DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on 03/17/2026 in which Claims 1-8 are presented for examination on the merits.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant's arguments in pages 8-14 of the REMARKS filed on 03/17/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 USC § 103(a) have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. After careful review and in light of Applicant’s amendments, remarks, and Examiner’s newly performed search and consideration, claims 1-8 are now newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) for the reasons specified below.
In light of Applicant’s amendments, the interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
5. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
6. Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simmons et al. (US 20170083709 A1, hereinafter, Simmons) in view of Johnson et al. (US 20020016912 A1), and further in view of Shen et al. (CN 110348235 A, hereinafter, Shen).
Regarding claim 1, Simmons discloses a data storage system comprising: an information processing device for transmitting data (Para 0019, 0025:sending encrypted data to a backup server for storage without jeopardizing the security of the data); and
a backup server for storing the data transmitted from the information processing device (Para 0025, 0019: Backup server stores the received encrypted sensor data in a database…or not shared with any other entity), wherein:
the information processing device includes: a processor; a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium; and a set of computer-executable instructions stored on the non-transitory computer- readable storage medium that cause the processor to: (Para 0005: computing-device includes a processor; and memory coupled to the processor and storing instructions for encrypting a data element)
generate encryption data by encrypting the data using an encryption key stored in a storage area whose access is restricted; and (Para 0072, 0067: in storage device each partition store files including encrypted data using the public key associated with entities that are authorized to access the partition wherein storage device public key stored in HSM (Hardware Security Module)); and
transmit the encryption data to the backup server (Para 0019, 0025: sending encrypted data to a backup server for storage without jeopardizing the security of the data); and
the backup server (Para 0054: backup server determines the state of each partition without decrypting the data elements. Backup server sends the unique ID associated with each data element to storage device and third party devices)
is configured to: [decrypt the encryption data received from the information processing device using the encryption key]
wherein the set of computer-executable instructions further cause the processor of the information processing device to (Para 0005: computing-device includes a processor; and memory coupled to the processor and storing instructions for encrypting a data element)):
[calculate a first data unique value that is a unique value of the data to be transmitted to the backup server;
encrypt the first data unique value using the encryption key to obtain the encryption data; and add the encryption data to the data and transmits to the backup server], wherein the backup server is further configured to:
calculate a second data unique value that is a unique value of the data received from the information processing device (Para 0077: requesting entity sends the unique ID associated with the last file the requesting entity received from backup server 120.); and
determine whether the first data unique value obtained by decrypting by the backup server matches the second data unique value (Para 0077: Accordingly, at block 612, backup server 120 compares the state of data stored at the requesting entity with the state of data stored at the backup server 120—e.g. by computing a hash and comparing the hash, or by comparing the unique ID associated with the last file the requesting entity received from backup server 120 and the unique ID associated with the last file backup server 120 assigned), and
wherein when the first data unique value matches the second data unique value, the backup server stores the data received from the information processing device (Para 0054: backup server compare data stored by generating a hash of the unique IDs. If the hash is identical, then it allows backup server 120 to store data storage device 200; Para 0061: “..decrypt the received data elements, then store plaintext data elements in user data database 450” ).
Simmons does not explicitly state but Johnson from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches wherein decrypt the encryption data received from the information processing device using the encryption key (Johnson, Para 0041, Claim 7: files residing within the backup archive server are being retrieved and decrypted utilizing the client provided encryption key wherein remote user specifying an encryption key for said defined backup set….said remote user scheduling or manually requesting a remote client machine log on to a backup archive server).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to decrypt the encryption data received from the information processing device using the encryption key as taught by Johnson in the teachings of Simmons for the advantage of ensuring that remote users encryption key associated with dynamically specified backup key is used to encrypt and store data/file in the storage device and decrypted on server (Johnson, Para 0041, Fig. 3 box 52).
The combination of Simmons and Johnson does not explicitly state but Shen from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches calculate a first data unique value that is a unique value of the data to be transmitted to the backup server (Shen, Abstract: calculating the authentication code of said backup file, detecting and judging whether the authentication code of said backup file is identical with the authentication code of the encrypted file, if so, then storing the backup file);
encrypt the first data unique value using the encryption key to obtain the encryption data; and add the encryption data to the data and transmits to the backup server (Shen, Abstract: obtaining the encrypted file carrying with authentication code, the encrypted file to the decryption process, the decryption process under the condition of not success, obtaining the backup file corresponding to the encrypted file)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calculate a first data unique value that is a unique value of the data to be transmitted to the backup server; encrypt the first data unique value using the encryption key to obtain the encryption data; and add the encryption data to the data and transmits to the backup server as taught by Shen in the teachings of Simmons and Johnson for the advantage of verifying authentication code and by detecting and judging whether the authentication code of said backup file is identical with the authentication code of the encrypted file (Shen, Abstract).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Simmons, Johnson, and Shen discloses the data storage system according to claim 1, wherein: the encryption data is added as an electronic signature to the data to be transmitted to the backup server (Simmons Para 0017, 0019, 0040, 0063, 0077: sending the encrypted data wherein key pair includes a private key … a hash (e.g. using Secure Hash Algorithm (‘HSM’) is generated….the combination that are used for electronic signature as well known in the art).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Simmons, Johnson, and Shen discloses the data storage system according to claim 1, wherein: the set of computer-executable instructions further cause the processor of the information processing device to: calculates calculate a first program unique value that is a unique value of a program relating to an encryption of the data and transmission of the date to the backup server (Simmons, Para 0017, 0019, 0040, 0063: sending the encrypted data to a backup server…for generating a hash ); and
determine whether the first program unique value matches a second program unique value that is an unique value of the program and is calculated and stored in advance (Johnson, Para 0041,0037: backup archive server then decrypted utilizing client provided encryption key; Simmons, Para 0077: backup server 120 compares the state of data stored at the requesting entity with the state of data stored at the backup server 120—e.g. by computing a hash and comparing the hash).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Simmons, Johnson, and Shen discloses the data storage system according to claim 4, wherein: the set of computer- executable instructions further cause the processor of the information processing device to execute processing in an area to which access is restricted (Johnson, Para 0017, 0019, 0040, 0063: sending the encrypted data using symmetric key to a backup server…wherein key is kept secret from all other devices…. and is not shared with any other entity….and stored in partition private 366 in data store 350 of backup server 120).
Regarding claim 7; Claim 7 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 8; Claim 8 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
7. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simmons et al. in view of Johnson et al., in view of Shen et al., and further in view of Natanzon et al. (US 10992458 B2, hereinafter, Natanzon).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Simmons, Johnson, and Shen discloses the data storage system according to claim 1, however, the combination does not explicitly states but Natanzon from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches wherein: the data is blocks connected in a blockchain (Abstract: creating a backup of data, creating metadata associated with the backup, hashing the backup to create a backup hash, obtaining a key from a blockchain, generating an aggregate hash of a combination that includes the key and the backup hash, and transmitting the aggregate hash to a blockchain network); and
the backup server is configured to determines determine whether a previous unique value of a top block in the blocks received from the information processing device matches an unique value of a final block stored in the backup server (Claims 12 & 1: restoring the backup; hashing the restored backup to create a second backup hash; comparing the second backup hash with the backup hash to determine whether data of the restored backup matches the data in the backup…. by way of a blockchain plugin to a backup server, the aggregate hash to a blockchain network).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein wherein: the data is blocks connected in a blockchain; and the backup server is configured to determines determine whether a previous unique value of a top block in the blocks received from the information processing device matches an unique value of a final block stored in the backup server as taught by Simmons, Johnson, Shen in the teachings of Natanzon for the advantage of creating a backup of data, creating metadata associated with the backup, hashing the backup to create a backup hash, obtaining a key from a blockchain, generating an aggregate hash of a combination that includes the key and the backup hash, and transmitting the aggregate hash to a blockchain network. (Natanzon, Abstract).
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Catherman et al. (US 20060230264 A) discloses ystem for remotely storing a user's admin key to gain access to an intranet is presented. The user's admin key and intranet user identification (ID) are encrypted using an enterprise's public key, and together they are concatenated into a single backup admin file, which is stored in the user's client computer.
Field et al. (US 20190005274 A1) discloses methods are provided for adding security to client data by maintaining keys providing access to the client data remotely from the client data. In some circumstances, the systems encrypt a cluster of data using an encryption key, associate the cluster of encrypted data with a unique identifier and send the unique identifier and the decryption key to a server for storage.
9. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 MAHFUZUR RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7638. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Yin-Chen Shaw can be reached on 571-272-8878. 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.
/MAHFUZUR RAHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2498
Prosecution Insights