DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the application filed on June 20, 2024 where Claims 1 – 20, of which Claims 1, 13, and 20 are in independent form, are presented for examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on June 20, 2024, September 5, 2024, and March 16, 2026 were filed before the mailing date of the current action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
101 Analysis
Claims 1, 13, and 20 are directed to verifying the digital identity of an entity using information within a blockchain associated with a digital certificate of the entity. While the receiving, extracting, and accessing of data are generally not statutory, the application of the blockchain to store a digital identity where the entity is authenticated when both the digital certificate and the digital identity are verified is an improvement in a particular technical field [See Specification, Para. 0002]. See MPEP 2106.5(a). Therefore, the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and satisfies Step 2A, Prong Two of the 2019 Revised 101 Patent Eligibility Guidelines as patent eligible subject matter.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 7 – 9, 13, 14, 16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PGPub . 2021/0028947 (hereinafter “Pan”), in view of PGPub. 2020/0137064 (hereinafter “Wu”).
1. Regarding Claims 1, 13, and 20, Pan discloses an apparatus [Fig. 10, 15], comprising:
one or more network interfaces [Fig. 2, 15; Para. 0175];
a processor coupled to the one or more network interfaces and configured to execute one or more processes [Fig. 10, 15; Para. 0173]; and
a memory configured to store a process that is executable by the processor [Fig. 10, 15; Para. 0174, 00178-179] (Claim 20), the process when executed (Claim 1) configured to:
receive a certificate of a remote entity over a computer network [Fig. 2; Para. 0053-54];
extract, from within the certificate,
obtain the digital identity
accept the certificate of the remote entity in response to both the certificate and the digital identity being verified by the process [Para. 0054, 0066; verification terminal can verify both the digital identity of the to-be-verified-terminal and the trusted state of the device based on the digital certificate including the trusted identifier].
Pan further discloses that the trusted identifier of an associated device indicates that the configuration of the device is trusted, which can comprise of validating a device measurement with a reference value [Fig. 4; Para. 0013, 0054]. Pan further discloses that the verification of the device measurement can be performed by the verification terminal [Figs. 6 and 7]. Pan, however, does not specifically disclose of extracting the digital identity from a storage location.
Wu discloses a system and method of registering a decentralized identifier with a blockchain [Abstract]. Wu further discloses that the decentralized identifier can be used to identity locations that store traceable data or verification data [Fig. 3; Para. 0059-63]. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Wu with Pan since both systems are within the field of device authentication using certificates. The combination would enable the Pan system to put the reference values for each device within an immutable blockchain, accessible via the trusted identifier, instead of within the certificate itself, where the reference values are obtained from the blockchain during authentication. The motivation to do so is provide improved security in which a certificate from a malicious device can be used to impersonate a trusted device, where the reference value of an untrusted device added to a hijacked certificate (obvious to one skilled in the art).
2. Regarding Claims 2 and 14, Pan, in view of Wu, discloses the limitations of Claims 1 and 13. Pan further discloses of verifying the certificate based on obtaining a complete certificate chain, verifying chain signatures, verifying chain date validity, and checking for chain revocation [Fig. 3; Para. 0060-62; validity period, revocation list, verify if issued by CA].
3. Regarding Claim 3, Pan, in view of Wu, discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Wu further discloses of verifying the digital identity of the remote entity based on verifying the digital identity, verifying that the digital identity matches the certificate, obtaining and verifying digital identity lineage, and verifying that chain identities match the digital identity lineage [Para. 0055, 0059, 0070, 0090].
4. Regarding Claims 4 and 16, Pan, in view of Wu, discloses the limitations of Claims 1 and 13. Wu further discloses that the storage location is immutable [Para. 0062].
5. Regarding Claims 7 and 19, Pan, in view of Wu, discloses the limitations of Claims 1 and 13. Pan further discloses that the digital identity is based on a public key infrastructure key pair, and wherein a public key of the digital identity is used as a certificate public key [Para. 0045, 0062].
6. Regarding Claim 8, Pan, in view of Wu, discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Pan further discloses that the digital identity is rotatable [Para. 0055].
7. Regarding Claim 9, Pan, in view of Wu, discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Pan further discloses the digital identity is historically traceable via lineages of the certificate and the digital identity, and wherein certificate verification is based on verification of the lineages of the certificate and the digital identity [Para. 0045, 0055, 0062; CA certificate signs digital certificate with trusted identifiers].
8. Regarding Claim 10, Pan, in view of Wu, discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Pan further discloses that the digital identity is self-describing, cryptographically provable, and independently verifiable [Para. 0055, 0059, 0070, 0090].
Claim(s) 5, 6, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan, in view of We, in further in view of PGPub. 2021/0194703 (hereinafter “Queralt”).
9. Regarding Claims 5 and 17, Pan, in view of Wu, discloses the limitations of Claims 1 and 13. Pan further discloses the use of a public key in the digital certificate [Para. 0038]. However, neither Pan nor Wu specifically discloses that the certificate is an x.509 certificate.
Queralt discloses a system and method of generating and managing digital certificates [Abstract]. Queralt further discloses that the certificates comply with the X.509 PKI standard [Para. 0014, 0126]. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the date of the current invention to incorporate the teachings of Queralt with Pan to provide standardized digital certificates. The motivation to do so is to utilize established certificate standards for wider acceptance in the industry (obvious to one skilled in the art).
10. Regarding Claims 6 and 18, Pan, in view of Wu and Queralt, discloses the limitations of Claims 5 and 17. Queralt further discloses that the storage location is extracted from a subject alternative name othername field of the x.509 certificate [Para. 0139-140; bind the user name (trusted identifier) in the subject alternative name field]. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the date of the current invention to incorporate the teachings of Queralt with Pan to provide standardized digital certificates. This would have been a designer’s choice as to which field to place the trusted identifier in the digital certificate [Queralt, Para. 0142].
Claim(s) 11 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan, in view of Wu, in further in view of PGPub. 2019/0356469 (hereinafter “Deshpande”)
11. Regarding Claim 11, Pan, in view of Wu, discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Wu further discloses that the digital identity is based on a lineage of child identities being spawned through forks, wherein parent identities are able to be irreversibly terminated [Para. 0055, 0059, 0070, 0090]. Neither Pan nor Wu, however, specifically discloses that the digital identity is based on a lineage of child identities being spawned through forks.
Deshpande discloses a system and method for managing blockchains [Abstract]. Deshpande further discloses that blockchains may fork child entities where a certain number of blocks are mined on top of the certain blocks to determine the correct chain in the blockchain [Para. 0039]. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the are before the effective filing date of the current invention to incorporate the teachings of Deshpande with Pan and Wu since the systems manage digital certificates. The combination enables the Pan system to utilize a particular protocol to prune possible forks in the blockchain to establish a single chain [Deshpande, Para. 0039].
12. Regarding Claim 12, Pan, in view of Wu, discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Neither Pan nor Wu, however, specifically discloses that the digital identity is associated with a sequence number within a lineage of digital identities, and wherein voiding of the digital identity results in revocation of one or more digital identities within the lineage having prior sequence numbers.
Deshpande discloses a system and method for managing blockchains [Abstract]. Deshpande further discloses that processing blockchain transactions utilize a sequence number for the transactions [Para. 0065]. Deshpande further discloses that blockchains may fork child entities where a certain number of blocks are mined on top of the certain blocks to determine the correct chain in the blockchain (voiding of the digital identity results in revocation of one or more digital identities within the lineage having prior sequence numbers) [Para. 0039]. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the are before the effective filing date of the current invention to incorporate the teachings of Deshpande with Pan and Wu since the systems manage digital certificates. The combination enables the Pan system to utilize a particular protocol to prune possible forks in the blockchain to establish a single chain [Deshpande, Para. 0039].
13. Regarding Claim 13, Pan, in view of Wu and Deshpande, discloses the limitations of Claim 12. Wu further discloses the verify the digital identity of the remote entity based on verifying the digital identity, verifying that the digital identity matches the certificate, obtaining and verifying digital identity lineage, and verifying that chain identities match the digital identity lineage [Para. 0055, 0059, 0070, 0090].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. PGPub. 2019/0158298; PGPub. 2018/0287800.
Contacts
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tae K. Kim, whose telephone number is (571) 270-1979. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday (10:00 AM - 6:30 PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Jorge Ortiz-Criado, can be reached on (571) 272-7624. The fax phone number for submitting all Official communications is (703) 872-9306. The fax phone number for submitting informal communications such as drafts, proposed amendments, etc., may be faxed directly to the examiner at (571) 270-2979.
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).
/TAE K KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2496
Prosecution Insights