CTNF 18/606,837 CTNF 91463 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Amendment This is a reply to the request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed on 04/13/2026, in which Claim(s) 1-20 are presented for examination. Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 8-9, 12-13, 15-16 and 19 are amended. No claim(s) are cancelled or newly added. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 07-42-04 AIA 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/13/2026 has been entered. Information Disclosure Statement 06-52 AIA The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/27/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Final Office Action on 11/13/2025 . The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 12-261 AIA Response to Argument Claim Objection: Applicant’s arguments with respect to objection of claim(s) 1-2, 5-7, 9, 12-13, 16, and 19 have been considered. The objection of claim(s) 1-2, 5-7, 9, 12-13, 16, and 19 has been withdrawn. Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103: Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 8 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8 last limitation “ decrypting, the application, the data based on the wrapped key ” should be “ decrypting, by the application, the data based on the wrapped key ”. Please correct the typo. Claim 15 limitation “ receiving, by the vehicle comprising an electronic control unit (ECU) ” should be “ receiving, by a vehicle comprising an electronic control unit (ECU) ” since the term “vehicle” is mentioned the very first time in the claim . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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 of this title, 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. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez et al. (US 2018/0176017 A1) in view of Tristan F. Schaap (US 2020/0153625 A1) further in view of Chiu et al. (US 10,063,372 B1) . Regarding Claims 1, 8, and 15, Rodriguez discloses A method performed by at least one processor to control access to data collected by a vehicle ([0002], “ receiving at the digital identity system from a bearer an electronic sharing token request ”, [1283], “accessing an autonomous vehicle ”), the method comprising : receiving, by the vehicle, a request from an application for access to the data, wherein the data is encrypted with a user key ([0002], “ receiving at the digital identity system from a bearer an electronic sharing token request ”, [1283], “accessing an autonomous vehicle ”, [0069], “Each piece of user data is encrypted using an encryption key (“user keys”, generated by the user key generator 102)”); authenticating the request to determine whether the request is allowed ([0002], “ authenticating a bearer to a validator”, [0165], “for accessing the data item for authenticating the entity”); based on determining that the request is allowed, wrapping the user key with a wrapping key ([0026], “the bearer key encrypted with the bearer wrapper key”), Rodriguez does not explicitly teach but Schaap teaches a vehicle comprising an electronic control unit (ECU) ([0022], “nodes 120 are electronic control units (ECUs) in a vehicle”), wherein the wrapping key has a validity period ([0049], “a validity period of the first encryption key ”), Rodriguez and Schaap are analogous art as they are in the same field of endeavor of information security. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Schaap with the disclosure of Rodriguez. The motivation/suggestion would have been to securely communicating traffic over a network (Schaap, [0001]). The combined teaching of Rodriguez and Schaap does not explicitly teach but Chiu teaches sending the wrapped user key and the data to the application; and decrypting, by the application, the data based on the wrapped user key (Column 5, Lines 3-9, “To utilize the wrapped key to decrypt data , the wrapped key is unwrapped or decrypted to obtain the original cryptographic key”). Rodriguez, Schaap and Chiu are analogous art as they are in the same field of endeavor of information security. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chiu with the combined teaching of Rodriguez and Schaap. The motivation/suggestion would have been to providing key decryption for pre-encrypted keys (Chiu, Abstract). Regarding Claims 3, 10, and 17, the combined teaching of Rodriguez, Schaap and Chiu teaches wherein authenticating the request comprises storing a result of whether the request is allowed in a blockchain ledger (Rodriguez, [1305], “Associating identity to the block chains”, i.e., information is stored in a blockchain). Regarding Claims 4, 11, and 18, the combined teaching of Rodriguez, Schaap and Chiu teaches wherein authenticating the request comprises prompting a user on a user mobile device whether or not to allow the request (Rodriguez, [0326-0327], “The characteristic tag can be used to distinguish profiles from one another. For example, each tag could call a visual indicator to be displayed on the mobile device .”, “Once a profile has been assigned to an uPass account the owner of that uPass account must actively choose to use the profile in a validation”). Regarding Claims 5, 12, and 19, the combined teaching of Rodriguez, Schaap and Chiu teaches wherein the blockchain ledger is configured to store the revocation of the wrapping key based on the validity period or revocation from the user on the user mobile device (Rodriguez, [0052], “A credential of the bearer may be received with the encrypted bearer key, and the remaining steps are only performed if the credential is determined to be valid by the digital identity system”, [1305], “the block chains ”). Regarding Claims 6, 13, and 20, the combined teaching of Rodriguez, Schaap and Chiu teaches decrypting the wrapped user key with the wrapping key; and decrypting the data with the user key (Rodriguez, [0026], “using the bearer wrapper key to decrypt the bearer (i.e., user) key received from the bearer; and using the decrypted bearer key to decrypt the at least one attribute held in the data store”) Regarding Claims 7, and 14, the combined teaching of Rodriguez, Schaap and Chiu teaches wherein wrapping the user key comprises : encrypting the wrapping key with a private key of the user; sending the wrapping key encrypted with the private key to the vehicle (Rodriguez, [0826], “encrypt … using a version of the private key ”); and decrypting the wrapping key with a public key of the user by the vehicle, wherein wrapping the user key is performed by the vehicle (Rodriguez, [0026], “using the bearer wrapper key to decrypt the bearer key”) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez et al. (US 2018/0176017 A1) in view of Tristan F. Schaap (US 2020/0153625 A1) further in view of Chiu et al. (US 10,063,372 B1) and further in view of Suwirya et al. (US 2017/0070353 A1) . Regarding Claims 2, 9 and 16, the combined teaching of Rodriguez, Schaap and Chiu teaches a user public key stored in a user mobile device (Rodriguez, [0540], “a user can deposit a public or symmetric key ”, [0249], “hosting on a mobile device”), The combined teaching of Rodriguez, Schaap and Chiu does not explicitly teach but Suwirya teaches wherein the user key is generated by the vehicle based on a vehicle root of trust key stored in a vehicle (Suwirya, [0033], “the Server verifies also the chain of trust of the newly derived credentials contained in the data structure ( Key Handle structure)”), Rodriguez, Schaap, Chiu and Suwirya are analogous art as they are in the same field of endeavor of information security. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Suwirya with the combined teaching of Rodriguez, Schaap and Chiu. The motivation/suggestion would have been to develop a new credentials system that is more secure, trusted, and scalable than existing systems (Suwirya, [0003]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENG-FENG HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-6186. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9 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, Eleni A Shiferaw can be reached at (571) 272-3867. 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. /CHENG-FENG HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2497 Application/Control Number: 18/606,837 Page 2 Art Unit: 2497 Application/Control Number: 18/606,837 Page 3 Art Unit: 2497 Application/Control Number: 18/606,837 Page 4 Art Unit: 2497 Application/Control Number: 18/606,837 Page 5 Art Unit: 2497 Application/Control Number: 18/606,837 Page 6 Art Unit: 2497 Application/Control Number: 18/606,837 Page 8 Art Unit: 2497
Prosecution Insights