memory (Sharma discloses memory [0069][0094]); and one or more processors, wherein the memory contains instructions that, when executed on the one or more processors (Sharma discloses CPU and memory [0069][0094]), cause the CDF device to: receive the CDR from a Charging Trigger Function (CTF) device (CDF receives the charging events from one or more CTFs [0005][0007]); and send the index to a Charging Gateway Function (CGF) device (Sharma discloses insert a pointer in the incomplete CDR that points to a location of shared data storage. CDF then forwards the incomplete CDR to a CGF [0077][0091]).
Sharma discloses CDF device and CGF device ([0006][0014]), Sharma does not explicitly teach but Yang teaches compute a hash value of the CDR (Yang teaches hash value of the data block and the data record [0026]); store the hash value and a CDR identifier of the CDR in a blockchain ledger (Yang teaches where in the blockchain-type ledger, except an initial data block, each data block includes at least one data record, each data block includes a hash value of the data block determined based on a hash value of a previous data block and the data record included in the data block. Determining location information of the data record in the ledger, where the location information includes a block height of a data block in which the data record is located and an offset of the data record in the data block [0007]); obtain an index for the hash value stored in the blockchain ledger (Yang teaches write the location information into an index that uses specified identifiers as primary keys; where in the blockchain-type ledger, except an initial data block, each data block includes at least one data record, each data block includes a hash value of the data block determined based on a hash value of a previous data block and the data record included in the data block [0085]).
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 method and system disclosed by Sharma to include compute a hash value of the CDR; store the hash value and a CDR identifier of the CDR in a blockchain ledger; obtain an index for the hash value stored in the blockchain ledger as disclosed by Yang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated for the purpose of having an immutable and tamper-proof record and verification.
Re. claim 43, Sharma discloses a Charging Gateway Function (CGF) device for providing integrity protection of a Charging Data Record (CDR), the CGF device comprising: a memory (Sharma discloses memory [0069][0094]); and one or more processors, wherein the memory contains instructions that, when executed on the one or more processors (Sharma discloses CPU and memory [0069][0094]), cause the CGF device to: receive a first index from a Charging Data Function (CDF) device (Sharma discloses insert a pointer in the incomplete CDR that points to a location of shared data storage. CDF then forwards the incomplete CDR to a CGF [0077]).
Sharma discloses CDF device and CGF device ([0006][0014]), Sharma does not explicitly teach but Yang teaches obtain, from a blockchain ledger, a first hash value using the first index (Yang teaches write the location information into an index that uses specified identifiers as primary keys; where in the blockchain-type ledger, except an initial data block, each data block includes at least one data record, each data block includes a hash value of the data block determined based on a hash value of a previous data block and the data record included in the data block [0085]); compute a second hash value of the CDR and compare with the first hash value obtained from the blockchain ledger (Yang teaches the hash value of the data record itself and the hash value of the data block in which the data record is located are recalculated in the database and compared with locally stored hash values [0031]. Obtaining a hash value of a previous data block, and recalculating a hash value of a current data block based on a data record of the current data block and the hash value of the previous data block by using the same algorithm used for generating the hash value of the current data block [0033]); perform processing of the CDR responsive to the first hash value matching with the second hash value (Yang teaches a result after verification [0077]); compute a third hash value of the processed CDR (Yang teaches determine a hash value of each data record, where the to-be-stored data records here can be various consumption records of an individual user of a client, or can be a service result, an intermediate state, an operation record, etc. [0025]); and store, in the blockchain ledger, the third hash value and the first index of the first hash value (Yang teaches determine a hash value of each data record, where the to-be-stored data records here can be various consumption records of an individual user of a client, or can be a service result, an intermediate state, an operation record, etc. [0025]. The user can obtain a hash value of a corresponding data record and a hash value of a data block in which the data record is located, store the hash value, and initiate integrity verification based on the hash value [0031]. Write the location information into an index that uses specified identifiers as primary keys; where in the blockchain-type ledger, except an initial data block, each data block includes at least one data record, each data block includes a hash value of the data block determined based on a hash value of a previous data block and the data record included in the data block [0085]).
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 method and system disclosed by Sharma to include obtain, from a blockchain ledger, a first hash value using the first index; compute a second hash value of the CDR and compare with the first hash value obtained from the blockchain ledger; perform processing of the CDR responsive to the first hash value matching with the second hash value; compute a third hash value of the processed CDR; and store, in the blockchain ledger, the third hash value and the first index of the first hash value as disclosed by Yang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated for the purpose of having an immutable and tamper-proof record and verification.
Re. claim 44, Sharma discloses a method performed by a Charging Data Function (CDF) device for providing integrity protection of a Charging Data Record (CDR), the method comprising: receiving the CDR from a Charging Trigger Function (CTF) (CDF receives the charging events from one or more CTFs [0005][0007]); and sending the index to a Charging Gateway Function (CGF) device (Sharma discloses insert a pointer in the incomplete CDR that points to a location of shared data storage. CDF then forwards the incomplete CDR to a CGF [0077][0091]).
Sharma discloses CDF device and CGF device ([0006][0014]), Sharma does not explicitly teach but Yang teaches computing a hash value of the CDR (Yang teaches hash value of the data block and the data record [0026]); storing the hash value and a CDR identifier of the CDR in a blockchain ledger (Yang teaches where in the blockchain-type ledger, except an initial data block, each data block includes at least one data record, each data block includes a hash value of the data block determined based on a hash value of a previous data block and the data record included in the data block. Determining location information of the data record in the ledger, where the location information includes a block height of a data block in which the data record is located and an offset of the data record in the data block [0007]); obtaining an index for the hash value stored in the blockchain ledger (Yang teaches write the location information into an index that uses specified identifiers as primary keys; where in the blockchain-type ledger, except an initial data block, each data block includes at least one data record, each data block includes a hash value of the data block determined based on a hash value of a previous data block and the data record included in the data block [0085]).
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 method and system disclosed by Sharma to include computing a hash value of the CDR; storing the hash value and a CDR identifier of the CDR in a blockchain ledger; obtaining an index for the hash value stored in the blockchain ledger as disclosed by Yang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated for the purpose of having an immutable and tamper-proof record and verification.
Re. claim 45, Sharma-Yang teach the method according to claim 44, Yang further teaches comprising storing the hash value and the CDR identifier at the same index (Yang teaches where in the blockchain-type ledger, except an initial data block, each data block includes at least one data record, each data block includes a hash value of the data block determined based on a hash value of a previous data block and the data record included in the data block. Determining location information of the data record in the ledger, where the location information includes a block height of a data block in which the data record is located and an offset of the data record in the data block [0007][0031][0085]).
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 method and system disclosed by Sharma to include storing the hash value and the CDR identifier at the same index as disclosed by Yang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated for the purpose of having an immutable and tamper-proof record and verification.
Re. claim 46, Sharma-Yang teach the method according to claim 44, Yang further teaches wherein the index comprises an indication of a position of the stored hash value and the CDR identifier in the blockchain ledger (Yang teaches where in the blockchain-type ledger, except an initial data block, each data block includes at least one data record, each data block includes a hash value of the data block determined based on a hash value of a previous data block and the data record included in the data block. Determining location information of the data record in the ledger, where the location information includes a block height of a data block in which the data record is located and an offset of the data record in the data block [0007][0031][0085]).
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 method and system disclosed by Sharma to include wherein the index comprises an indication of a position of the stored hash value and the CDR identifier in the blockchain ledger as disclosed by Yang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated for the purpose of having an immutable and tamper-proof record and verification.
Re. claim 47, Sharma-Yang teach the method according to claim 44, Yang further teaches wherein the index is any one of the following: a transaction ID or a block height identifier (Yang teaches a hash value and a block height of the initial data block are given based on a predetermined. The initial data block does not include a data record, a hash value is any given hash value, and a block height blknum=0. [0029]).
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 method and system disclosed by Sharma to include wherein the index is any one of the following: a transaction ID or a block height identifier as disclosed by Yang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated for the purpose of having an immutable and tamper-proof record and verification.
Re. claim 48, Sharma-Yang teach the method according to claim 44, further comprising sending the CDR to the CGF device (Sharma discloses sends the CDRs to a Charging Gateway Function CGF [0005]).
Re. claim 49, Sharma-Yang teach the method according to claim 44, comprising sending the CDR via a Data Record Transfer Request message (Sharma discloses the CDFs generate a CDR for the session based on the accounting requests, and insert identifiers for the accounting requests that are used to construct the CDR into a field of the CDR. The CDFs also insert content information into a field of the CDR for any accounting requests that are identified as re-transmitted by the CTF [0006]. Sends the CDRs to a Charging Gateway Function CGF [0005][0071]).
Re. claim 50, Sharma-Yang teach the method according to claim 44, comprising sending the CDR and the index together using one or more Information Elements of a Data Record Packet (Sharma discloses the CDFs generate a CDR for the session based on the accounting requests, and insert identifiers for the accounting requests that are used to construct the CDR into a field of the CDR. The CDFs also insert content information into a field of the CDR for any accounting requests that are identified as re-transmitted by the CTF [0006]. Sends the CDRs to a Charging Gateway Function CGF [0005][0071]).
Re. claim 51, Sharma-Yang teach the method according to claim 44, comprising sending together the CDR and the index comprised in a list of indices using one or more fields of an Information Element of the Data Record Transfer Request (Sharma discloses the CDFs generate a CDR for the session based on the accounting requests, and insert identifiers for the accounting requests that are used to construct the CDR into a field of the CDR. The CDFs also insert content information into a field of the CDR for any accounting requests that are identified as re-transmitted by the CTF [0006]. Sends the CDRs to a Charging Gateway Function CGF [0005][0071]).
Re. claim 52, Sharma discloses a method performed by a Charging Gateway Function (CGF) device for providing integrity protection of a Charging Data Record (CDR), the method comprising: receiving a first index from a Charging Data Function (CDF) device (Sharma discloses insert a pointer in the incomplete CDR that points to a location of shared data storage. CDF then forwards the incomplete CDR to a CGF [0077][0091]).
Sharma discloses CDF device and CGF device ([0006][0014]), Sharma does not explicitly teach but Yang teaches obtaining, from a blockchain ledger, a first hash value using the first index (Yang teaches write the location information into an index that uses specified identifiers as primary keys; where in the blockchain-type ledger, except an initial data block, each data block includes at least one data record, each data block includes a hash value of the data block determined based on a hash value of a previous data block and the data record included in the data block [0085]); computing a second hash value of the CDR and comparing the second hash value with the first hash value (Yang teaches the hash value of the data record itself and the hash value of the data block in which the data record is located are recalculated in the database and compared with locally stored hash values [0031]. Obtaining a hash value of a previous data block, and recalculating a hash value of a current data block based on a data record of the current data block and the hash value of the previous data block by using the same algorithm used for generating the hash value of the current data block [0033]); performing processing of the CDR responsive to the first hash value matching with the second hash value, the processing resulting in a processed CDR (Yang teaches a result after verification [0077]); computing a third hash value of the processed CDR (Yang teaches determine a hash value of each data record, where the to-be-stored data records here can be various consumption records of an individual user of a client, or can be a service result, an intermediate state, an operation record, etc. [0025]); and storing in the blockchain ledger, the third hash value and the first index of the first hash value (Yang teaches determine a hash value of each data record, where the to-be-stored data records here can be various consumption records of an individual user of a client, or can be a service result, an intermediate state, an operation record, etc. [0025]. The user can obtain a hash value of a corresponding data record and a hash value of a data block in which the data record is located, store the hash value, and initiate integrity verification based on the hash value [0031]. Write the location information into an index that uses specified identifiers as primary keys; where in the blockchain-type ledger, except an initial data block, each data block includes at least one data record, each data block includes a hash value of the data block determined based on a hash value of a previous data block and the data record included in the data block [0085]).
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 method and system disclosed by Sharma to include obtaining, from a blockchain ledger, a first hash value using the first index; computing a second hash value of the CDR and comparing the second hash value with the first hash value; performing processing of the CDR responsive to the first hash value matching with the second hash value, the processing resulting in a processed CDR; computing a third hash value of the processed CDR; and storing in the blockchain ledger, the third hash value and the first index of the first hash value as disclosed by Yang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated for the purpose of having an immutable and tamper-proof record and verification.
Re. claim 53, rejection of claim 52 is included and claim 53 is rejected with the same rationale as applied in claim 47 above.
Re. claim 54, rejection of claim 52 is included and claim 54 is rejected with the same rationale as applied in claim 46 above.
Re. claim 55, rejection of claim 52 is included and claim 55 is rejected with the same rationale as applied in claim 49 above.
Re. claim 56, rejection of claim 52 is included and claim 56 is rejected with the same rationale as applied in claim 50 above.
Re. claim 57, rejection of claim 52 is included and claim 57 is rejected with the same rationale as applied in claim 51 above.
Re. claim 58, Sharma-Yang teach the method according claim 52, Yang further teaches comprising obtaining a second index from the blockchain ledger where the third hash value and the first index of the first hash value are stored (Yang teaches When N=1, the data block is an initial data block. A hash value and a block height of the initial data block are given based on a predetermined method. For example, the initial data block does not include a data record, a hash value is any given hash value, and a block height blknum=0 [0029]. The user can obtain a hash value of a corresponding data record and a hash value of a data block in which the data record is located, store the hash value, and initiate integrity verification based on the hash value [0031]. Write the location information into an index that uses specified identifiers as primary keys; where in the blockchain-type ledger, except an initial data block, each data block includes at least one data record, each data block includes a hash value of the data block determined based on a hash value of a previous data block and the data record included in the data block [0085][0053]).
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 method and system disclosed by Sharma to include obtaining a second index from the blockchain ledger where the third hash value and the first index of the first hash value are stored disclosed by Yang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated for the purpose of having an immutable and tamper-proof record and verification.
Re. claim 59, Sharma-Yang teach the method according to claim 52, further comprising storing the CDR in a Data Retention System (Sharma discloses Reconciliation system 220 generates a complete CDR based on the incomplete CDRs [0083]).
Re. claim 60, Sharma-Yang teach the method according to claim 52, comprising storing the second index along with the CDR in the Data retention system (Sharma discloses insert a pointer in the incomplete CDR that points to a location of shared data storage 240 [0077][0083]).
Claims 61-63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al. (US 20170374203, hereinafter Sharma) in view of Yang et al. (US 20200334382, hereinafter Yang) and in further view of Griffin (US 11212110).
Re. claim 61, Sharma-Yang teach the method according to claim 52, Sharma-Yang do not explicitly teach but Griffin teaches wherein storing in the blockchain ledger, the third hash value of the processed CDR and the first index of the first hash value, for a Law Enforcement Agency (LEA) device to verify the integrity of the CDR by obtaining the stored third hash value of the processed CDR (Griffin teaches verify that blocks N′ 270, N″ 280, and N′″ 290 contain the same data as block N. For example, the owner, the adverse party, and the government can compare the previous block hash 234, the block identifier 236, and the merkle root 238 located within each party's respective copy of block N with the information located in block N at the time each copy of block N was created. If the information matches, the user has verified that the data in the copied blocks contains the same data as block N. The government can verify that the data contained in each party's respective copied block is the same data that was originally in block N. [Col 13 lines 18-40][Col 4 lines 34-49]).
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 method and system disclosed by Sharma-Yang to include wherein storing in the blockchain ledger, the third hash value of the processed CDR and the first index of the first hash value, for a Law Enforcement Agency (LEA) device to verify the integrity of the CDR by obtaining the stored third hash value of the processed CDR as disclosed by Griffin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated for the purpose of verifying that the data is original (Griffin [Col 13 lines 18-40]).
Re. claim 62, claim 62 is rejected with the same rationale as applied in claims 42, 43 and 61.
Re. claim 63, Sharma-Yang-Griffin teach the system according to The system according to wherein the CGF device is configured to store the processed CDR at a Data Retention System (DRS) (Sharma discloses Reconciliation system 220 generates a complete CDR based on the incomplete CDRs [0083]). Sharma-Yang do not explicitly teach but Griffin teaches wherein the LEA device is configured to obtain the processed CDR from the DRS, and verify the integrity of the CDR or the processed CDR using the processed CDR and the third hash value of the processed CDR (Griffin teaches verify that blocks N′ 270, N″ 280, and N′″ 290 contain the same data as block N. For example, the owner, the adverse party, and the government can compare the previous block hash 234, the block identifier 236, and the merkle root 238 located within each party's respective copy of block N with the information located in block N at the time each copy of block N was created. If the information matches, the user has verified that the data in the copied blocks contains the same data as block N. The government can verify that the data contained in each party's respective copied block is the same data that was originally in block N. [Col 13 lines 18-40][Col 4 lines 34-49]).
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 method and system disclosed by Sharma-Yang to include wherein the LEA device is configured to obtain the processed CDR from the DRS, and verify the integrity of the CDR or the processed CDR using the processed CDR and the third hash value of the processed CDR as disclosed by Griffin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated for the purpose of verifying that the data is original (Griffin [Col 13 lines 18-40]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Garagiola (US 20200142891) discloses identifying a blockchain transaction, storing the blockchain transaction in a blockchain, assigning the blockchain transaction a transaction number and a block number, hashing a portion of blockchain transaction data associated with the blockchain transaction, and updating a blockchain index based on the hashed portion of the blockchain transaction.
Hookham-Miller (US 20190098015) discloses securing integrity of data collected in a data storage arrangement for an object.
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.
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