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 .
Detailed action
Claims 1-20 are pending and being considered.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 15, 18 and 19 have been amended.
Response to Double Patenting
The claims amendments do not overcome the double patenting rejection. See the rejections below.
Response to 101
The claims amendments do not overcome the 101 rejections. See the rejections below.
Response to 102/103
Applicant’s argument filed on 01/27/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive but are moot in view of new grounds of rejections. The arguments do not apply to the current art being used.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 11611442. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The claims of later patent are effectively subset of the claims of earlier patent, a later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896,225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). “ELI LILLY AND COMPANY VBARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ONPETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12010246. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The claims of later patent are effectively subset of the claims of earlier patent, a later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896,225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). “ELI LILLY AND COMPANY VBARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ONPETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11882225. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The claims of later patent are effectively subset of the claims of earlier patent, a later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896,225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). “ELI LILLY AND COMPANY VBARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ONPETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
Instant application 18/738411
US Patent No. 11882225
15. At least one non-transitory storage medium comprising computer-readable instructions, such that, when executed, causes at least one processor to:
generate a private key for a group member of a group;
sign data with a group signature using the private key, the data comprising an indicator indicating that the data comprises sensitive information;
and anonymously send to a second system the data with the group signature, wherein the second system determines the group member of a sender of the data based on the group signature,
and in response to determining that application of a predetermined rule or parameter needs the sensitive information to be open, the second system opens the sensitive information by opening an identity of the sender, and in response to opening the identity of the sender, the second system accepts the data with the group signature, the predetermined rule or parameter comprising at least one of (i) limiting amount of the data with the group signature sent during a given time period or (ii) limiting the data with the group signature to be sent within a predetermined time period.
A non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing instructions that are executable by one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
receiving, from a sender, data comprising an indicator indicating that the data comprises feedback, the data signed with a group signature;
determining, a group membership of the sender of the data based on the group signature;
in response to determining that application of the predetermined rule or parameter requires the feedback to be open, opening the feedback by opening an identity of the sender;
and changing, based on the predetermined rule or parameter, the group membership of the sender.
1 A first system, comprising: at least one memory; at least one processor configured to:
generate a private key for a group member of a group;
sign data with a group signature using the private key, the data comprising an indicator indicating that the data comprises sensitive information;
and anonymously send to a second system the data with the group signature, wherein the second system determines the group member of a sender of the data based on the group signature,
and in response to determining that application of a predetermined rule or parameter needs the sensitive information to be open, the second system opens the sensitive information by opening an identity of the sender, and in response to opening the identity of the sender, the second system accepts the data with the group signature, the predetermined rule or parameter comprising at least one of (i) limiting amount of the data with the group signature sent during a given time period or (ii) limiting the data with the group signature to be sent within a predetermined time period.
6. An anonymous feedback system comprising: a sender; a recipient; a network interface circuit, having a processor, configured to:
receive, from the sender, data comprising an indicator indicating that the data comprises feedback, the data signed with a group signature;
and a membership circuit, having a second processor, configured to: determine a group membership of the sender of the data based on the group signature;
in response to determining that application of the predetermined rule or parameter requires the feedback to be open, open the feedback by opening an identity of the sender;
and change, based on the predetermined rule or parameter, the group membership of the sender.
8. A method, comprising
generating, by a first system, a private key for a group member of a group;
signing, by the first system, data with a group signature using the private key, the data comprising an indicator indicating that the data comprises sensitive information;
and anonymously sending, by the first system, to a second system the data with the group signature, wherein the second system determines the group member of a sender of the data based on the group signature,
and in response to determining that application of a predetermined rule or parameter needs the sensitive information to be open, the second system opens the sensitive information by opening an identity of the sender, and in response to opening the identity of the sender, the second system accepts the data with the group signature, the predetermined rule or parameter comprising at least one of (i) limiting amount of the data with the group signature sent during a given time period or (ii) limiting the data with the group signature to be sent within a predetermined time period.
13. A method, executing on an anonymous feedback system, the method comprising:
receiving, from a sender, data comprising an indicator indicating that the data comprises feedback, the data signed with a group signature;
determining, a group membership of the sender of the data based on the group signature;
in response to determining that application of the predetermined rule or parameter requires the feedback to be open, opening the feedback by opening an identity of the sender; and changing, based on the predetermined rule or parameter, the group membership of the sender.
All the limitations of the above claims are taught by US Patent No. 11882225 except for the underlined feature of the claims. The above underlined features of the claims are taught by EL KAAFARANI et al (US 20200349616) on [0035, 0062 and 0084-0085]. One would be motivated to do so in order to improve implementation of an anonymous reputation system for managing user submitted reviews such that where multiple reviews are submitted by the same user for the same item, the reviews are publicly linked identified based on signature generated using the signing key to indicate that the reviews originate from the same user (EL KAAFARANI on [0006-0010]).
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No.11265176. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The claims of later patent are effectively subset of the claims of earlier patent, a later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896,225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). “ELI LILLY AND COMPANY VBARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ONPETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
Instant application 18/738411
US Patent No. 11265176
15. At least one non-transitory storage medium comprising computer-readable instructions, such that, when executed, causes at least one processor to:
generate a private key for a group member of a group;
sign data with a group signature using the private key, the data comprising an indicator indicating that the data comprises sensitive information;
and anonymously send to a second system the data with the group signature, wherein the second system determines the group member of a sender of the data based on the group signature,
and in response to determining that application of a predetermined rule or parameter needs the sensitive information to be open,
the second system opens the sensitive information by opening an identity of the sender, and in response to opening the identity of the sender, the second system accepts the data with the group signature, the predetermined rule or parameter comprising at least one of (i) limiting amount of the data with the group signature sent during a given time period or (ii) limiting the data with the group signature to be sent within a predetermined time period.
16. A non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing instructions that are executable by one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
receiving, from a server, data comprising an indicator indicating that the data comprises feedback, the data signed with a group signature;
determining, using a membership circuit having a processor, a group membership of a sender of the data based on the group signature;
applying one of a predetermined rule or parameter to the data, by changing a feature of the data, based on the group membership; and accepting and transmitting, to a recipient, the feedback along with an indicator of the group membership of the sender based on applying the one of the predetermined rule or parameter; and responsive to an analysis of the feature of the data and of the group membership of the sender, determine whether changing the group membership of the sender is required.
18. The non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 17, wherein applying the one of the predetermined rule or parameter to the data based on the group membership requires opening, with the secret master key, the identity of the sender of the data.
1 A first system, comprising: at least one memory; at least one processor configured to:
generate a private key for a group member of a group;
sign data with a group signature using the private key, the data comprising an indicator indicating that the data comprises sensitive information;
and anonymously send to a second system the data with the group signature, wherein the second system determines the group member of a sender of the data based on the group signature,
and in response to determining that application of a predetermined rule or parameter needs the sensitive information to be open,
the second system opens the sensitive information by opening an identity of the sender, and in response to opening the identity of the sender, the second system accepts the data with the group signature, the predetermined rule or parameter comprising at least one of (i) limiting amount of the data with the group signature sent during a given time period or (ii) limiting the data with the group signature to be sent within a predetermined time period.
An anonymous feedback system comprising: a server; a recipient; a network interface circuit, having a processor, configured to:
receive, from the server, data comprising an indicator indicating that the data comprises feedback, the data signed with a group signature;
and a membership circuit, having a second processor, configured to: determine a group membership of a sender of the data based on the group membership signature;
apply one of the predetermined rule or parameter to the data, by changing a feature of the data, based on the group membership; accept and transmit, to the recipient, the feedback along with an indicator of the group membership of the sender based on applying the one of the predetermined rule or parameter; and responsive to an analysis of the feature of the data and of the group membership of the sender, determine whether changing the group membership of the sender is required.
2. The anonymous feedback system of claim 1, further comprising an opening circuit, having a third processor, configured to open, with a secret master key, an identity of the sender of the data.
8. A method, comprising
generating, by a first system, a private key for a group member of a group;
signing, by the first system, data with a group signature using the private key, the data comprising an indicator indicating that the data comprises sensitive information;
and anonymously sending, by the first system, to a second system the data with the group signature, wherein the second system determines the group member of a sender of the data based on the group signature,
and in response to determining that application of a predetermined rule or parameter needs the sensitive information to be open,
the second system opens the sensitive information by opening an identity of the sender, and in response to opening the identity of the sender, the second system accepts the data with the group signature, the predetermined rule or parameter comprising at least one of (i) limiting amount of the data with the group signature sent during a given time period or (ii) limiting the data with the group signature to be sent within a predetermined time period.
8. A method, executing on an anonymous feedback system, the method comprising:
receiving, from a server, data comprising an indicator indicating that the data comprises feedback, the data signed with a group signature;
determining, using a membership circuit having a processor, a group membership of a sender of the data based on the group signature;
applying one of a predetermined rule or parameter to the data, by changing a feature of the data, based on the group membership; accepting and transmitting, to a recipient, the feedback along with an indicator of the group membership of the sender based on applying the one of the predetermined rule or parameter; and responsive to an analysis of the feature of the data and of the group membership of the sender, determining whether changing the group membership of the sender is required.
10. The method of claim 8, further comprising opening, with a secret master key, an identity of the sender of the data.
All the limitations of the above claims are taught by US Patent No. 11882225 except for the underlined feature of the claims. The above underlined features of the claims are taught by EL KAAFARANI et al (US 20200349616) on [0035, 0062 and 0084-0085]. One would be motivated to do so in order to improve implementation of an anonymous reputation system for managing user submitted reviews such that where multiple reviews are submitted by the same user for the same item, the reviews are publicly linked identified based on signature generated using the signing key to indicate that the reviews originate from the same user (EL KAAFARANI on [006-0010]).
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.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites generating private key, signing data with group signature using the private key, anonymously sending the data with group signature and opening sensitive data based on rules or parameters.
The limitations generating private key, signing data with group signature using the private key, anonymously sending the data with group signature and opening sensitive data based on rules or parameters is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind mentally or physically nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind or using paper and pencil. Generating private key, signing data with group signature using the private key, anonymously sending the data with group signature and opening sensitive data based on rules or parameters as drafted is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites additional element such as memory and processor. These elements in the claim are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of devices to perform generating private key, signing data with group signature using the private key, anonymously sending the data with group signature and opening sensitive data based on rules or parameters, steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component see spec para of instant application [0057-0058]. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Further recited elements within dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 taken individually do not amount to “significantly more” than just the abstract idea as previously identified above. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the previously defined abstract idea. Some of the evidences of “significantly more” are a) improvement to another technology or field; b) applying judicial exception with or by a “particular machine’; c) transforming particular article/data into different state or thing; d) adding unconventional or non-routine steps, producing useful application; and e) other meaningful limitations beyond generic link to particular technological environment.
As a result, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Also Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360. Under Alice, that is not sufficient "to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." See Alice Corporation v. CLS Bank International, (S.Ct.2014) and Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC. (Fed.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EL KAAFARANI et al (US 20200349616) in view of PARK et al (hereinafter PARK) (US 20190052470).
Regarding claim 1, 8 and 15 EL KAAFARANI teaches a first system, comprising: (EL KAAFARANI on [0025] teaches a system);
at least one memory; (EL KAAFARANI on [0030] teaches a memory and processor);
at least one processor configured to: (EL KAAFARANI on [0030] teaches a memory and processor);
a method, comprising (EL KAAFARANI on [0007] a method for managing user-submitted reviews);
at least one non-transitory storage medium comprising computer-readable instructions, such that, when executed, causes at least one processor to: (EL KAAFARANI on [0030] teaches computer readable memory storing instructions executed by processor);
generate a private key for a group member of a group (EL KAAFARANI on [0062] teaches generating a signing key (i.e., private key in view of [0020] of instant application) for group members of group);
sign data with a group signature using the private key (EL KAAFARANI on [0062] teaches generating a signing key for group members for generating group signature. See on [0069] teaches sign data using signing key for group signature. See on [0033-0034] teaches generating a signature corresponding to the group signature scheme);
the data comprising an indicator indicating that the data comprises sensitive information (EL KAAFARANI on [0062] teaches generating a signing key for group members for generating group signature. See on [0084] teaches ciphertext attached to the signature comprises identity of the signer i.e., sensitive information);
and anonymously send to a second system the data with the group signature (EL KAAFARANI on [0085] teaches feeding the tags of the two signatures, to the Link.sub.LIT algorithm of the underlying LIT scheme with anonymous reputation systems);
wherein the second system determines the group member of a sender of the data based on the group signature (EL KAAFARANI on [0062, 0071 and 0085] teaches the group manager within the system can trace a signature and reveal which member has signed it);
and in response to determining that application of a predetermined rule or parameter needs the sensitive information to be open, the second system opens the sensitive information by opening an identity of the sender and in response to opening the identity of the sender, the second system accepts the data with the group signature (EL KAAFARANI on [0062] teaches the group manager can additionally trace a signature and reveal which member has signed it in case of misuse/abuse (i.e., misuse or abuse of reviews submitted by user requires revealing identity of user). See on [0084-0085] teaches regarding the verification, anyone can then check the validity of the signature (i.e., in response to determining that the validity of signature is needed which is equivalent to determining that application of a predetermined rule or parameter needs the sensitive information) by simply running the verify algorithm of the underlying NIZKAoK proof system. In any misuse/abuse situation, TM can simply decrypt the ciphertext attached to the signature to retrieve the identity of the signer. Further teaches we know that some user reviewed twice for the same item; the GM asks TM to trace those signatures and find out who generated them (i.e., predetermined rule or parameter that user submitted a review for item twice which will cause the TM to trace the user by opening its identity) and GM will then revoke the traced user from the system. See on [0035] teaches the anonymous reputation system ARS may be configured to detect occurrences of such multiple reviews and take suitable corrective action, such as revoking the user It1 from the group signature scheme or rejecting all but one of the multiple reviews submitted for the same item It1 by the same user U4 (i.e. rejecting all but one reviews equivalent to applying rule or parameter interpreted in view of [0029 and 0049] which states “example of a rule or parameter to be applied, there may be a rule limiting the quantity of feedback to be sent during a given time period” which in instant case the quantity of review is limited to one review per user));
the predetermined rule or parameter comprising at least one of (i) limiting amount of the data with the group signature sent EL KAAFARANI on [0035] teaches the anonymous reputation system ARS may be configured to detect occurrences of such multiple reviews and take suitable corrective action, such as revoking the user It1 from the group signature scheme or rejecting all but one of the multiple reviews submitted for the same item It1 by the same user U4 (i.e. rejecting all but one reviews equivalent to applying rule or parameter interpreted in view of [0029 and 0049] which states “example of a rule or parameter to be applied, there may be a rule limiting the quantity of feedback to be sent during a given time period” which in instant case the quantity of review is limited to one review per user)).
EL KAAFARANI fails to explicitly teach limiting amount of the data with the group signature sent during a given time period, however PARK from analogous art teaches
the predetermined rule or parameter comprising at least one of (i) limiting amount of the data with the group signature sent during a given time period or (ii) limiting the data with the group signature to be sent within a predetermined time period (PARK on [0257] teaches the group manager distributes 120 alias tokens for each signer. See on [0034 and 0195-0196] teaches within a time interval, the signer uses the same alias token to generate all the signatures (limited amount of signature within time period) and hence those signatures can be linked to the same signer. However, the signer utilizes different alias tokens in different time intervals, and thus non-linkability is preserved between different time intervals).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement the teaching of PARK into the teaching of EL KAAFARANI by limiting generation of signature within predetermined time period. One would be motivated to do so in order to trace and limit the linkable signature with respect to same signer (Park [0195-0196]).
Regarding claim 2, 9 and 16 the combination of EL KAAFARANI and Park teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 8 and 15 respectively, EL KAAFARANI further teaches wherein the data with the group signature comprises at least one feedback (EL KAAFARANI on [0034, 0040 and 0063] teaches a review of the item It1 when the user has joined the group signature scheme 6 associated with the item It1. The review may be implemented by the user generating a signature corresponding to the group signature scheme).
Regarding claim 3, 10 and 17 the combination of EL KAAFARANI and Park teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 8 and 15 respectively, EL KAAFARANI further teaches wherein the data with the group signature comprises at least one first feedback and second feedback, wherein the first feedback and the second feedback are signed by the sender with the private key, and wherein the first feedback and the second feedback comprise the group signature (EL KAAFARANI on [0034, 0040 and 0063] teaches a review of the item It1 when the user has joined the group signature scheme 6 associated with the item It1. The review may be implemented by the user generating a signature corresponding to the group signature scheme. Further teaches the anonymous reputation system ARS is configured so as to be publicly linkable. Public linkability requires that where multiple reviews 8A and 8B are submitted by the same user U4 for the same item It1 as depicted schematically in FIG. 10, the reviews are publicly linked to indicate that the reviews originate from the same user It1).
Regarding claim 4, 11 and 18 EL the combination of EL KAAFARANI and Park teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 8 and 15 respectively, PARK teaches limiting amount of the data with the group signature sent during a given time period (PARK on [0257] teaches the group manager distributes 120 alias tokens for each signer. See on [0034 and 0195-0196] teaches within a time interval, the signer uses the same alias token to generate all the signatures (limited amount of signature within time period) and hence those signatures can be linked to the same signer. However, the signer utilizes different alias tokens in different time intervals, and thus non-linkability is preserved between different time intervals).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement the teaching of PARK into the teaching of EL KAAFARANI by limiting generation of signature within predetermined time period. One would be motivated to do so in order to trace and limit the linkable signature with respect to same signer (Park [0195-0196]).
Regarding claim 5, 12 and 19 the combination of EL KAAFARANI and Park teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 8 and 15 respectively, PARK teaches limiting the data with the group signature to be sent within a predetermined time period (PARK on [0257] teaches the group manager distributes 120 alias tokens for each signer. See on [0034 and 0195-0196] teaches within a time interval, the signer uses the same alias token to generate all the signatures (limited amount of signature within time period) and hence those signatures can be linked to the same signer. However, the signer utilizes different alias tokens in different time intervals, and thus non-linkability is preserved between different time intervals).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement the teaching of PARK into the teaching of EL KAAFARANI by limiting generation of signature within predetermined time period. One would be motivated to do so in order to trace and limit the linkable signature with respect to same signer (Park [0195-0196]).
Regarding claim 6, 13 and 20 the combination of EL KAAFARANI and Park teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 8 and 15 respectively, EL KAAFARANI further teaches wherein at least one processor configured to join a new member to the group by deriving a respective private key for the new member (EL KAAFARANI on [0033] teaches the anonymous reputation system ARS allows a user (U1, U76, U5, U4, U38, U26) to join the group signature scheme 6 associated with a particular item It1 when the anonymous reputation system ARS receives information (e.g. from a vendor V, as depicted in FIG. 9) indicating that the user (U1, U76, U5, U4, U38, U26) has performed a predetermined operation associated with the item It1. See on [0062] teaches a group signature has a group manager who is responsible for generating the signing keys for the group members)
Regarding claim 7 and 14 the combination of EL KAAFARANI and Park teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 8 respectively, EL KAAFARANI further teaches wherein at least one processor configured to revoke an ability of a group member to sign using a private key of the group member that is associated with the group public key (EL KAAFARANI on [0029] teaches revoking a particular user from signing the item. See on [0035] teaches the anonymous reputation system ARS may be configured to detect occurrences of such multiple reviews and take suitable corrective action, such as revoking the user It1 from the group signature scheme or rejecting all but one of the multiple reviews submitted for the same item It1 by the same user U4. See on [0068] teaches on input of the group public key gpk, GM's secret key msk, a list R of active users' public keys to be revoked).
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 MOEEN KHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3522. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-5PM EST M-TH Alternate Fridays.
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, Shewaye Gelagay can be reached at (571)272-4219. 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.
/MOEEN KHAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2436