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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 12/18/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS statement has been considered by the Examiner.
Priority
The instant application is a national stage entry of PCT/EP2022/068316 filed on 22-07-01, which claims priority to EP 2120788.8 which was filed on 11/11/2021. A certified copy of the Japanese patent application has been provided.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10, 14 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: the word comprising in the preamble is to be followed by a colon (:). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because
Claim 17 defines a transitory computer readable medium.” Therefore, it is drawn to a program embodied on a “signal per se.” A signal per se is not one of the 4 statutory categories of invention and as such fails to fall into a statutory category of invention. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1357 (“A transitory, propagating signal like Nuijten’s is not a ‘process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.’ Those four categories define the explicit scope and reach of subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101; thus, such a signal cannot be patentable subject matter”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, 12, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu, Yong Dong et al. US 20050091261 (hereinafter Wu) in view of Helland; Patrick James US 20220004554 (hereinafter Helland).
As per claim 1, Wu teaches: An encoding system for encoding data in a data structure, the encoding system comprising
an input interface configured for receiving the data (“When a user (130) in FIG. 1 sends a request, he/she may receive (through an interface) some blocks of one or more GOBs, and/or one or more segments of each block” Wu: para. 84),
a processor system configured to obtain the data as multiple data blocks (Wu: para. 84),
compute multiple hash values for the multiple data blocks, by applying a hash function to the multiple data blocks (“generating a corresponding hash value for each received data block; generating a corresponding hash value for the received GOB;” Wu: para. 21),
compute a first hash tree for the multiple hash values, the multiple hash values being assigned to leaves of the first hash tree, one or more higher levels of the first hash tree being generated (“generating a corresponding hash value for each data block; generating a corresponding hash value for a group of data blocks (GOB); generating a hash tree structure based on the corresponding hash values for the data blocks and for the GOB; calculating a hash value of a root node of the hash tree structure, the root node having no parent in the hash tree structure; ” Wu: para. 9 and 13),
Wu does not teach; however, Helland discloses: include in the data structure the multiple data blocks and part of the first hash tree, said part including the first two highest levels of the first hash tree but excluding one or more lower levels of the first hash tree (“the computer system accesses the respective continuous block for a first particular subtree data structure (e.g., subtree 125A) encompassing a particular range of levels (e.g., levels 215A-D) in the multi-level tree data structure. In various cases, the accessing may be performed without accessing one or more other subtree data structures (e.g., subtries 125B and 125C) encompassing one or more levels within the particular range of levels. The computer system may update the multi-level tree data structure to include one or more nodes.” Helland: para. 50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wu with the teachings of Helland to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to improve the memory efficiency, saving time and resource consumption (Helland: para. 39).
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Wu teaches;
the processor system is configured to compute a digital signature over a root of a hash tree, in particular the root of a hash tree having a hash tree root among its leaves, and to include the digital signature in the data structure (Wu: para. 18 and 41).
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Wu does not teach; however, Helland discloses: store the data structure and/or stream the data structure or part of the data structure, said part including at least part of the data blocks and at least part of a hash tree corresponding to said data blocks (Helland: para. 50).
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Wu teaches:
the input interface is configured for receiving one or more tree parameters, the processor system being configured to include in the data structure a set of nodes selected from one or a hierarchy of hash trees depending on the one or more tree parameter (Wu: para. 11 and 88).
As per claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Wu teaches: a leaf of a hash tree further includes a hash of a data block in uncompressed form and a hash of the data block in compressed form, the data block being included in the data structure in compressed form; or wherein a leaf of a hash tree further includes a hash of a data block in uncompressed and unencrypted form, a hash of the data block in compressed and unencrypted form, a hash of a data block in compressed and encrypted form, the data block being included in the data structure in compressed and encrypted form (Wu: para. 12).
As per claim 12, this claim defines a device that corresponds to system of claim 1 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 1.
As per claim 14, this claim defines a method that corresponds to system of claim 1 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 1.
As per claim 17, this claim defines a computer readable medium comprising data representing instructions that corresponds to the method of claim 14 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 14. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 14.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Helland and further in view of BANG CHANG HYEOK KR 20190063796 (hereinafter Bang).
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. The combination of Wu and Helland does not teach; however, Bang discloses: compute a second hash tree, a root of the first hash tree being assigned to a leaf of the second hash tree, and multiple further hash values being assigned to multiple further leaves of the second hash tree, a further hash values being generated as a root of a further hash trees and/or generated by hashing on a further data block, and to include in the data structure at least the root of the second hash tree (“the authentication support server 100 stores the specific hash value and the at least one neighbor hash value in a predetermined first data structure, and then stores a second data structure of the same type as the first data structure The first data structure and the second data structure may be connected in a chain form. In particular, if the first data structure and the second data structure are merc trees, a root value of the first data structure or a hash value of the root value may be assigned to a first leaf node of the second data structure.” Bang. Page 19, Para. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Wu and Helland with the teachings of Bang to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to improve the data integrity by enabling easy tracking.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Helland and further in view of Ortiz; Edison U. et al. US 20180268401 (hereinafter Ortiz).
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. The combination of Wu and Helland does not teach; however, Ortiz discloses: the data structure comprises data blocks organized in a hierarchy of containers, the processor system being configured to compute a hash tree for each container in the hierarchy, and each leaf of a hash tree being either the hash value of a data block within the container or the root of a hash tree that corresponds to a subordinate container (Ortiz: para. 83).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Wu and Helland with the teachings of Ortiz to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to further utility of the method.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Helland and further in view of Larmuseau Adriaan WO 2021239914 (hereinafter Larmuseau).
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. The combination of Wu and Helland does not teach; however, Larmuseau discloses: a subset of the multiple data blocks and/or data containers are labelled as integrity protected and the rest of the multiple data blocks and/or data containers are labelled as integrity unprotected, only parts labelled as integrity protected being included in a hash tree (“The signature may be a signature on a root of a hash tree representing the first genomic data 080 (e.g., in terms of variations to a reference genome, as also discussed elsewhere). The signature may then be verified by verifying that that the root of the hash tree was signed correctly, and by proving that those parts of the first genomic data 080 that are being used in the kinship function (e.g., a subset of the variations) are comprised in the hash tree. This has the advantage that parts of the first genomic data 080 that are not used to compute kinship, also do not need to be considered for verifying the signature.” Larmuseau: col. 20, lines 14-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Wu and Helland with the teachings of Larmuseau to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to avoid unnecessary operations.
As per claim 13, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. The combination of Wu and Helland does not teach; however, Larmuseau: discloses: page 30, para. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Wu and Helland with the teachings of Larmuseau to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to enhance the utility of the method.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Helland and further in view of Laskawiec; Andrzej et al. US 20200097585 (hereinafter Laskawiec).
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. The combination of Wu and Helland does not teach; however, Laskawiec discloses: the input interface is configured to receive amendments to the data, amendments including one or more of additions, deletions, and/or modifications, the processor system being configured to apply the amendments and to selectively recompute and update part of a hash tree corresponding to the amended part of the data (Laskawiec: para. 30 and 35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Wu and Helland with the teachings of Laskawiec to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to enhance the flexibility of the method.
Claims 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis; Steven Charles US 20180013567 (hereinafter Davis) in view of Helland.
Asp per claim 10, Davis teaches: A verification system for verifying selected data in a data structure, the verification system comprising
an input interface configured for receiving at least part of the data structure, the data structure comprising multiple data blocks (“To verify a data value, the processing server 102 may receive the data value and its nonce from the data provider 104.” Davis: para. 21)
a processor system configured to compute multiple hash values for data blocks in the data structure selected for data integrity verification, by applying a hash function to the selected data blocks (“The processing server 102 may also include a hashing module 214. The hashing module 214 may be configured to generate hash values via the application of one or more hashing algorithms to data supplied to the hashing module 214. The hashing module 214 may receive data to be hashed as input, may apply one or more hashing algorithms to the data” Davis: para. 33),
identify a path starting from data blocks selected for verification to a root of a corresponding hash tree (Davis: para. 42),
retrieve, if available in the data structure, or compute the hash values for the hash tree along the path, verify the root of the hash tree from at least the computed multiple hash values (“The process 300 may continue to run until, in step 312, it is determined that every hash path value has been used, where the resulting hash value (e.g., generated in the latest execution of step 308) is determined to be the Merkle root. In such instances, the result of the verification performed in step 310 for the Merkle root may be the verification result for the provided data value.” Davis: para. 42),
Davis does not teach; however, Helland discloses: part of a hash tree, said part including the first two highest levels of the hash tree but excluding one or more lower levels of the hash tree (“the computer system accesses the respective continuous block for a first particular subtree data structure (e.g., subtree 125A) encompassing a particular range of levels (e.g., levels 215A-D) in the multi-level tree data structure. In various cases, the accessing may be performed without accessing one or more other subtree data structures (e.g., subtries 125B and 125C) encompassing one or more levels within the particular range of levels. The computer system may update the multi-level tree data structure to include one or more nodes.” Helland: para. 50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Davis with the teachings of Helland to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to improve the memory efficiency.
As per claim 15, this claim defines a method that corresponds to system of claim 10 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 10. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 10.
Claims 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Helland and further in view of Kusakawa Masafumi et al. JP 2008113201 (hereinafter Kusakawa).
As per claim 11, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated herein. The combination of Davis and Helland does not teach; however, Kusakawa discloses: the data structure comprises a hierarchy of hash trees (Kusakawa: page. 44, para. 4), the processor system being configured to identify a path starting from a leave to an overall root of the hierarchy of hash trees (Kusakawa: page 10, para. 4).
As per claim 16, this claim defines a method that corresponds to system of claim 11 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 11. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHODRAT JAMSHIDI whose telephone number is (571)270-1956. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-6:00.
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, Carl Colin can be reached at 5712723862. 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.
/GHODRAT JAMSHIDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493