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 .
Claim Objection
Claim 13 is objected to as it recites “a system for managing trust relationships with legacy nodes in a network of ledger-capable nodes, comprising: a mission control center capable of enrolling a plurality of ledger-capable nodes in a permissioned mission channel of a distributed ledger network, including a first ledger-capable node and a second ledger-capable node, to form a first trust relationship among the plurality of ledger-capable nodes based on a membership in the permissioned distributed ledger channel”. As recited in above limitations it expresses capability of enrolling but does not explicitly recite of actual execution of an enrolling process (hence an intended use type limitation). Hence, mapping for this limitation has become optional. Indeed, mapping will be provided when the Applicant make appropriate correction of the claim.
“and capable of selecting the first ledger-capable node as a trust manager for a permissioned candidate channel of the distributed ledger network; the first ledger-capable node, capable of enrolling the second ledger-capable node in the permissioned candidate channel to form a second trust relationship between the first ledger- capable node and the second ledger-capable node based on each node's membership in the permissioned candidate channel”; As recited in above limitations it expresses capability of selecting but does not explicitly recite an actual execution of an selection process (hence an intended use type limitation). Hence, mapping for this limitation has become optional. Indeed, mapping will be provided when the Applicant make appropriate correction of the claim.
“and a first legacy node, capable of establishing a third trust relationship with the first ledger-capable node using public-key infrastructure, and capable of establishing a fourth trust relationship with the second ledger-capable node based on the second trust relationship between the first ledger-capable node and the first legacy node”. As recited in above limitations it expresses capability of establishing a trust relationship but does not explicitly recite of actual execution of an establishing process (hence an intended use type limitation). Hence, mapping for this limitation has become optional. Indeed, mapping will be provided when the Applicant make appropriate correction of the claim.
Claim 14 is objected to as it recites “wherein: the first ledger-capable node is capable of receiving an unregistered, temporary operational certificate from the first legacy node, the unregistered, temporary operational certificate for authenticating the first legacy node to the second ledger-capable node, the unregistered, temporary operational certificate comprising a public key associated with the unregistered, temporary operational certificate, and further capable of providing an ad-hoc public kcy to the first legacy node, and further capable of counter-signing the temporary operational certificate with an ad-hoc private key belonging to the first edger-capable node to form a registered, temporary operational certificate, and further capable of providing the registered, temporary operational certificate to the second ledger-capable node; and the second ledger-capable node is capable of receiving a communication from the first legacy node, signed with a private key associated with the registered, temporary operational certificate, further capable of verifying the first legacy node using the public key of the registered, temporary operational certificate in order to establish the fourth trust relationship with the second ledger-capable node”. As recited, this claim has issues similar to its base claim 13 as shown above and it needs to be rewritten in positive manner so that system actually executes the recited limitations. Hence mapping has become optional. Indeed, mapping will be provided when the Applicant make appropriate correction of the claim.
Claim 15 is objected to as it recites “wherein: the first ledger-capable node is capable of selecting the second ledger-capable node to communicate with the legacy node as a member of the permissioned candidate channel, and further capable of providing a digital certificate and a registered, temporary operational certificate to the second ledger-capable node, each certificate signed by an ad-hoc private key of the first ledger-capable node; and the second ledger-capable node and the legacy node are both capable of mutually authenticating each other using the digital certificate and the registered, temporary operational certificate, thereby establishing the fourth trust relationship”. As recited, this claim has issues similar to its base claim 13 as shown above and it needs to be rewritten in positive manner so that system actually executes the recited limitations. Hence mapping has become optional. Indeed, mapping will be provided when the Applicant make appropriate correction of the claim.
Claim 16 is objected to as it recites “wherein: the mission control center is capable of publishing a cryptographically-signed digital certificate on the permissioned candidate channel, the cryptographically signed digital certificate comprising a public key of the first legacy node; and the first ledger-capable node is capable of retrieving the public key from the permissioned candidate channel and is further capable of authenticating the legacy node using the public key. As recited, this claim has issues similar to its base claim 13 as shown above and it needs to be rewritten in positive manner so that system actually executes the recited limitations. Hence mapping has become optional. Indeed, mapping will be provided when the Applicant make appropriate correction of the claim.
Claim 17 is objected to as it recites “wherein: the first legacy node is capable of providing, to the first ledger-capable node, an unregistered, temporary operational certificate issued by a root certificate authority recognized as a trust authority of the first trust relationship, the unregistered, temporary operational certificate comprising a public cryptographic key associated with the unregistered, temporary operational certificate; the first ledger-capable node is capable of cryptographically counter-signing the unregistered, temporary operational certificate using an ad-hoc private cryptographic key of the first ledger-capable node to form a registered, temporary operational certificate, and further capable of providing the registered, temporary operational certificate to the second ledger- capable node; the second ledger-capable node is capable of receiving a communication from the legacy node, the communication cryptographically signed with a private cryptographic key associated with the registered, temporary operational certificate, and further capable of verifying that the communication was cryptographically signed by the legacy node using the private cryptographic key associated with the registered, temporary operational certificate, thereby establishing the fourth trust relationship”. As recited, this claim has issues similar to its base claim 13 as shown above and it needs to be rewritten in positive manner so that system actually executes the recited limitations. Hence mapping has become optional. Indeed, mapping will be provided when the Applicant make appropriate correction of the claim.
Claim 18 is objected to as it recites “wherein: the first ledger-capable node is capable of providing a digital certificate and a registered, temporary operational certificate to the second ledger-capable node, each registered, certificate signed by an ad-hoc private key of the first ledger-capable node; and the second ledger-capable node is capable of using the digital certificate to authenticate itself to the legacy node, and further capable of using a public key of the registered, temporary operational certificate to authenticate the legacy node, thereby establishing the fourth trust relationship”. As recited, this claim has issues similar to its base claim 13 as shown above and it needs to be rewritten in positive manner so that system actually executes the recited limitations. Hence mapping has become optional. Indeed, mapping will be provided when the Applicant make appropriate correction of the claim.
Claim 19 is objected to as it recites “wherein the second ledger-capable node is capable of initiating the fourth trust relationship at a time when a communication with the first legacy node is desired”. As recited, this claim has issues similar to its base claim 13 as shown above and it needs to be rewritten in positive manner so that system actually executes the recited limitations. Hence mapping has become optional. Indeed, mapping will be provided when the Applicant make appropriate correction of the claim.
Claim 20 is objected to as it recites “wherein the first ledger-capable node is capable of terminating the fourth trust relationship after a communication between the second ledger-capable node and the first legacy node has concluded”. As recited, this claim has issues similar to its base claim 13 as shown above and it needs to be rewritten in positive manner so that system actually executes the recited limitations. Hence mapping has become optional. Indeed, mapping will be provided when the Applicant make appropriate correction of the claim.
Claim 20 is further objected as it recites “the system of claim11”. As recited, there is typo. It should be claim 18 instead of claim 11. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 is objected to as it recites “wherein the first ledger-capable node is capable of selecting the second ledger-capable node by determining that the second ledger-capable node is capable of communicating with the first legacy node”. As recited, this claim has issues similar to its base claim 13 as shown above and it needs to be rewritten in positive manner so that system actually executes the recited limitations. Hence mapping has become optional. Indeed, mapping will be provided when the Applicant make appropriate correction of the claim.
Claim 22 is objected to as it recites “wherein the first ledger-capable node is capable of selecting the second ledger-capable node by determining that the second ledger-capable node is authorized to communicate with the first legacy node”. As recited, this claim has issues similar to its base claim 13 as shown above and it needs to be rewritten in positive manner so that system actually executes the recited limitations. Hence mapping has become optional. Indeed, mapping will be provided when the Applicant make appropriate correction of the claim.
Claim 23 is objected to as it recites “wherein the first ledger-capable node is capable of acting as a proxy certificate authority for the root certificate authority”. As recited, this claim has issues similar to its base claim 13 as shown above and it needs to be rewritten in positive manner so that system actually executes the recited limitations. Hence mapping has become optional. Indeed, mapping will be provided when the Applicant make appropriate correction of the claim.
Claim 24 is objected to as it recites “wherein: establishing the third trust relationship between the first legacy node and the first ledger-capable node using a first certificate issued to the first legacy node and a second certificate issued to the first ledger-capable node, each certificate issued by a root certificate authority; and establishing the fourth trust relationship between the first legacy node and the second ledger-capable node using a third certificate issued from the first ledger-capable node to the second ledger-capable node and a registered, temporary operational certificate issued to the second ledger-capable node comprising a public key associated with the registered, temporary operational certificate, establishing the third and fourth trust relationships”. As recited, this claim has issues similar to its base claim 13 as shown above and it needs to be rewritten in positive manner so that system actually executes the recited limitations. Hence mapping has become optional. Indeed, mapping will be provided when the Applicant make appropriate correction of the claim.
Claims 14-24 are further objected as they are directly or indirectly dependent on claim 13.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are: “a mission control center capable of enrolling a plurality of ledger-capable nodes” (as if recites a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier) and “the mission control center is capable of publishing” of claim 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112b
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 13-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 13 element “a mission control center capable of enrolling a plurality of ledger-capable nodes” and claim 16 element “the mission control center is capable of publishing” are limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The written description only implicitly or inherently sets forth the corresponding structure, material, or acts that perform the claimed function.
Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181, applicant should:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts that perform the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) State on the record what corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function.
Claims 14-24 do not cure the deficiencies of claim 13 and are rejected under 35 USC 112b, for their dependencies upon claim 13.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the allowance:
The prior arts on record:
Michaels (US 20240113902 A1) teaches a distributed ledger-based system, method and apparatus for managing tasks. An authorization record proposal is validated by a localized blockchain authorization network against a validated schema published by, in some cases, a core blockchain network. Once validated, it is published on a localized channel for use by other nodes to validate actions of the task as the task is being performed. Data relating to completed tasks may be shared in accordance with sharing information in the validated authorization record and the data may be deleted upon the occurrence of a predetermined condition.
Yan (CN 115129785 A- English translated copy and original is attached)) teaches a method and a device for maintaining block chain data, an electronic device and a storage medium, applied to node device deployed with block chain node and the first trusted execution environment, node device maintains block chain non-relation type database and block chain relation type database, block chain non-relation type database is used for maintaining the ciphertext data, the ciphertext data is obtained by encrypting the block chain data generated when the block chain node operates the block chain service in the second trusted execution environment through the first key corresponding to the second trusted execution environment; The method comprises: under the condition that the block chain node corresponding to the first trusted execution environment remote certification verification, obtaining the ciphertext data maintained in the block chain non-relation type database; in the first trusted execution environment, decrypting the ciphertext data, converting and encrypting the ciphertext standard data; the cryptograph standard data is maintained in the block chain relation type database, block chain relation type database is used for providing data analysis service to the analysis demand party.
Salvarani (US 20100318788 A1) teaches a method of managing secure communications between nodes includes receiving a public key of a node associated with a certification authority. A root node certificate is provided to the node responsive to the received public key. The root node certificate indicates that the received public key belongs to the node. A root self-signed certificate corresponding to a public key of the certification authority is also provided to the node.
Chow (US 20190081796 A1) discloses processes that manage a cryptographically secure generation and exchange of data between network-connected systems operating within a computing environment using a permissioned distributed ledger. For example, and based on secure interaction with a distributed smart contract maintained within ledger blocks of the permissioned distributed ledger, an apparatus and a counterparty system may generate local symmetric encryption keys that facilitate a secure communication session between the apparatus and the counterparty system. Using the symmetric encryption key, the apparatus may generate a cryptographically secure representation of generated or obtained data, which may be transmitted to the counterparty system across the secure communications channel. In response to a verification of an integrity of the cryptographically secure representation, the counterparty system may perform operations that, in conjunction with corresponding node systems, record the cryptographically secure representation within a portion of the permissioned distributed ledger.
Reasons for allowance are as follows:
Regarding claim1, this claim is allowed as none of cited prior art teaches or suggests, alone or in combination, the particular combination of steps or elements as recited in the independent claims. Specifically, the cited prior art on record does not specifically disclose, teach or suggest as a whole the limitation “assigning the first ledger-capable node as a trust manager for a permissioned candidate channel of the distributed ledger network; enrolling, by the first ledger-capable node, the second ledger-capable node into the permissioned candidate channel to form a second trust relationship between the first ledger-capable node and the second ledger-capable node based on each node's membership in the permissioned candidate channel; establishing a third trust relationship between the first ledger-capable node and a first legacy node using public-key infrastructure; and establishing a fourth trust relationship between the second ledger-capable node and the first legacy node based on the second trust relationship between the first ledger-capable node and the first legacy node” in view of all the other limitations recited in the independent claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-12 are also allowed due to dependencies on claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHER KHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8574. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday-8:00am - 5:00pm (EST).If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eleni Shiferaw can be reached on 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 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.
/SHER A KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2497