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 .
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.
This action is in response to the correspondence filed 06/05/2024.
Claims 1-18 are presented for examination.
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 1-5 and 8-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2019/0199533 to Boutnaru (Applicant’s IDS).
As to claims 1, 14, 15 and 16, Boutnaru teaches a method of recording a network path in a network that comprises a plurality of nodes, the network path comprising a source node, a destination node, and one or more intermediate nodes (paragraph 10, validation of the data flow path; FIG. 1 and paragraph 17, for example computer system 115 is a source, computer system 120 is an intermediate node and computer system 115 or a different system is a destination node), the method comprising: receiving, at an intermediate node, a transaction, the transaction comprising a first cryptographic object and signatures of at least a subset of any preceding intermediate nodes in the network path (paragraph 26, received data packet which can be part of a transaction; paragraphs 32 and 33, the data packet includes a cryptographic check sequence comprising a history of one or more systems and/or clusters that have transmitted and/or processed a particular packet, wherein each system that accesses a packet may have a private cryptographic key (e.g. as part of a public/private key pair) and can take a hash of packet payload data, then encrypt the signed hash using the private key (AKA performing a digital signature on the hash value). The resulting signed hash value can then be stored in the TCP options and/or IP options field of a data packet. Multiple systems can store signed hash values in the options fields as well, so a packet may be able to show, with verifiable integrity, the last one, last two, or last N number of hops that it has traversed (up to and including the origin system of the packet)); generating, by the intermediate node, a second cryptographic object based on the first cryptographic object (paragraph 36, for example system B [the next system to handle the packet] creates a hash based on not just the payload data, but also the already-existing signed hash value from system A. The previously signed hash value could be appended or prepended to the other payload data, for example, and used to create a new hash that is signed using the private key of system B); updating, by the intermediate node, the transaction with a signature of the intermediate node and with the second cryptographic object (paragraph 36, The previously signed hash value could be appended or prepended to the other payload data, for example, and used to create a new hash that is signed using the private key of system B. This process can be repeated to show a chain of possession, e.g., system C can sign a packet hash that is based on a value that includes system A and system B's private key signatures. [thus the cryptographic object, hash, is updated]; paragraph 41, its own signature is added to the cryptographic check sequence); and sending, from the intermediate node, the updated transaction to a succeeding node in the network path (paragraph 40, forwarding the particular data packet to another computer system); wherein each of the first cryptographic object and the second cryptographic object allows the transaction or the updated transaction to be verified up to a node that generated that respective cryptographic object (paragraph 33, Multiple systems can store signed hash values in the options fields as well, so a packet may be able to show, with verifiable integrity, the last one, last two, or last N number of hops that it has traversed (up to and including the origin system of the packet).
As to claim 2, Boutnaru teaches wherein the first cryptographic object and the second cryptographic object are hashes (paragraph 33, hash); and wherein generating, by the intermediate node, the second cryptographic object based on the first cryptographic object comprises hashing the first cryptographic object with a signature of the intermediate node (paragraph 33, may have a private cryptographic key (e.g. as part of a public/private key pair) and can take a hash of packet payload data, then encrypt the signed hash using the private key (AKA performing a digital signature on the hash value)).
As to claim 3, Boutnaru teaches wherein generating, by the intermediate node, the second cryptographic object based on the first cryptographic object comprises encrypting the first cryptographic object using a private key of the intermediate node, such that the first cryptographic object can be decrypted using a corresponding public key of the intermediate node (paragraph 36, The public key of system B can then be used to unscramble the signed hash and to prove that system B handled the packet after system A signed it. (because otherwise, system B could not have generated a correct hash value based on the private key signature of system A). This process can be repeated to show a chain of possession, e.g., system C can sign a packet hash that is based on a value that includes system A and system B's private key signatures).
As to claim 4, Boutnaru teaches wherein the signatures of the at least the subset of any preceding intermediate nodes or the signature of the intermediate node are generated based on a private key of the respective node and are verifiable using a public key of the respective node (paragraphs 36 and 41, encrypting the hash value using a private encryption key corresponding to computer system); and wherein the public key of each intermediate node that has signed the transaction is included in the transaction with the signature of the respective intermediate node (paragraphs 35 and 37, corresponding public keys can be located to analyze the cryptographic check sequence and the encryption keys (such as public keys from a private/public key pair) that are necessary for the decrypting can be determined from the transit path sequence (or in other instances can be used on a trial an error basis, or other information in the packet may be indicative of which keys should be used to decrypt the cryptographic check sequence)).
As to claim 5, Boutnaru teaches wherein the transaction further comprises one or more network path requirements, and wherein the succeeding node is determined based on the one or more network path requirements (paragraphs 39 and 42, the network path requirement is the expected data flow and wherein the data packet is not forwarded to the succeeding node if data path flow is not as expected).
As to claim 8, Boutnaru teaches wherein the signatures of preceding intermediate nodes in the network path are included in the transaction with information identifying an order of the preceding intermediate nodes in the network path (paragraph 36, packet handling ordering (e.g. system A before system B) can be verified … includes, for example, system A and system B's private key signatures).
As to claim 9, Boutnaru teaches wherein the method further comprises: receiving, at the source node, a message request to send a message from the source node to the destination node over the network (paragraphs 15 and 17, received requests); generating, by the source node, a transaction comprising the first cryptographic object based on the signature of the source node (paragraph 26, received data packet which can be part of a transaction; paragraphs 32 and 33, the data packet includes a cryptographic check sequence comprising a history of one or more systems and/or clusters that have transmitted and/or processed a particular packet, wherein each system that accesses a packet may have a private cryptographic key (e.g. as part of a public/private key pair)); and sending, from the source node, the transaction to an intermediate node (paragraph 26, received data packet which can be part of a transaction).
As to claim 10, Boutnaru teaches wherein the first cryptographic object is further based on one or more message parameters or one or more network path requirements (paragraph 33, a hash of packet payload data).
As to claim 11, Boutnaru teaches wherein the receiving, the generating, the updating and the sending are performed iteratively for each intermediate node in the network path (paragraph 33, Multiple systems can store signed hash values in the options fields as well, so a packet may be able to show, with verifiable integrity, the last one, last two, or last N number of hops that it has traversed (up to and including the origin system of the packet)).
As to claim 12, Boutnaru teaches receiving, at the destination node when the succeeding node in the network path is the destination node, the transaction; generating, by the destination node, a final cryptographic object based on the second cryptographic object and further based on a signature of the destination node; updating, by the destination node, the transaction with the signature of the intermediate node and with the final cryptographic object; and storing the transaction (paragraphs 10, 32, 33 and 36, wherein each node of the system performs the functions for validation of the data flow path including the destination node).
As to claim 13, Boutnaru teaches wherein the transaction is stored in a blockchain or a database (paragraph 16, Computer system 110 could be a user history system that maintains a record of previous transactions for a user, computer system 115 could be a database of financial information for users, and so on).
As to claim 17, Boutnaru teaches wherein the computer resides in a node of a network (paragraph 29, “node”, for purposes of this example, can include a particular computer system and/or a particular cluster (or group of clusters)).
As to claim 18, Boutnaru teaches wherein the node is one of plurality of nodes of a system (paragraph 27, one or more nodes).
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.
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.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boutnaru in view of US 2019/0349733 to Nolan et al (hereinafter Nolan).
As to claim 6, Boutnaru does not explicitly teach the succeeding node being determined using a bloom filter.
However, Nolan teaches the succeeding node being determined using a bloom filter (paragraph 278, the bloom filter may match one or more satisfying the routing requirements).
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 teachings of Boutnaru to include the bloom filter for determining the succeeding node as taught by Nolan in order to increase the efficiency of routing across the network (paragraph 149).
As to claim 7, Boutnaru does not explicitly teach wherein the succeeding node is determined such that the succeeding node meets some or all of the network path requirements
However, Nolan teaches wherein the succeeding node is determined such that the succeeding node meets some or all of the network path requirements (paragraph 278, satisfying the routing requirements).
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 teachings of Boutnaru to include the node meeting some or all of the network path requirements as taught by Nolan in order to increase the efficiency of routing across the network (paragraph 149).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MALCOLM CRIBBS whose telephone number is (571)270-1566. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 930a-330p; 430p-630p.
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 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.
MALCOLM . CRIBBS
Examiner
Art Unit 2497
/MALCOLM CRIBBS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2497