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
Office Action is in response to the reply filed by Applicant on 12/5/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending. This Office Action is Final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding Claim 1 and the 35 USC 101 rejection for being an Abstract idea has been considered and deemed not persuasive. Applicant’s limitations recite steps that can still be performed in the mind. For example, a human can generate a hash, determine a message size of a hashing domain, generate another hash using a previous hash and message size, where this result is put into a message and provided to a system. Further the steps above can be implemented by a generic computer component. Lastly, there is no practical application of the limitations. The limitations essentially take hash data and creates a message output including the hash to be presented, but the presented output is not applied. As a result, the 35 USC 101 rejection for Abstract Idea stands.
Applicant’s arguments regarding Claim 9 and the 35 USC 101 rejection for being an Abstract idea has been considered and deemed not persuasive. Applicant’s limitations recite steps that can still be performed in the mind. For example, a human can select a hash function to use, generate a hash, determine a message size of a hashing domain, generate another hash using a previous hash and message size, where this result is put into a message and transmit it to a system. Further the steps above can be implemented by a generic computer component. Lastly, there is no practical application of the limitations. The limitations essentially take hash data and creates a message output including the hash to be presented, but the presented output is not applied. As a result, the 35 USC 101 rejection for Abstract Idea stands.
Applicant’s arguments regarding Claim 9 and the 35 USC 101 rejection for being an Abstract idea has been considered and deemed not persuasive. Applicant’s limitations recite steps that can still be performed in the mind. For example, a human can select a hash function to use, generate a hash, determine a message size of a hashing domain, generate another hash using a previous hash and message size, where this result is put into a message and transmit it to a system. Further the steps above can be implemented by a generic computer component. Lastly, there is no practical application of the limitations. The limitations essentially take hash data and creates a message output including the hash to be presented, but the presented output is not applied. As a result, the 35 USC 101 rejection for Abstract Idea stands.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments regarding Claim 15 and the 35 USC 101 rejection for being an Abstract idea has been considered and deemed not persuasive. Applicant’s limitations recite steps that can still be performed in the mind. For example, a human can receive a message update a count on a matrix, determine an output of a hash function to use, determine an output value, predict a value and perform an action in response. Further the steps above can be implemented by a generic computer component. Lastly, there is no practical application of the limitations. The limitations essentially take hash data and then perform an action, but broadly interpreted any action, including a mental action, would make this a mental process with no practical application. As a result, the 35 USC 101 rejection for Abstract Idea stands.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments regarding claim 9’s 35 USC 101 rejection for a transitory media have been considered and deemed persuasive. These rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant argues that Takada fails to disclose, teach or even suggest in combination "accessing a message size that is a smaller value than a domain size of the hashing domain; [and] generating, using the hash function and the message size, one or more noise values," as recited in claim 1. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner submits that Takada teaches the above limitations. Applicant is arguing that there is a lack of accessing the message size that is smaller is absent, and that Takada’s adjustment to fit 512 bits is not sufficient. Examiner’s interpretation based on how the limitations have been written is just what is explained by the Applicant’s arguments. Takada recognizes that padding it needed, because the message is not 512 bits. Therefore, Takada recognizes that a message size in smaller. Next, Takada performs a padding function so the message fits 512 bits. It is known to one of ordinary skill in the art, that padding is excess data and it’s interpreted that this padding/excess data would be the noise recited in the limitations. As a result, Takada teaches the limitations argued above and Applicant’s arguments are deemed as not persuasive.
Applicant further argues that the Examiner relied on inherency in the rejection. That is not the case in this instance, and Examiner never explicitly recited any reliance on inherency. Examiner laid out the interpretation of the rejection above, without the use of inherency. As a result, this argument by Applicant regarding inherency is deemed as moot.
Applicant argues that Yoo fails to disclose, teach or even suggest in combination " generating, using the output value, a message that includes an identifier for the hash function,” as recited in claim 1. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner submits that Yoo teaches the above limitation. Both Yoo and the limitation explicitly recite an identifier for use by the hash function. As a result, Yoo teaches the limitations argued above and Applicant’s arguments are deemed as not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U. S. C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter as being directed to an abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application or significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea as reciting the limitations “generating,…, an output value,” “accessing a message size,” “generating,…, noise values,” “ generating a message” and “providing, …, the message” The aforementioned steps are “mental process/mathematical calculation” as broadly interpreted said steps could be performed in the human mind. Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Said abstract idea and/or judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as the claim does not recite any other active steps that utilize determination result into a practical application. It’s noted that the claims recite additional elements (i.e., processor/memory, computing system). However, said additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of generating, accessing or providing operation etc.,) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception or abstract idea 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 claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As mentioned above, although the claims recite additional elements, said elements taken individually or as a combination, do not result in the claim amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea because as the additional elements perform generic computer content distributing functions routinely used in information technology field. See US Applications 2013/0254535, 2015/0156194 and 2011/0154027. As discussed above, the additional elements recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, the claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 2-8; the dependent claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter for the same reasons addressed above as the claims recite an abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application or significantly more.
Regarding claim 9, the claim is directed to an abstract idea as reciting the limitations “selecting, ,.., a hash function,” “generating,…, an output value,” “ generating a message” and “providing, …, the message” The aforementioned steps are “mental process/mathematical calculation” as broadly interpreted said steps could be performed in the human mind. Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Said abstract idea and/or judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as the claim does not recite any other active steps that utilize determination result into a practical application. It’s noted that the claims recite additional elements (i.e., processor/memory, computing system). However, said additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of selecting, generating or providing operation etc.,) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception or abstract idea 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 claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As mentioned above, although the claims recite additional elements, said elements taken individually or as a combination, do not result in the claim amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea because as the additional elements perform generic computer content distributing functions routinely used in information technology field. See US Applications 2013/0254535, 2015/0156194 and 2011/0154027. As discussed above, the additional elements recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, the claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 10-14; the dependent claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter for the same reasons addressed above as the claims recite an abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application or significantly more.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is directed to an abstract idea as reciting the limitations “receiving, …, a message,” “updating, …, a count,” “determining, …, an output value,” “determining, …, an output value, ” “predicting a quantity,” and “performing and action” The aforementioned steps are “mental process/mathematical calculation” as broadly interpreted said steps could be performed in the human mind. Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Said abstract idea and/or judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as the claim does not recite any other active steps that utilize determination result into a practical application. It’s noted that the claims recite additional elements (i.e., processor/memory, computing system). However, said additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of determining, predicting or providing etc.,) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception or abstract idea 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 claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As mentioned above, although the claims recite additional elements, said elements taken individually or as a combination, do not result in the claim amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea because as the additional elements perform generic computer content distributing functions routinely used in information technology field. See US Applications 2013/0254535, 2015/0156194 and 2011/0154027. As discussed above, the additional elements recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, the claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 16-20; the dependent claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter for the same reasons addressed above as the claims recite an abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application or significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zakharov et al. (US 2020/0068013) in view of Takada et al. (US 2017/0302693).
As per claim 1, Zakharov teaches computer-implemented method comprising: generating, using a hash function, an output value that is in a hashing domain for the hash function (Zakharov, Paragraph 0095 recites “The secure hash function can receive an input, such an input including transaction data, and generate a corresponding fixed-size output hash value.”).
But fails to teach accessing a message size that is a smaller value than a domain size of the hashing domain; generating, using the hash function and the message size, one or more noise values; generating a message that includes the one or more noise values; and providing, to an external system, the message.
However, in an analogous art Takada teaches accessing a message size that is a smaller value than a domain size of the hashing domain; generating, using the hash function and the message size, one or more noise values; generating a message that includes the one or more noise values (Takada, Paragraph 0066 recites “When the hash function of SHA-1 is used, the hash value calculating unit 24 first performs a padding process. In the padding process, the hash value calculating unit 24 adjusts a size of information serving as a processing target to be an integral multiple of a predetermined value (512 bits) by adding excess data behind input information. Then, the hash value calculating unit 24 performs a first process of dividing the information that has undergone the padding process into blocks in units of 512 bits and calculating 80 values for each block.”);
and providing, to an external system, the message (Takada, Paragraph 0090 recites “The processing unit 21 transmits the hash value calculated by the hash value calculating unit 24 to the rewrite detecting device 5 through the communication unit 23 (step S26), and ends the processing.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to use Takada’s rewrite detection system and information processing device with Zakharov’s Decentralized Network For Secure Distribution Of Digital Documents because it offers the advantage of padding data to ensure hash size.
As per claim 3, Zakharov in combination with Takada teaches the method of claim 1, Takada further teaches determining whether to include the output value in the message, wherein generating the message uses a result of the determination whether to include the output value in the message (Takada, Paragraph 0066 recites “When the hash function of SHA-1 is used, the hash value calculating unit 24 first performs a padding process. In the padding process, the hash value calculating unit 24 adjusts a size of information serving as a processing target to be an integral multiple of a predetermined value (512 bits) by adding excess data behind input information. Then, the hash value calculating unit 24 performs a first process of dividing the information that has undergone the padding process into blocks in units of 512 bits and calculating 80 values for each block.” The claim is being interpreted to needing extra values to fit a size of a hash. Takada is teaching a method of padding that will ensure that the size of the hash is maintained.).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to use Takada’s rewrite detection system and information processing device with Zakharov’s Decentralized Network For Secure Distribution Of Digital Documents because it offers the advantage of padding data to ensure hash size.
As per claim 4, Zakharov in combination with Takada teaches the method of claim 3, Takada further teaches determining not to include the output value in the message; and in response to determining not to include the output value in the message: generating a quantity of noise values that is the message size; and generating the message that includes the noise values without the output value.
(Takada, Paragraph 0066 recites “When the hash function of SHA-1 is used, the hash value calculating unit 24 first performs a padding process. In the padding process, the hash value calculating unit 24 adjusts a size of information serving as a processing target to be an integral multiple of a predetermined value (512 bits) by adding excess data behind input information. Then, the hash value calculating unit 24 performs a first process of dividing the information that has undergone the padding process into blocks in units of 512 bits and calculating 80 values for each block.” The claim is being interpreted to needing extra values to fit a size of a hash. Takada is teaching a method of padding that will ensure that the size of the hash is maintained.).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to use Takada’s rewrite detection system and information processing device with Zakharov’s Decentralized Network For Secure Distribution Of Digital Documents because it offers the advantage of padding data to ensure hash size.
As per claim 5, Zakharov in combination with Takada teaches the method of claim 3, Takada further teaches determining to include the output value in the message; and in response to determining to include the output value in the message: generating a quantity of noise values that is one fewer than the message size; and generating the message that includes the noise values and the output value (Takada, Paragraph 0066 recites “When the hash function of SHA-1 is used, the hash value calculating unit 24 first performs a padding process. In the padding process, the hash value calculating unit 24 adjusts a size of information serving as a processing target to be an integral multiple of a predetermined value (512 bits) by adding excess data behind input information. Then, the hash value calculating unit 24 performs a first process of dividing the information that has undergone the padding process into blocks in units of 512 bits and calculating 80 values for each block.” The claim is being interpreted to needing extra values to fit a size of a hash. Takada is teaching a method of padding that will ensure that the size of the hash is maintained.).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to use Takada’s rewrite detection system and information processing device with Zakharov’s Decentralized Network For Secure Distribution Of Digital Documents because it offers the advantage of padding data to ensure hash size.
As per claim 6, Zakharov in combination with Takada teaches the method of claim 1, Takada further teaches wherein accessing the message size comprises computing the message size (Zakharov, Paragraph 0095 recites “The secure hash function can receive an input, such an input including transaction data, and generate a corresponding fixed-size output hash value.”).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zakharov et al. (US 2020/0068013) and Takada et al. (US 2017/0302693) and in further view of Yoo et al. (US 2022/0108040).
As per claim 2, Zakharov in combination with Takada teaches he method of claim 1, Zakharov further teaches comprising selecting, from two or more hash functions at least some of which have different collisions, the hash function for generating the output value (Zakharov, Paragraph 0096 recites “The hash function can be selected to be secure; in this context, a secure hash function is a function that is difficult to invert, and to have a large enough range of output hash values to make collisions, or two different inputs with the same output hash values, unlikely.”).
But fails to teach wherein generating the message comprises generating the message that includes the one or more noise values and an identifier for the hash function.
However, in an analogous art Yoo teaches wherein generating the message comprises generating the message that includes the one or more noise values and an identifier for the hash function (Yoo, Paragraph 203 recites “Meanwhile, by comparing the first hash value with a hash value calculated by applying the time data of a time point, the control command information, and the identifier to the hash function, the virtual code verification device 200 may verify whether the virtual code corresponds to a virtual code generated at the current time point when a virtual code is generated further on the basis of the time data described above.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to use Yoo’s method, program, and device for authenticating user setting information by using virtual code with Zakharov’s Decentralized Network For Secure Distribution Of Digital Documents because it offers the advantage of being able to identify the proper hash function.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zakharov et al. (US 2020/0068013) and Takada et al. (US 2017/0302693) and in further view of Hamada et al (US 2024/0214212).
As per claim 7, Zakharov in combination with Takada teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein: the output value and the one or more noise values each comprise an index for the hash function in the hashing domain, the method comprising: randomly permuting locations of two or more values in the message before providing the message to the external system.
However, in an analogous art Hamada teaches wherein: the output value and the one or more noise values each comprise an index for the hash function in the hashing domain, the method comprising: randomly permuting locations of two or more values in the message before providing the message to the external system (Hamada, Paragraph 0030 recites “That is, the first expression of (2) indicates that the dummy ID is joined with the vector b having the ID of the user B as an element, and then the random permutation is performed and the hash value is calculated. Similarly, the second expression indicates that a hash value of the dummy ID is joined with the vector a.sub.A having the hash value of the ID of the user A as an element, and then the random permutation is performed and the hash value is calculated.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to use Hamada’s secure consolidation system, information processing apparatus, secure consolidation method, and program with Zakharov’s Decentralized Network For Secure Distribution Of Digital Documents because it offers the advantage of randomizing data to make data more secure.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zakharov et al. (US 2020/0068013) and Takada et al. (US 2017/0302693) and in further view of Kennedy et al. (US 10,693,651).
As per claim 8, Zakharov in combination with Takada teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein providing the message to the external system comprises: encrypting the message; and providing the encrypted message to the external system.
However, in an analogous art Kennedy teaches wherein providing the message to the external system comprises: encrypting the message; and providing the encrypted message to the external system (Kennedy, Col. 2 Lines 11-42 recites “The disclosure presented herein relates to a biometric authorization system, comprising: one or more databases coupled via a network, one or more processors coupled to the one or more databases; and at least one computing device coupled to the one or more processors and the one or more databases via the network; wherein the one or more processors are configured to, extract one or more features of a biometric sample corresponding to a body of a user, encode the features of the biometric sample as a biometric hash string, convert biometric hash string into an alpha numeric device, wherein the alpha numeric device is configured to act as an authorization code for an identity by an institution, encrypt the biometric hash string, store the encrypted biometric hash strings into batches corresponding to each identified connection, decrypt the biometric hash string before conversion into the alpha numeric device, encrypting the alpha numeric device, store the encrypted alpha numeric devices into batches corresponding to each identified connection, store the received encrypted alpha numeric device into a batch corresponding with an identified connection, decrypt the alpha numeric device, generate a packet configured for transmission to at least one institution, the packet comprising the alpha numeric device, wherein the packet further comprises one or more tags, wherein the tags have a timestamp of the time of creation of the biological sample corresponding to the user, verify the biometric hash string are within a predetermined threshold of a previously inputted biometric hash string, wherein the previously inputted biometric hash string equated with the identity of the user, validate said accessing of the identity by the user and to present confirmation through a display of the one or more computing devices.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to use Kennedy’s System And Method For Authentication Using Biometric Hash Strings with Zakharov’s Decentralized Network For Secure Distribution Of Digital Documents because it offers the advantage of using encryption as another layer of security for the data.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zakharov et al. (US 2020/0068013) and Yoo et al. (US 2022/0108040).
As per claim 9, Zakharov teaches one or more non-transitory computer storage device encoded with instructions that, when executed by one or more computers, cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising: selecting, from two or more hash functions at least some of which have different collisions, a hash function (Zakharov, Paragraph 0096 recites “The hash function can be selected to be secure; in this context, a secure hash function is a function that is difficult to invert, and to have a large enough range of output hash values to make collisions, or two different inputs with the same output hash values, unlikely.”);
generating, using the hash function, an output value that is in a hashing domain for the hash function (Zakharov, Paragraph 0095 recites “The secure hash function can receive an input, such an input including transaction data, and generate a corresponding fixed-size output hash value.”).
But fails to teach generating, using the output value, a message that includes an identifier for the hash function; and transmitting, to an external system, the message.
However, in an analogous art Yoo teaches generating, using the output value, a message that includes an identifier for the hash function; and transmitting, to an external system, the message (Yoo, Paragraph 203 recites “Meanwhile, by comparing the first hash value with a hash value calculated by applying the time data of a time point, the control command information, and the identifier to the hash function, the virtual code verification device 200 may verify whether the virtual code corresponds to a virtual code generated at the current time point when a virtual code is generated further on the basis of the time data described above.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to use Yoo’s method, program, and device for authenticating user setting information by using virtual code with Zakharov’s Decentralized Network For Secure Distribution Of Digital Documents because it offers the advantage of being able to identify the proper hash function.
Claim(s) 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zakharov et al. (US 2020/0068013) and Yoo et al. (US 2022/0108040) and in further view of Takada et al. (US 2017/0302693).
As per claim 10, Zakharov in combination with Yoo teaches the computer storage device of claim 9, but fails to teach wherein generating the message comprises: determining whether to include the output value in the message; and generating the message using a result of the determination whether to include the output value in the message.
However, in an analogous art Takada teaches wherein generating the message comprises: determining whether to include the output value in the message; and generating the message using a result of the determination whether to include the output value in the message (Takada, Paragraph 0066 recites “When the hash function of SHA-1 is used, the hash value calculating unit 24 first performs a padding process. In the padding process, the hash value calculating unit 24 adjusts a size of information serving as a processing target to be an integral multiple of a predetermined value (512 bits) by adding excess data behind input information. Then, the hash value calculating unit 24 performs a first process of dividing the information that has undergone the padding process into blocks in units of 512 bits and calculating 80 values for each block.” The claim is being interpreted to needing extra values to fit a size of a hash. Takada is teaching a method of padding that will ensure that the size of the hash is maintained.).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to use Takada’s rewrite detection system and information processing device with Zakharov’s Decentralized Network For Secure Distribution Of Digital Documents because it offers the advantage of padding data to ensure hash size.
As per claim 11, Zakharov in combination with Yoo and Takada teaches the computer storage device of claim 10, Takada further teaches the operations comprising: determining not to include the output value in the message; and in response to determining not to include the output value in the message: generating a quantity of noise values that is the message size; and generating the message that includes the noise values without the output value (Takada, Paragraph 0066 recites “When the hash function of SHA-1 is used, the hash value calculating unit 24 first performs a padding process. In the padding process, the hash value calculating unit 24 adjusts a size of information serving as a processing target to be an integral multiple of a predetermined value (512 bits) by adding excess data behind input information. Then, the hash value calculating unit 24 performs a first process of dividing the information that has undergone the padding process into blocks in units of 512 bits and calculating 80 values for each block.” The claim is being interpreted to needing extra values to fit a size of a hash. Takada is teaching a method of padding that will ensure that the size of the hash is maintained.).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to use Takada’s rewrite detection system and information processing device with Zakharov’s Decentralized Network For Secure Distribution Of Digital Documents because it offers the advantage of padding data to ensure hash size.
As per claim 12, Zakharov in combination with Yoo and Takada teaches the computer storage device of claim 10, Takada further teaches the operations comprising: determining to include the output value in the message; and in response to determining to include the output value in the message: generating a quantity of noise values that is one fewer than the message size; and generating the message that includes the noise values and the output value (Takada, Paragraph 0066 recites “When the hash function of SHA-1 is used, the hash value calculating unit 24 first performs a padding process. In the padding process, the hash value calculating unit 24 adjusts a size of information serving as a processing target to be an integral multiple of a predetermined value (512 bits) by adding excess data behind input information. Then, the hash value calculating unit 24 performs a first process of dividing the information that has undergone the padding process into blocks in units of 512 bits and calculating 80 values for each block.” The claim is being interpreted to needing extra values to fit a size of a hash. Takada is teaching a method of padding that will ensure that the size of the hash is maintained.).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to use Takada’s rewrite detection system and information processing device with Zakharov’s Decentralized Network For Secure Distribution Of Digital Documents because it offers the advantage of padding data to ensure hash size.
As per claim 13, Zakharov in combination with Yoo teaches the computer storage device of claim 9, but fails to teach accessing a message size that is less than a size of the hashing domain; and generating, using the hash function and the message size, one or more noise values, wherein generating the message comprises generating the message that includes the one or more noise values and the identifier for the hash function.
However, in an analogous art Takada teaches accessing a message size that is less than a size of the hashing domain; and generating, using the hash function and the message size, one or more noise values, wherein generating the message comprises generating the message that includes the one or more noise values and the identifier for the hash function (Takada, Paragraph 0066 recites “When the hash function of SHA-1 is used, the hash value calculating unit 24 first performs a padding process. In the padding process, the hash value calculating unit 24 adjusts a size of information serving as a processing target to be an integral multiple of a predetermined value (512 bits) by adding excess data behind input information. Then, the hash value calculating unit 24 performs a first process of dividing the information that has undergone the padding process into blocks in units of 512 bits and calculating 80 values for each block.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to use Takada’s rewrite detection system and information processing device with Zakharov’s Decentralized Network For Secure Distribution Of Digital Documents because it offers the advantage of padding data to ensure hash size.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zakharov et al. (US 2020/0068013), Yoo et al. (US 2022/0108040) and Takada et al. (US 2017/0302693) and in further view of Kennedy et al. (US 10,693,651).
As per claim 14, Zakharov in combination with Yoo and Takada teaches the computer storage device of claim 13, but fails to teach wherein: the output value and the one or more noise values each comprise an index for the hash function in the hashing domain, the operations comprising: randomly permuting locations of two or more values in the message before providing the message to the external system.
However, in an analogous art Kennedy teaches wherein: the output value and the one or more noise values each comprise an index for the hash function in the hashing domain, the operations comprising: randomly permuting locations of two or more values in the message before providing the message to the external system
(Kennedy, Col. 2 Lines 11-42 recites “The disclosure presented herein relates to a biometric authorization system, comprising: one or more databases coupled via a network, one or more processors coupled to the one or more databases; and at least one computing device coupled to the one or more processors and the one or more databases via the network; wherein the one or more processors are configured to, extract one or more features of a biometric sample corresponding to a body of a user, encode the features of the biometric sample as a biometric hash string, convert biometric hash string into an alpha numeric device, wherein the alpha numeric device is configured to act as an authorization code for an identity by an institution, encrypt the biometric hash string, store the encrypted biometric hash strings into batches corresponding to each identified connection, decrypt the biometric hash string before conversion into the alpha numeric device, encrypting the alpha numeric device, store the encrypted alpha numeric devices into batches corresponding to each identified connection, store the received encrypted alpha numeric device into a batch corresponding with an identified connection, decrypt the alpha numeric device, generate a packet configured for transmission to at least one institution, the packet comprising the alpha numeric device, wherein the packet further comprises one or more tags, wherein the tags have a timestamp of the time of creation of the biological sample corresponding to the user, verify the biometric hash string are within a predetermined threshold of a previously inputted biometric hash string, wherein the previously inputted biometric hash string equated with the identity of the user, validate said accessing of the identity by the user and to present confirmation through a display of the one or more computing devices.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to use Kennedy’s System And Method For Authentication Using Biometric Hash Strings with Zakharov’s Decentralized Network For Secure Distribution Of Digital Documents because it offers the advantage of using encryption as another layer of security for the data.
Claim(s) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada et al. (US 2017/0302693) in view of Gharibi et al. (US 2023/0300115).
As per claim 15, Takada teaches a system comprising one or more computers and one or more storage devices on which are stored instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more computers (Takada, Paragraph 0052 recites “The processing unit 51 is configured using an arithmetic processing device such as a CPU. The processing unit 51 performs the fraudulent rewrite detection processing on the program or the data of the ECU 2 mounted in the vehicle 1 by reading and executing the program stored in the storage unit 52. The storage unit 52 is configured with a non-volatile memory device such as a flash memory and stores the program executed by the processing unit 51 and various data necessary for execution of the program. The rewrite detecting device 5 may store temporary information generated in the process of the processing unit 51 in the storage unit 52 and may include a random access memory (RAM) that stores the temporary information.”),
to cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising: determining, using a first value as input to a hash function, an output value; determining, using the output value as an index for a matrix that maintains anonymized data from messages received from a plurality of devices, a total count of the output value; predicting a quantity of times the first value was a cause of a message received from one of the plurality of devices using the total count of the output value, a size of a hashing domain for the hash function, and a probability that a device from the plurality of devices included the output value in a corresponding message (Takada, Paragraph 0066 recites “When the hash function of SHA-1 is used, the hash value calculating unit 24 first performs a padding process. In the padding process, the hash value calculating unit 24 adjusts a size of information serving as a processing target to be an integral multiple of a predetermined value (512 bits) by adding excess data behind input information. Then, the hash value calculating unit 24 performs a first process of dividing the information that has undergone the padding process into blocks in units of 512 bits and calculating 80 values for each block.” The claim is being interpreted to needing extra values to fit a size of a hash. Takada is teaching a method of padding that will ensure that the size of the hash is maintained.);
and performing an action using the predicted quantity of times the first value was the cause of a message received from one of the plurality of devices (Takada, Paragraph 0090 recites “The processing unit 21 transmits the hash value calculated by the hash value calculating unit 24 to the rewrite detecting device 5 through the communication unit 23 (step S26), and ends the processing.”).
But fails to teach receiving, from each of a plurality of devices separate from the system, a respective message that includes a value; updating, in a matrix that maintains anonymized data from messages received from the plurality of devices and for each message received from one of the plurality of devices, a count at a location in the matrix identified by the value from the respective message.
However, in an analogous art Gharibi teaches receiving, from each of a plurality of devices separate from the system, a respective message that includes a value; updating, in a matrix that maintains anonymized data from messages received from the plurality of devices and for each message received from one of the plurality of devices, a count at a location in the matrix identified by the value from the respective message (Gharibi, Paragraph 0159 recites “In another aspect a system can be provided which may correspond to the server device 1402. The system 1402 can include a processor and a computer-readable storage device storing instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations. The operations can include one or more of initiating an item-vector matrix V, wherein the item-vector matrix V comprises a value m related to a total number of items across one or more client devices and a value d representing a hidden dimension, transmitting the item-vector matrix V to each client device of a set of client devices, wherein each client device trains a local matrix factorization model using a respective user vector U and the item-vector matrix V to generate a respective set of gradients on each respective client device, receiving, via a secure multi-party compute protocol, and from each client device of the set of client devices, the respective set of gradients, updating the item-vector matrix V using the respective set of gradients from each client device to generate an updated item-vector matrix V and downloading the updated item-vector matrix V to at least one client device of the set of client devices.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to use Gharibi’s Systems and methods for privacy preserving training and inference of decentralized recommendation systems from decentralized data with Takada’s rewrite detection system and information processing device because it offers the advantage of training recommendation systems from distributed data without harming the user’s privacy.
As per claim 16, Takada in combination with Gharibi teaches the system of claim 15, Takada further teaches wherein predicting the quantity of times the first value was the cause of a message received from one of the plurality of devices uses the total count of the output value, the size of the hashing domain for the hash function, the probability that a device from the plurality of devices included the output value in a corresponding message, and a value based on a differential privacy parameter (Takada, Paragraph 0066 recites “When the hash function of SHA-1 is used, the hash value calculating unit 24 first performs a padding process. In the padding process, the hash value calculating unit 24 adjusts a size of information serving as a processing target to be an integral multiple of a predetermined value (512 bits) by adding excess data behind input information. Then, the hash value calculating unit 24 performs a first process of dividing the information that has undergone the padding process into blocks in units of 512 bits and calculating 80 values for each block.” The claim is being interpreted to needing extra values to fit a size of a hash. Takada is teaching a method of padding that will ensure that the size of the hash is maintained.).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada et al. (US 2017/0302693) and Gharibi et al. (US 2023/0300115) and in further view of Zakharov et al. (US 2020/0068013).
As per claim 17, Takada in combination with Gharibi the system of claim 16, but fails to teach the operations comprising: generating, by a client device in the system and using the hash function, a device output value that is in the hashing domain for the hash function; accessing, by the client device, a message size that is a smaller value than a size of the hashing domain for the hash function and is based on the differential privacy parameter; generating, by the client device and using the hash function and the message size, one or more noise values; generating, by the client device, a message that includes the one or more noise values; and storing, by one or more second computers separate from the client device, data from the message in the matrix.
However, in analogous art Zakharov teaches generating, by a client device in the system and using the hash function, a device output value that is in the hashing domain for the hash function; accessing, by the client device, a message size that is a smaller value than a size of the hashing domain for the hash function and is based on the differential privacy parameter; generating, by the client device and using the hash function and the message size, one or more noise values; generating, by the client device, a message that includes the one or more noise values (Zakharov, Paragraph 0095 recites “The secure hash function can receive an input, such an input including transaction data, and generate a corresponding fixed-size output hash value.”);
and storing, by one or more second computers separate from the client device, data from the message in the matrix (Zakharov, Paragraph 0094 recites “A block hash item, as illustrated by block hash items 614b, 624b, 634b, can store a block hash value for transaction data stored in transaction data items of a corresponding block. A hash value in distributed storage system 600; e.g., a parent hash value stored in a parent hash item, a block hash value stored in a block hash item, can be calculated using a hash function.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to use Zakharov’s Decentralized Network For Secure Distribution Of Digital Documents with Takada’s rewrite detection system and information processing device because it offers the advantage of maintaining fixed hash size to prevent other hashes to not be compatible.
Claim(s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada et al. (US 2017/0302693), Gharibi et al. (US 2023/0300115) and Zakharov et al. (US 2020/0068013) and in further view of Kennedy et al. (US 10,693,651).
As per claim 18, Takada in combination with Gharibi and Zakharov teaches the system of claim 17, but fails to teach the operations comprising: encrypting, by the client device, the message; providing, by the client device and to at least one of the one or more second computers, the encrypted message; decrypting, by at least some of the one or more second computers, the encrypted message; storing, by the one or more second computers, data from the decrypted message in the matrix.
However, in an analogous art Kennedy teaches encrypting, by the client device, the message; providing, by the client device and to at least one of the one or more second computers, the encrypted message; decrypting, by at least some of the one or more second computers, the encrypted message; storing, by the one or more second computers, data from the decrypted message in the matrix (Kennedy, Col. 2 Lines 11-42 recites “The disclosure presented herein relates to a biometric authorization system, comprising: one or more databases coupled via a network, one or more processors coupled to the one or more databases; and at least one computing device coupled to the one or more processors and the one or more databases via the network; wherein the one or more processors are configured to, extract one or more features of a biometric sample corresponding to a body of a user, encode the features of the biometric sample as a biometric hash string, convert biometric hash string into an alpha numeric device, wherein the alpha numeric device is configured to act as an authorization code for an identity by an institution, encrypt the biometric hash string, store the encrypted biometric hash strings into batches corresponding to each identified connection, decrypt the biometric hash string before conversion into the alpha numeric device, encrypting the alpha numeric device, store the encrypted alpha numeric devices into batches corresponding to each identified connection, store the received encrypted alpha numeric device into a batch corresponding with an identified connection, decrypt the alpha numeric device, generate a packet configured for transmission to at least one institution, the packet comprising the alpha numeric device, wherein the packet further comprises one or more tags, wherein the tags have a timestamp of the time of creation of the biological sample corresponding to the user, verify the biometric hash string are within a predetermined threshold of a previously inputted biometric hash string, wherein the previously inputted biometric hash string equated with the identity of the user, validate said accessing of the identity by the user and to present confirmation through a display of the one or more computing devices.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to use Kennedy’s System And Method For Authentication Using Biometric Hash Strings with Takada’s rewrite detection system and information processing device because it offers the advantage of using encryption as another layer of security for the data.
As per claim 19, Takada in combination with Gharibi, Zakharov and Kennedy teaches the system of claim 18, Kennedy further teaches wherein providing the encrypted message by the client device and to at least one of the one or more second computers comprises: by one or more modification computers: receiving the encrypted message; generating a second encrypted message by removing device specific data from the encrypted message; for a batch of messages received from different client devices in an order, generating a data batch that includes the second encrypted message and in which locations of the messages are randomly shuffled from the order in which the messages were received; and transmitting, to the one or more second computers, the data batch that includes the second encrypted message (Kennedy, Col. 2 Lines 11-42 recites “The disclosure presented herein relates to a biometric authorization system, comprising: one or more databases coupled via a network, one or more processors coupled to the one or more databases; and at least one computing device coupled to the one or more processors and the one or more databases via the network; wherein the one or more processors are configured to, extract one or more features of a biometric sample corresponding to a body of a user, encode the features of the biometric sample as a biometric hash string, convert biometric hash string into an alpha numeric device, wherein the alpha numeric device is configured to act as an authorization code for an identity by an institution, encrypt the biometric hash string, store the encrypted biometric hash strings into batches corresponding to each identified connection, decrypt the biometric hash string before conversion into the alpha numeric device, encrypting the alpha numeric device, store the encrypted alpha numeric devices into batches corresponding to each identified connection, store the received encrypted alpha numeric device into a batch corresponding with an identified connection, decrypt the alpha numeric device, generate a packet configured for transmission to at least one institution, the packet comprising the alpha numeric device, wherein the packet further comprises one or more tags, wherein the tags have a timestamp of the time of creation of the biological sample corresponding to the user, verify the biometric hash string are within a predetermined threshold of a previously inputted biometric hash string, wherein the previously inputted biometric hash string equated with the identity of the user, validate said accessing of the identity by the user and to present confirmation through a display of the one or more computing devices.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to use Kennedy’s System And Method For Authentication Using Biometric Hash Strings with Takada’s rewrite detection system and information processing device because it offers the advantage of using encryption as another layer of security for the data.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada et al. (US 2017/0302693) and Gharibi et al. (US 2023/0300115) and in further view of Casanova et al. (US 11,886,413).
As per claim 20, Takada in combination with Gharibi teaches the system of claim 15, but fails to teach wherein: the matrix is a three-dimensional matrix that comprises a first vector with a first dimension for different hash functions and one or more second vectors each of which have a second dimension for the corresponding hash function; and the operations comprising: determining, for a message received from a client device and that includes two or more output values, a hash function identifier included in the message; determining, using the hash function identifier, a first location in the first vector that represents the hash function; and updating, for each of the two or more output values, a hash specific total count in a corresponding location of the second vector for the hash function.
However, in an analogous art Casanova teaches wherein: the matrix is a three-dimensional matrix that comprises a first vector with a first dimension for different hash functions and one or more second vectors each of which have a second dimension for the corresponding hash function; and the operations comprising: determining, for a message received from a client device and that includes two or more output values, a hash function identifier included in the message; determining, using the hash function identifier, a first location in the first vector that represents the hash function; and updating, for each of the two or more output values, a hash specific total count in a corresponding location of the second vector for the hash function (Casanova, Col. 4 Lines 13-36 recites “In some embodiments, the approximate result grouping structure used by the bounded group by query system is a time-sliced approximate data structure (TSADS) that comprises two matrices. The first matrix is a counts matrix that counts the number of datapoints or records in each group and each time slice. In some embodiments, the counts matrix is an extension of a count-min sketch data structure that adds a time dimension for storing group statistical results in time series form. Group statistical results are assigned to cells in the counts matrix by hashing the group key using a set of hash functions. In some embodiments, the counts matrix may be a three-dimensional matrix where the first dimension corresponds to the set of hash functions used to hash the group key, the second dimension corresponds to a set of buckets in the hash space of the hash functions, and the third dimension corresponds to the time slices. In some embodiments, the second matrix is a statistics matrix that stores statistical results of the groups in each time slice. Cells in the statistics matrix have a one-to-one correspondence with cells in the counts matrix based on their relative positions in the two matrices. In some embodiments, the TSADS is defined as a class in an object-oriented programming language with associated functions to access and manipulate the two matrices.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to use Casanova’s Time-sliced Approximate Data Structure For Storing Group Statistics with Takada’s rewrite detection system and information processing device because it offers the advantage of using a more secure form of hashing to protect data.
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 RODERICK TOLENTINO whose telephone number is (571)272-2661. The examiner can normally be reached Mon- Fri 8am-4pm.
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, Luu Pham can be reached at 571-270-5002. 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.
RODERICK . TOLENTINO
Examiner
Art Unit 2439
/RODERICK TOLENTINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2439