Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 – 19 dated by 07/10/2024 are canceled. New claims 20 – 34 dated by 08/07/2025 are presently pending in the application and have been examined below, of which claims 20 and 31 are presented in independent form.
Priority
This application is a continuation of allowed application 17/403576 filed on 08/16/2021 now patent US 12063310 (hereafter Reference patent), which is a continuation of application 16/290590 filed on 03/01/2019 now patent 11102008.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 07/10/2024. These drawings are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101, Nonstatutory
(Directed to a Judicial Exception without an Inventive Concept/Significantly More)
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
therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 20 – 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Statutory Category:
Independent claim 20 is directed to a computing device domains management method and independent claim 31 is directed to another computing domain management method. Therefore, claims 20 - 34 fall within the four statutory categories of invention, and thus must be further analyzed at Step 2A to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.03, subsection II).
Step 2A Prong 1 Judicial exception:
Limitations of independent claims 20 and 31 have been identified as elements or part of the abstract idea itself. The claims recite a series of steps instructing
generating … a first hash…; a second hash …; a third hash; (claim 20);
receiving … a domain query comprising a query hash… (claims 20, 31);
recording … the first hash … (claim 20);
sending … an indication … (claims 20, 31);
The above system steps appear to recite operations which may be performed by a human being. using a standard computer equipped with known encryption package using relevant cryptographic keys. According to MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III, where it examples a claim to "performing a mental process on a computer environment” as a Mental Process.
A human being may mentally perform data reception and/or data encryption, i.e., generation hashes, using a standard computer equipped with known encryption package comprising hashing functions as well as data recording and sending in a network using standard computing equipment. MPEP states that it is still a Mental Process if the action is aided by devices (emphases added).
Step 2A Prong 2 Integration into a practical application:
The following claim limitations are identified as additional elements not part of the abstract idea itself:
determining … that the query hash is the same value as the first hash recorded… (claim 20);
determining that the query hash is not recorded in a …ledger (claim 31);
The above recited claim limitations are interpreted as known computing actions providing merely well-documented extra-solution activity. The recited operations correspond to routine analysis of databases for existence and similarities of recorded elements or files within a computing system (see e.g., A. Menezes, P. van Oorschot, S. Vanstone. Handbook of Applied Cryptography; CRC Press, 1997). Although not explicitly recited, these additional limitations are interpreted as being implemented on a generic computing device or system. These limitations appear to recite general purpose computer machines which are merely implementing the abstract idea within a computer environment and merely displaying the results of the abstract idea using generic computing equipment for communication. See General purposes machine MPEP 2106.05(b)(I).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the combination of data encryption and analysis for existence and similarities of recorded elements or files within a database without further details fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B Significantly more: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The above identified claim limitations have been identified as General-Purpose Machine which are merely implementing the abstract idea within a computer environment. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). When taken individually or viewed as an ordered combination the claims as a whole do not appear to amount to significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) than the abstract idea.
Based on the above rational the claims have been deemed to ineligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
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 20 – 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim language may not be ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention (See MPEP 2173.05(a))
Independent claims 20 and 34 recite the limitation "a query hash" which is not properly supported by SPECS.
According to MPEP 2163. II. A “With respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims”.
The meaning for the term “a query hash” is not unambiguously known from the prior art. This limitation could not be unambiguously interpreted based on the claims and SPECS. On one hand, in para. [0068, 0078] of SPECS the term “query” is disclosed with respect to a hash value as a look up operation by a querying system 106 for computed hash values in the hash table of the TIDAL derivative 204. However, on the other hand, according to claims the “query hash” is a part of the request for search and analysis of different domains corresponding to various devices in the system. Accordingly, the recited limitation makes the claims indefinite and the term “hash value” known from the prior art is used for examination.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 20 – 34 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georgiadis et al. (US 11004072) (hereafter Georgiadis) and in view of Novotny et al. (US 20200374343) (hereafter Novotny).
As per claim 20 Novotny discloses: A method of securely managing device domain associations, (Novotny in para. [0042] discloses a method for management of computing nodes grouped in trusted domains associated with different entities)
the method comprising: generating, by a trusted domain management system, a first hash based on a second hash and a third hash, (Novotny in para. [0134] discloses data hashing scheme where for example, one hash value could be generated based on two other separately created hash values)
[the second hash being generated based on a device address identifier associated with a device and a domain identifier associated with the device, the third hash being generated based on a public key associated with the device and the domain identifier]
recording, by the trusted domain management system, the first hash in a first trusted ledger maintained by the trusted domain management system (Novotny in para. [0130] discloses storage of hash values in ledger data base);
receiving, by the trusted domain management system from a querying system, a domain query request relating to the device, (Novotny, in para. [0099] discloses processing query requests in a blockchain system including querying certain type of chain code, e.g., trust domains) the domain query request comprising a query hash; determining, by the trusted domain management system, (Novotny, in para. [0042, 0090-0092] discloses operations of nodes grouped in trust domain system controlled by a smart contract), that the query hash is the same value as the first hash recorded in the first trusted ledger; and sending, by the trusted domain management system to the querying system, an indication that a value corresponding to the query hash is recorded in the first trusted ledger. (Novotny, in para. [0090-0092] discloses a procedure controlled by a smart contract to receive, and compare the hashes created and stored in ledger database; determine if there is a match of the hash values, the respective message is send for further processing).
Novotny fails to explicitly disclose specific operations to generate various hash values based on predefined parameters/data. However, Georgiadis discloses:
the second hash being generated based on a device address identifier associated with a device and a domain identifier associated with the device, the third hash being generated based on a public key associated with the device and the domain identifier (Examiner note: the domain identifier is disclosed by applicant in SPECS para. [0132] as machine readable data set comprising scope of authority; the domain identifier is met in Georgiadis by the respective entity certificate authority, associated with respective hardware Georgiadis, col. 2, ll.21-29, col.10, ll.45-46) (Georgiadis, in col. 45, ll.34-36, 55-57, and ll.60-67 discloses generation of hash values based on respective hardware address and attribute identities, i.e., authority, col.48, ll.54-57, Eq. (9); hash value generated based on respective device address, i.e., devise address identifier, is given by Georgiadis in col. 49, by Eq. (8); hash values generated based on key values and authority parameters are given by Georgiadis in Eqs. 10, 11, 16)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Novotny, in view of teaching of Georgiadis because they both disclose management of data and information domains in the distributed ledger system. The motivation to combine would be to modify Novotny for teaching of Georgiadis for various respective operations of generation and processing hash values in the blockchain system.
As per claim 21 Novotny as modified discloses: The method of claim 20, wherein the first trusted ledger is a ledger instance of a trusted immutable distributed assertion ledger (Examiner note: the trusted immutable distributed assertion ledger, TIDAL, is disclosed by applicant in para [0023] of SPECS as a distributed ledger with trusted database managing various assertions, i.e., attributes, of different entities; this broad definition of the trust distributed ledger is met in Novotny by the blockchain system comprising trusted instances, e.g., nodes grouped in trust domains) (Novotny in para. [0042, 0047] discloses a blockchain, i.e., distributed ledger, system comprising nodes, grouped in trust domains, i.e., ledger instances, where “use of the encryption in the blockchain provides security and builds trust”).
As per claim 22 Novotny as modified discloses: The method of claim 20, wherein the method further comprises accessing, by the trusted domain management system, the second hash from a first trusted assertion management system (Novotny in para. [0042] discloses blockchain nodes grouped in trust domain; Novotny in para. [0131] discloses access to the specified hash value, e.g., first, second, third hash, in the blockchain, i.e., distributed ledger system).
As per claim 23 Novotny as modified discloses: The method of claim 22, wherein the second hash is recorded in a second ledger maintained by the first trusted assertion management system (Novotny, in para. [0042, 0090-0092] discloses operations of nodes grouped in trust domain controlled by a smart contract, i.e., assertion management system, to process the hashes created and stored in ledger database; Novotny in para. [0131] discloses access to the specified recorded hash value, e.g., second hash, in the blockchain, i.e., distributed ledger system).
As per claim 24 Novotny as modified discloses: The method of claim 20, wherein the second trusted ledger is a ledger instance of a trusted immutable distributed assertion ledger (Novotny, in para. [0042-0044] discloses creation and operation of ledgers with specified blockchains including nodes grouped in trust domains, i.e., ledger instance of TIDAL).
As per claim 25 Novotny as modified discloses: The method of claim 20, wherein the method further comprises accessing, by the trusted domain management system, the third hash from a second trusted assertion management system (Novotny in para. [0042] discloses blockchain nodes grouped in trust domain; Novotny in para. [0131] discloses access to the specified hash value, e.g., third hash, in the blockchain, i.e., distributed ledger system).
As per claim 26 Novotny as modified discloses: The method of claim 25, wherein the third hash is recorded in a third trusted ledger maintained by the second trusted assertion management system (Novotny, in para. [0042-0044] discloses creation and operation of ledgers with specified blockchains including nodes grouped in trust domains, i.e., ledger instance of TIDAL, i.e., first, second, third etc. trusted ledger system; Novotny in para. [0131] discloses access to the specified recorded hash value, e.g., first, second, third hash, in the blockchain, i.e., distributed ledger system).
As per claim 27 Novotny as modified discloses: The method of claim 26, wherein the third trusted ledger is a ledger instance of a trusted immutable distributed assertion ledger (Novotny, in para. [0042-0044] discloses creation and operation of ledgers with specified blockchains including nodes grouped in trust domains, i.e., ledger instance of TIDAL, i.e., first, second, third etc. trusted ledger system)
As per claim 28 Novotny as modified discloses: The method of claim 20, wherein the device address identifier (Georgiadis, in col. 45, ll.34-36, 55-57, and ll.60-67 discloses generation of hash values based on respective hardware address and attribute identities, i.e., authority, col.48, ll.54-57, Eq. (9); hash value generated based on respective device address, i.e., devise address identifier, is given by Georgiadis in col. 49, by Eq. (8); hash values generated on key values and authority parameters are given by Georgiadis in Eqs. 10, 11, 16) comprises an Internet protocol address associated with the device (Georgiadis, in col. 13, ll.9-17 discloses communication between ledgers, e.g., including specified identifiers, within well-known internet protocols).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Novotny, in view of teaching of Georgiadis because they both disclose management of data and information domains in the distributed ledger system. The motivation to combine would be to modify Novotny for teaching of Georgiadis for various respective operations of generation and processing hash values, identifiers etc. in the blockchain system.
As per claim 29 Novotny as modified discloses: The method of claim 20, wherein the domain identifier comprises a domain name (Examiner note: the domain identifier is disclosed by applicant in SPECS para. [0132] as machine readable data set comprising scope of authority; the domain identifier is met in Georgiadis by the certificate authority, Georgiadis, col. 2, ll.21-29) (Georgiadis, in col. 45, ll.34-36, 55-57, and ll.60-67 discloses generation of hash values based on respective hardware address and attribute identities, attribute name, i.e., domain name, col.48, ll.42-43, Eq. (9).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Novotny, in view of teaching of Georgiadis because they both disclose management of data and information domains in the distributed ledger system. The motivation to combine would be to modify Novotny for teaching of Georgiadis for various respective operations of generation and processing hash values, identifiers etc. in the blockchain system.
As per claim 30 Novotny as modified discloses: The method of claim 20, wherein the domain query request is issued to the trusted domain management system by the querying system in response to a query to send a secure message to the device within a domain associated with the domain identifier (Novotny, in para. [0099] discloses processing query requests in a blockchain system including querying certain type of chain code, e.g., trust domains)
As per claim 31 Novotny discloses: A method of securely managing device domain associations (Novotny in para. [0042] discloses a method for management of computing nodes grouped in trusted domains associated with different entities), the method comprising: receiving, by a trusted domain management system, a domain query associated with a device from a querying system (Novotny, in para. [0099] discloses processing query requests in a blockchain system including querying certain type of chain code, e.g., trust domains), the domain query comprising a query hash; determining, by the trusted domain management system (Novotny, in para. [0042, 0090-0092] discloses operations of nodes grouped in trust domain system controlled by a smart contract),
that the query hash is not recorded in a derivative trusted ledger maintained by the trusted domain management system; (Novotny, in para. [0090-0092] discloses a procedure controlled by a smart contract to receive, and compare the hashes created and stored in ledger database)
in response to determining that the query hash is not recorded in the derivative trusted ledger, querying: a first trusted ledger to determine whether the first trusted ledger comprises a first hash, the first hash being generated based on a device address identifier associated with a device and a domain identifier associated with the device, and a second trusted ledger (Novotny, in para. [0042-0044] discloses creation and operation of ledgers, first, second etc., with specified blockchains including nodes grouped in trust domains, i.e., ledger instance of TIDAL) to determine whether the second trusted ledger comprises a second hash, (Novotny, in para. [0089-0090] discloses creation and functions of a smart contract by managing blockchain assets, e.g., nodes grouped in trust domains in distributed ledgers; the smart contract may include an executable code programmed for variety of predefined functions; Novotny, in para. [0090-0092] discloses a procedure controlled by a smart contract to receive, and compare the hashes created and stored in ledger database; determine if there is a match or not of the hash values, the respective message is sent for further processing).
[the second hash being generated based on a public key associated with the device and the domain identifier;]
generating, a domain query response to the domain query based on determining whether the first trusted ledger comprises the first hash and whether the second trusted ledger comprises the second hash; and sending, by the trusted domain management system to the querying system, the domain query response (Novotny, in para. [0096, 0099] discloses inspection of query responses for predefined conditions followed by generation of respective transactions).
Novotny fails to explicitly disclose specific operations to generate various hash values based on predefined parameters/data. However, Georgiadis discloses:
the second hash being generated based on a public key associated with the device and the domain identifier (Examiner note: the domain identifier is disclosed by applicant in SPECS para. [0132] as machine readable data set comprising scope of authority; the domain identifier is met in Georgiadis by the respective entity certificate authority, Georgiadis, col. 2, ll.21-29) (Georgiadis, in col. 45, ll.34-36, 55-57, and ll.60-67 discloses generation of hash values based on respective hardware address and attribute identities, i.e., authority, col.48, ll.54-57, Eq. (9); hash value generated based on respective device address, i.e., devise address identifier, is given by Georgiadis in col. 49, by Eq. (8); hash values generated on key values and authority parameters are given by Georgiadis in Eqs. 10, 11, 16).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Novotny, in view of teaching of Georgiadis because they both disclose management of data and information domains in the distributed ledger system. The motivation to combine would be to modify Novotny for teaching of Georgiadis for various respective operations of generation and processing hash values in the blockchain system.
As per claims 32 – 34, claims 32 – 34 encompass same or similar scope as claims 28 – 30, respectively. Therefore, claims 32 – 34 are rejected based on the same reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 28 – 30.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Lee US_20160021635, Ronda US_20170250972, Toth US_20180173871, Vieyra US_10614253, Chow US_20190081796, Davis US_20200186355, Nair US_20180219677, Singh US_20180367518.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VLADIMIR IVANOVICH GAVRILENKO whose telephone number is (313)446-6530. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 EST.
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, Lynn Feild can be reached on (571) 272-2092. 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.
/VLADIMIR I GAVRILENKO/Examiner, Art Unit 2431