Detailed Action
This is a Non-final Office action in response to communications received on 7/9/2024. Claims 60-75 were added. Claims 1-39 and 43-59 have been withdrawn in response to a restriction requirement filed 11/13/2025. Claims 40-42 and 60-75 have been elected by the applicant without traverse. Claims 40-42 and 60-75 are pending and are examined.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings, filed 7/9/2024, are acknowledged.
Provisional Priority
The provisional priority date of 7/6/2020 is acknowledged.
Response to Restriction
Applicant’s response on 4/6/2026 to the restriction requirement, filed 11/13/2025, WITHOUT TRAVERSE is acknowledged. Accordingly, the restriction is made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 40-42 and 60-75 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 40, the claim recites “prioritizing a user-defined interpretation and flexible compliance of data, for an industry”. It is unclear to what degree or how prioritization occurs, and is further unclear on the scope of flexible compliance.
Claims 41-42 and 60-75 depend from claim 40, inheriting the same deficiencies and are likewise similarly rejected.
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 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.
Claims 40, 42, 60-65 and 70-75 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norton (US 20190279204 A1), in view of Fisher (US 20160283920 A1), further in view of Kadt (US 20180096163 A1).
Regarding claim 40, Norton teaches the limitations of claim 40 substantially as follows:
A method for storing data comprising:
enabling addition of subsequent data, referred to as second data, to a hashing process without reliance on an outcome or validation of previously processed data, referred to as first data; (Norton; [0029]: The next component typically present in block chains such as block chain 200 is link 208, which establishes the order of blocks 202 making up block chain 200. As depicted, link 208 may be the hash of one or more header fields of the previous block. For example, the value for link 208 might be the hash of the concatenation of identifier 204 and proof-of-work 206 for the previous block (i.e., enabling addition of subsequent data, referred to as second data, to a hashing process ))
Norton does not teach the limitations of claim 40 as follows:
receiving at least one data field and at least one data file; individually hashing the at least one data field and the at least one data file; generating a singular hash representing the at least one data field and the at least one data file;
validating a relationship between at least one data field and at least one data file based on a singular hash generated;
facilitating generation and recall of unstructured data and their corresponding hashes;
demonstrating a relationship between data elements, termed as primary and secondary in a context of digital identifiers or as first and second data; and
prioritizing a user-defined interpretation and flexible compliance of data, for an industry.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Fisher discloses the limitations of claim 40 as follows:
receiving at least one data field and at least one data file; individually hashing the at least one data field and the at least one data file; generating a singular hash representing the at least one data field and the at least one data file; (Fisher; [0016]-[0019], [0027]: Process for encoding digital data which involves combining hashes of digital data to produce a final result (i.e., generating a singular hash representing the at least one data field and the at least one data file))
validating a relationship between at least one data field and at least one data file based on a singular hash generated; (Fisher; [0016]-[0019], [0027]: Process for encoding digital data which involves combining hashes of digital data to produce a final result; the extreme unlikelihood of a same hash result gives assurance of validity (i.e., validating a relationship between at least one data field and at least one data file based on a singular hash generated))
Fisher is combinable with Norton because all are from the same field of endeavor of management of assets in a blockchain ledger. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Norton to incorporate combination of hashes to produce a single resulting hash identifier as in Fisher in order to improve the security of the system by providing reliably unique hashes.
Norton and Fisher do not teach the limitations of claim 40 as follows:
facilitating generation and recall of unstructured data and their corresponding hashes;
demonstrating a relationship between data elements, termed as primary and secondary in a context of digital identifiers or as first and second data; and
prioritizing a user-defined interpretation and flexible compliance of data, for an industry.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kadt discloses the limitations of claim 40 as follows:
facilitating generation and recall of unstructured data and their corresponding hashes; (Kadt; [0012]: access to a database, such as a relational database or a non-relational (e.g., NoSQL) database, is provided to a requester, where the database reflects contents, states, and other information contained within a cryptographically secured ledger, such as a blockchain)
demonstrating a relationship between data elements, termed as primary and secondary in a context of digital identifiers or as first and second data; and (Kadt; [0012]: access to a database, such as a relational database or a non-relational (e.g., NoSQL) database, is provided to a requester, where the database reflects contents, states, and other information contained within a cryptographically secured ledger, such as a blockchain)
prioritizing a user-defined interpretation and flexible compliance of data, for an industry. (Kadt; [0001]: utilized by enterprises and individual users to augment, and in some cases, replace on-premise computing resources, as well as to track assets (both discrete and fungible)
Kadt is combinable with Norton and Fisher because all are from the same field of endeavor of management of assets in a blockchain ledger. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified system of Norton and Fisher to incorporate a database for accessing information contained in a blockchain as in Kadt for the predictable benefit of being able to query or search stored information.
Regarding claim 42, Norton, Fisher and Kadt teach the limitations of claim 40.
Norton, Fisher and Kadt teach the limitations of claim 42 as follows:
The method according to claim 40, wherein the digital identifiers are cryptographically authenticated tokens. (Norton; [0043]: digital asset provenance tag further includes asset authentication information)
Regarding claim 60, Norton, Fisher and Kadt teach the limitations of claim 40.
Norton, Fisher and Kadt teach the limitations of claim 60 as follows:
The method of claim 40, wherein the first data remains available for recall after addition of the second data. (Norton; [0041]: the asset ownership history information 306 makes use of the blockchain's append-only nature to ensure that ownership fraud (for example, selling a vehicle with a salvage title as having a clean title or selling the same asset twice to two different buyers) cannot be perpetrated. Furthermore, asset ownership history information 306 serves as proof of current ownership, because the current owner is simply the party at the end of the ownership history (i.e., available for recall))
Regarding claim 61, Norton, Fisher and Kadt teach the limitations of claim 40.
Norton, Fisher and Kadt teach the limitations of claim 61 as follows:
The method of claim 40, wherein the at least one data field comprises a user-defined input field. (Norton; [0050]: digital asset provenance tag 300 may include review information 314. Review information 314 may include any free-form or structured information added by a current or previous owner of the associated asset (i.e., user-defined input field))
Regarding claim 62, Norton, Fisher and Kadt teach the limitations of claim 61.
Norton, Fisher and Kadt teach the limitations of claim 62 as follows:
The method of claim 61, wherein the user-defined input field is stored on a blockchain as part of a project root object. (Norton; [0044]: digital asset provenance tag may optionally include one or more subcomponent identifying information 310 records. Such records serve to link the associated asset with one or more subcomponents of the associated asset via digital asset provenance tag 300 and additional digital asset provenance tags associated with the subcomponents (i.e., stored on a blockchain))
Regarding claim 63, Norton, Fisher and Kadt teach the limitations of claim 40.
Norton, Fisher and Kadt teach the limitations of claim 63 as follows:
The same motivation to combine as in claim 40 is applicable to the instant claim.
The method of claim 40, wherein the at least one data file is uploaded into a storage blob, the storage blob comprising unstructured data stored on a cloud server. (Kadt; [0012]: access to a database, such as a relational database or a non-relational (e.g., NoSQL) database, is provided to a requester, where the database reflects contents, states, and other information contained within a cryptographically secured ledger, such as a blockchain)
Regarding claim 64, Norton, Fisher and Kadt teach the limitations of claim 40.
Norton, Fisher and Kadt teach the limitations of claim 64 as follows:
The method of claim 40, wherein the at least one data field and the at least one data file are security measures comprising password protection or specific formatting. (Norton; [0034]: at the time of creation of a digital asset provenance tag, a root permission may be added to the block in the form of a signing key signature (i.e., security measures))
Regarding claim 65, Norton, Fisher and Kadt teach the limitations of claim 40.
Norton, Fisher and Kadt teach the limitations of claim 65 as follows:
The same motivation to combine as in claim 40 is applicable to the instant claim.
The method of claim 40, wherein the hashing process is independent of password management or data identification that relies on integrity of an originator's system. (Fisher; [0016]-[0019], [0027]: Process for encoding digital data which involves combining hashes of digital data to produce a final result; the extreme unlikelihood of a same hash result gives assurance of validity (i.e., not dependent on password management))
Regarding claim 70, Norton, Fisher and Kadt teach the limitations of claim 42.
Norton, Fisher and Kadt teach the limitations of claim 70 as follows:
The method of claim 42, wherein the cryptographically authenticated tokens are associated with user-defined input fields stored on a blockchain as part of a project root object. (Norton; [0044]: digital asset provenance tag may optionally include one or more subcomponent identifying information 310 records. Such records serve to link the associated asset with one or more subcomponents of the associated asset via digital asset provenance tag 300 and additional digital asset provenance tags associated with the subcomponents (i.e., stored on a blockchain))
Regarding claim 71, Norton, Fisher and Kadt teach the limitations of claim 42.
Norton, Fisher and Kadt teach the limitations of claim 71 as follows:
The method of claim 42, wherein the singular hash is associated with a digital identifier corresponding to the at least one data field and the at least one data file such that the digital identifier references the relationship validated by the singular hash. (Fisher; [0016]-[0019], [0027]: Process for encoding digital data which involves combining hashes of digital data to produce a final result; the extreme unlikelihood of a same hash result gives assurance of validity (i.e., singular hash associated with a digital identifier))
The same motivation to combine as in claim 40 is applicable to the instant claim.
Regarding claim 72, Norton, Fisher and Kadt teach the limitations of claim 40.
Norton, Fisher and Kadt teach the limitations of claim 72 as follows:
The method of claim 40, wherein generating the singular hash comprises concatenating hashes of the at least one data field and the at least one data file in a predefined and consistent order determined based on the at least one data field and the at least one data file prior to generation of the singular hash. (Fisher; [0016]-[0019], [0027]: Process for encoding digital data which involves combining hashes of digital data to produce a final result (i.e., concatenating hashes of the at least one data field and the at least one data file in a predefined and consistent order ))
The same motivation to combine as in claim 40 is applicable to the instant claim.
Regarding claim 73, Norton, Fisher and Kadt teach the limitations of claim 40.
Norton, Fisher and Kadt teach the limitations of claim 73 as follows:
The method of claim 40, wherein the singular hash is stored such that it remains unchanged after generation, and subsequent data additions result in generation of a new singular hash without modifying the previously generated singular hash. (Norton; [0041]: the asset ownership history information 306 makes use of the blockchain's append-only nature to ensure that ownership fraud (for example, selling a vehicle with a salvage title as having a clean title or selling the same asset twice to two different buyers) cannot be perpetrated (i.e., append-only includes non-modification of previous entries))
Regarding claim 74, Norton, Fisher and Kadt teach the limitations of claim 40.
Norton, Fisher and Kadt teach the limitations of claim 74 as follows:
The method of claim 40, wherein the validating of the relationship comprises independently regenerating the singular hash from the at least one data field and the at least one data file and comparing the regenerated singular hash to the previously generated singular hash. (Kadt; [0014]: the cryptographically secured ledger itself is also exposed as a ledger, which may then be verified, e.g., by a requestor by traversing the ledger and verifying the hash values of the linked blocks, and/or the current chained hash value relative to a known “correct” value (i.e., independently regenerating the singular hash))
The same motivation to combine as in claim 40 is applicable to the instant claim.
Regarding claim 75, Norton, Fisher and Kadt teach the limitations of claim 73.
Norton, Fisher and Kadt teach the limitations of claim 75 as follows:
The method of claim 73, wherein regenerating the singular hash comprises concatenating hashes of the at least one data field and the at least one data file in a predefined and consistent order used to generate the previously generated singular hash prior to comparing the regenerated singular hash to the previously generated singular hash. (Fisher; [0016]-[0019], [0027]: Process for encoding digital data which involves combining hashes of digital data to produce a final result (i.e., concatenating hashes of the at least one data field and the at least one data file in a predefined and consistent order ))
The same motivation to combine as in claim 40 is applicable to the instant claim.
Claims 41 and 66-69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norton (US 20190279204 A1), in view of Fisher (US 20160283920 A1), further in view of Kadt (US 20180096163 A1), as applied to independent claims, further in view of McConaghy (US 20160203572 A1).
Regarding claim 41, Norton, Fisher and Kadt teach the limitations of claim 40.
Norton, Fisher and Kadt do not teach the limitations of claim 41 as follows:
The method according to claim 40, wherein a first and second tokens are relational to each other without containing a same data or a same data field.
However, in the same field of endeavor, McConaghy discloses the limitations of claim 41 as follows:
The method according to claim 40, wherein a first and second tokens are relational to each other without containing a same data or a same data field. (McConaghy; [0052]-[0056]: genesis address and subsequent owner addresses that are related by transactions (i.e., address values differ, relationship shown on-chain))
McConaghy is combinable with Norton, Fisher and Kadt because all are from the same field of endeavor of management of assets in a blockchain ledger. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified system of Norton, Fisher and Kadt to incorporate relating ownership chains via transactions as in McConaghy in order to track provenance and verify ownership history of an asset.
Regarding claim 66, Norton, Fisher, Kadt and McConaghy teach the limitations of claim 41.
Norton, Fisher, Kadt and McConaghy teach the limitations of claim 66 as follows:
The method of claim 41, wherein the first and second tokens correspond to a primary digital identifier and a secondary digital identifier, respectively. (McConaghy; [0052]-[0056]: genesis address and subsequent owner addresses that are related by transactions (i.e., primary digital identifier and a secondary digital identifier))
The same motivation to combine as in claim 41 is applicable to the instant claim.
Regarding claim 67, Norton, Fisher, Kadt and McConaghy teach the limitations of claim 66.
Norton, Fisher, Kadt and McConaghy teach the limitations of claim 67 as follows:
The method of claim 66,wherein the primary digital identifier and the secondary digital identifier possess different data inputs or data files. (McConaghy; [0052]-[0056]: genesis address and subsequent owner addresses that are related by transactions (i.e., primary digital identifier and a secondary digital identifier different inputs))
The same motivation to combine as in claim 41 is applicable to the instant claim.
Regarding claim 68, Norton, Fisher, Kadt and McConaghy teach the limitations of claim 66.
Norton, Fisher, Kadt and McConaghy teach the limitations of claim 68 as follows:
The method of claim 66, wherein the relationship between the primary digital identifier and the secondary digital identifier is explicit and immutable. (McConaghy; [0052]-[0056]: genesis address and subsequent owner addresses that are related by transactions (i.e., transaction unchanged))
The same motivation to combine as in claim 41 is applicable to the instant claim.
Regarding claim 69, Norton, Fisher, Kadt and McConaghy teach the limitations of claim 66.
Norton, Fisher, Kadt and McConaghy teach the limitations of claim 69 as follows:
The method of claim 66, wherein the primary digital identifier and the secondary digital identifier are part of a comprehensive relationship tree. (McConaghy; [0052]-[0056]: genesis address and subsequent owner addresses that are related by transactions (i.e., related via transaction))
The same motivation to combine as in claim 41 is applicable to the instant claim.
Prior Art Considered But Not Relied Upon
Hanis (US 20180189528 A1) which teaches a blockchain of transactions which may be referenced for various purposes and may be later accessed by interested parties for ledger verification.
Caldwell (US 20190220836 A1) which teaches distributing media content using a distributed ledger maintained by a plurality of nodes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAKE ISAAC NARRAMORE whose telephone number is (303)297-4357. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 0700-1700 MT.
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, Taghi T Arani can be reached on (571) 272-3787. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BLAKE I NARRAMORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2438
Prosecution Insights