DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is responsive to communication filed on 09 January 2026, with acknowledgement of an original application filed on 26 July 2024.
2. Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Claims 1, 10, and 16 are in independent forms. Claims 6, 12, and 18 has been amended.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments filed on 09 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
I) In response to applicant's arguments on page 2, Applicant argued that Sethi fails to teach or suggest detecting a "pattern of communication between a first computing device of a plurality of computing devices and a second computing device of the plurality of computing devices, wherein the pattern of communication includes a communication method and a communication protocol used for communication for each communication interaction between the first computing device and the second computing device," as recited in claim 1.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the argument. The applicant argued that Sethi fails to teach or suggest detect, via one or more quantum sensors, a pattern of communication between a first computing device of a plurality of computing devices and a second computing device of the plurality of computing devices, wherein the pattern of communication includes a communication method and a communication protocol used for communication for each communication interaction between the first computing device and the second computing device. Contrary to the applicant assertion, as stated in the office action the Sethi reference discloses tamper detection module 116 employs one or more quantum sensors configured to detect any edge network tampering (e.g., listening, manipulation, intrusion, etc.) caused by a quantum computer (part of step 214),authenticate edge devices to ensure only authorized devices access the secure communication channel, while quantum sensors continuously monitor the channel for any malicious activity and tamper detection techniques automatically take action to protect the data transmitted between the edge devices, prior to quantum-secure communication between edge devices 102-1 and 102-2 across the edge network, each of edge devices 102-1 and 102-2 are authenticated (step 202) by authentication module 104, in conjunction with the edge network, using one or more conventional authentication protocols, e.g., multi-factor credential exchange, etc. Furthermore, the Sethi reference discloses authenticate edge devices to ensure only authorized devices access the secure communication channel, while quantum sensors continuously monitor the channel for any malicious activity and tamper detection techniques automatically take action to protect the data transmitted between the edge devices. For example, illustrative embodiments identify abnormal patterns that are indicative of real-time quantum computer-based attacks and dynamically reroute data ensuring data follows the most secure path. In addition, post-data erasure techniques are used to securely delete sensitive information after transmission eliminating any future quantum computing threats (see Sethi par. 0018).
II) In response to applicant's arguments on page 3, Applicant argued that nothing in Chow teaches or suggests "generate, for the first communication interaction between the first computing device and the second computing device, a hash of the first communication interaction, wherein the hash of the first communication interaction is based on a communication method and communication protocol used for communication between the first computing device and the second computing device in the first communication interaction," storing the generating hash of the first communication interaction, detecting a second communication interaction, and "generate, for the second communication interaction between the first computing device and the second computing device, a hash of the second communication interaction, wherein the hash of the second communication interaction is based on a communication method and communication protocol used for communication between the first computing device and the second computing device in the second communication interaction," as recited in claim 1. In fact, neither Sethi nor Chow teaches or suggests any hash of a communication interaction, let alone the hash being "based on a communication method and communication protocol used for the communication between the first computing device and the second computing device," as recited.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the argument. The applicant argued that neither Sethi nor Chow teaches or suggests generate, for the first communication interaction between the first computing device and the second computing device, a hash of the first communication interaction, wherein the hash of the first communication interaction is based on a communication method and communication protocol used for communication between the first computing device and the second computing device in the first communication interaction. Contrary to the applicant assertion, as stated in the office action the Chow reference discloses generating a document image of an original document, modifying the document image using a unique identifier, and generating a hash of the modified document for storage and tracking by a distributed ledger, establish communications with client devices 102, 104, and 106, and further, with system 140, using any of the communications protocols outlined above. For example, client devices 102, 104, and 106, system 140, and the connected devices may be uniquely identifiable and addressable within communications network 120, and may be capable of transmitting and/or receiving data across the established communications sessions. Furthermore, the combination of Sethi and Chow discloses one or more computing components of system 140 (e.g., server 140) is configured to hash the generated (and encrypted) rules engine and event trigger list into a genesis block associated with the hybrid public-private ledger. System 140 may provide the encrypted rules engine and event triggers list to one or more of peer systems 160, which may be configured to hash the encrypted rules engine and event trigger list into the genesis block. By hashing the encrypted rules engine and event trigger list into the genesis block of the hybrid public-private ledger, various embodiments enable an in-band communication of the encrypted rules engine and event triggers from user to user within blocks (e.g., transactions) of the hybrid public-private ledger (see Chow Par. 0052), storing the generating hash of the first communication interaction. Contrary to the applicant assertion, as stated in the office action the Chow reference discloses data repository 144 may be configured to store the rules engine and/or event triggers in encrypted form (e.g., using the stored master key), and/or store a hashed representation of the rules engine and/or the event triggers list. Furthermore, the combination of Sethi and Chow discloses an apparatus for use in electronic document control is disclosed. The apparatus includes a storage device a processor coupled to the storage device. The storage device storing software instructions for controlling the processor that when executed by the processor configure the processor to: receive a signal representing data including an original document, append a unique identifier to the original document to generate a modified document, generate a hash value of the modified document, and transmit the hash value corresponding to the modified document to an electronic distributed ledger (see Chow par. 0004), generate, for the second communication interaction between the first computing device and the second computing device, a hash of the second communication interaction, wherein the hash of the second communication interaction is based on a communication method and communication protocol used for communication between the first computing device and the second computing device in the second communication interaction. Contrary to the applicant assertion, as stated in the office action the Chow reference discloses At step 810, the system 140 generates a hash value of the unverified document image. The hash value of the unverified document image is generated using the same unique identifier and hash function(s) used to generate the hash value of the original document. The unique identifier is appended to the unauthenticated document and a hash of the unauthenticated document is generated using the same hash function(s) used to generate the hash of the original document. At step 812, the system 140 retrieves the hash value of the original document from the distributed ledger. Furthermore, the combination of Sethi and Chow discloses the hash can be generated by providing the modified document to any suitable hashing function, such as, for example, a hash function associated with the hybrid distributed ledger, a hash function selected by an owner/issuer of the document, and/or any other suitable hash function. The hash function generates a unique (or semi-unique) hash value based on the modified document. For example, in some embodiments, the hash value generated for the modified document is different than a hash value that would be generated for the original document by the same hash function (due to the addition of the unique identifier). In some embodiments, the hash value of the modified document is passed through one or more additional hash functions to further hash/encrypt the document image (see Chow par. 0124).
III) In response to applicant's arguments on pages 3-4, Applicant argued that nothing in Chow teaches or suggests responsive to determining, based on the comparing, that the hash of the first communication interaction does not match the hash of the second communication interaction: pause communication between the first computing device and the second computing device. Contrary to the applicant assertion, as stated in the office action the Chow reference discloses If the hash values do not match, at step 818, the system 140 generates a not-authenticated message that is transmitted to the verifying party 108, 110, 112. The not-authenticated message indicates that the unverified document image could not be authenticated due to one or more issues. Furthermore, the combination of Sethi and Chow discloses a method of verifying a document is disclosed. The method includes receiving, from a third party, an unverified document image. A distributed ledger maintained by a trusted authority is accessed. The distributed ledger includes one or more blocks each storing at least one verified document image. A hash value of the unverified document image is generated according to one or more rules stored in the distributed ledger. The hash value of the unverified document is compared to a hash value of the at least one verified document image stored by the distributed ledger. An authentication message is generated if the hash value of the unverified document image and the hash value of the verified document image are the same. A not-authenticated message is generated if the hash value of the unverified document image and the hash value of the verified document image are different (see Chow par. 0006).
IV) In response to applicant's arguments on page 4, Applicant argued that Claims 2 and 9 depend from claim 1 and are allowable for at least the same reasons as their base claim and further in view of the additional novel and non-obvious features recited therein.
Examiner refers applicant to the above response in items I-III.
V) In response to applicant's arguments on page 5, Independent claims 10 and 16 recite features similar to claim 1 and are allowable for at least the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Accordingly, Applicant requests withdrawal of the rejection of claims 10 and 16, as well as claim 15 that depends from claim 10.
Examiner refers applicant to the above response in items I-III.
VI) In response to applicant's arguments on page 5, Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and is allowable over Sethi and Chow for at least the same reasons as its base claim and further in view of the additional novel and non-obvious features recited therein. The addition of Clark fails to cure the deficiencies of the remaining cited documents. Accordingly, Applicant requests withdrawal of these rejections.
Examiner refers applicant to the above response in items I-III.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-2, 9-10, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sethi et al. US Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0211608 (hereinafter Sethi) in view of Chow et al. US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0048216 (hereinafter Chow).
Regarding claim 1, Sethi discloses a computing platform, comprising:
“at least one processor” (Fig. 4, processor 410);
“a communication interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor” (see Sethi par. 0045, the processing device 402-1 is network interface circuitry 414, which is used to interface the processing device with the network 404 and other system components); and a memory (FIG. 4, memory 412) storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing platform to:
“detect, via one or more quantum sensors, a pattern of communication between a first computing device of a plurality of computing devices and a second computing device of the plurality of computing devices, wherein the pattern of communication includes a communication method and a communication protocol used for communication for each communication interaction between the first computing device and the second computing device” (see Sethi pars. 0029, 0018, 0021, data transmission module 110 is also operatively coupled to tamper detection module 116. In some embodiments, tamper detection module 116 employs one or more quantum sensors configured to detect any edge network tampering (e.g., listening, manipulation, intrusion, etc.) caused by a quantum computer (part of step 214),authenticate edge devices to ensure only authorized devices access the secure communication channel, while quantum sensors continuously monitor the channel for any malicious activity and tamper detection techniques automatically take action to protect the data transmitted between the edge devices. For example, illustrative embodiments identify abnormal patterns that are indicative of real-time quantum computer-based attacks and dynamically reroute data ensuring data follows the most secure path. With reference to a quantum-secure communications methodology 200 illustrated in FIG. 2, prior to quantum-secure communication between edge devices 102-1 and 102-2 across the edge network, each of edge devices 102-1 and 102-2 are authenticated (step 202) by authentication module 104, in conjunction with the edge network, using one or more conventional authentication protocols, e.g., multi-factor credential exchange, etc.);
“detect, via the one or more quantum sensors, a first communication interaction between a first computing device of the plurality of computing devices and a second computing device of the plurality of computing devices” (see Sethi par. 0031, quantum-secure communication between two edge devices, it is to be appreciated that quantum-secure communication functionalities described herein can be applied to data that is transmitted by one of the two edge devices but destined for an edge device other than the other of the two edge devices. Further, quantum-secure communication functionalities described herein can be applied to more than two edge devices and, more generally, to any set of computing, storage, network devices or any other electronic devices capable of transmitting data in a communication network or any information processing system);
“detect, via the one or more quantum sensors, a second communication interaction between the first computing device and the second computing device, wherein the second communication interaction occurs after the first communication interaction” (see Sethi par. 0021, prior to quantum-secure communication between edge devices 102-1 and 102-2 across the edge network, each of edge devices 102-1 and 102-2 are authenticated (step 202) by authentication module 104, in conjunction with the edge network, using one or more conventional authentication protocols, e.g., multi-factor credential exchange, etc.);
Sethi does not explicitly discloses generate, for the first communication interaction between the first computing device and the second computing device, a hash of the first communication interaction, wherein the hash of the first communication interaction is based on a communication method and communication protocol used for communication between the first computing device and the second computing device in the first communication interaction; store the generated hash of the first communication interaction; generate, for the second communication interaction between the first computing device and the second computing device, a hash of the second communication interaction, wherein the hash of the second communication interaction is based on a communication method and communication protocol used for communication between the first computing device and the second computing device in the second communication interaction; compare the hash of the first communication interaction to the hash of the second communication interaction; responsive to determining, based on the comparing, that the hash of the first communication interaction matches the hash of the second communication interaction, store the hash of the second communication interaction; responsive to determining, based on the comparing, that the hash of the first communication interaction does not match the hash of the second communication interaction: pause communication between the first computing device and the second computing device; and execute one or more machine-to-machine multi-factor verification processes.
However, in analogues art, Chow discloses generate, for the first communication interaction between the first computing device and the second computing device, a hash of the first communication interaction, wherein the hash of the first communication interaction is based on a communication method and communication protocol used for communication between the first computing device and the second computing device in the first communication interaction (see Chow pars. 0017, 0023-0025, 0114, generating a document image of an original document, modifying the document image using a unique identifier, and generating a hash of the modified document for storage and tracking by a distributed ledger. In the first transaction (transaction 202) depicted in FIG. 2, user 108 transfers ownership of a portion of tracked assets (e.g., of some amount of a virtual currency or cryptocurrency) to user 110. Transaction 202 includes a cryptographic hash (e.g., hash 202A) of one or more prior transactions, and a public key of the recipient (e.g., public key 202B of user 110). The transaction data may also include a digital signature 202C of user 108 (the prior owner), which is applied to hash 202A and public key 202B using a private key 202D of user 108 through any of a number of techniques apparent to one of skill in the art. establish communications with client devices 102, 104, and 106, and further, with system 140, using any of the communications protocols outlined above. For example, client devices 102, 104, and 106, system 140, and the connected devices may be uniquely identifiable and addressable within communications network 120, and may be capable of transmitting and/or receiving data across the established communications sessions); store the generated hash of the first communication interaction (see Chow par. 0057, data repository 144 may be configured to store the rules engine and/or event triggers in encrypted form (e.g., using the stored master key), and/or store a hashed representation of the rules engine and/or the event triggers list); generate, for the second communication interaction between the first computing device and the second computing device, a hash of the second communication interaction, wherein the hash of the second communication interaction is based on a communication method and communication protocol used for communication between the first computing device and the second computing device in the second communication interaction (see Chow pars. 0132-0133, At step 810, the system 140 generates a hash value of the unverified document image. The hash value of the unverified document image is generated using the same unique identifier and hash function(s) used to generate the hash value of the original document. The unique identifier is appended to the unauthenticated document and a hash of the unauthenticated document is generated using the same hash function(s) used to generate the hash of the original document. At step 812, the system 140 retrieves the hash value of the original document from the distributed ledger. In some embodiments, the system 140 retrieves the hash value by obtaining a current copy of the distributed ledger and traversing the ledger until the block containing the hash value of the original document is found. The system 140 unpacks the hash value from the block); compare the hash of the first communication interaction to the hash of the second communication interaction (see Chow pars. 0134, At step 814, the system 140 compares the hash value of the original document retrieved from the distributed ledger with the hash value generated for the unverified document image); responsive to determining, based on the comparing, that the hash of the first communication interaction matches the hash of the second communication interaction, store the hash of the second communication interaction (see Chow pars. 0132-0133, At step 812, the system 140 retrieves the hash value of the original document from the distributed ledger. In some embodiments, the system 140 retrieves the hash value by obtaining a current copy of the distributed ledger and traversing the ledger until the block containing the hash value of the original document is found. The system 140 unpacks the hash value from the block. In other embodiments, the system 140 can maintain a searchable database of document images and/or hashes stored on the distributed ledger and can retrieve the document hash value from the searchable database. The searchable database can be maintained by the central authority 150 and/or a third-party); responsive to determining, based on the comparing, that the hash of the first communication interaction does not match the hash of the second communication interaction: pause communication between the first computing device and the second computing device (see Chow par. 0136, If the hash values do not match, at step 818, the system 140 generates a not-authenticated message that is transmitted to the verifying party 108, 110, 112. The not-authenticated message indicates that the unverified document image could not be authenticated due to one or more issues. The verifying party 108, 110, 112 that generated the authentication request can perform one or more additional authentication attempts if they believe the not-authentication message to be in error, such as, for example, generating a new unverified document image for authentication, performing a hard-copy authentication, and/or otherwise authenticating the unverified document); and execute one or more machine-to-machine multi-factor verification processes (see Chow par. 0087, the one or more software applications executed by client device 104 may cause client device 104 to perform operations that generate input and output data specifying a new transaction (e.g., transaction 310 of FIG. 3) that transfers ownership of the tracked asset portion from user 110 to user 112, and that transmit the generated data to one or more of peer systems 160 for verification, processing (e.g., additional cryptographic hashing) and inclusion into a new block of the hybrid distributed ledger).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the teachings of Chow in to the system of Sethi in order to receive a signal representing data including an original document, append a unique identifier to the original document to generate a modified document, generate a hash value of the modified document, and transmit the hash value corresponding to the modified document to an electronic distributed ledger (see Chow par. 0004).
Regarding claim 2, Sethi in view of Chow discloses the computing platform of claim 1, Chow further discloses wherein the communication method used for the communication between the first computing device and the second computing device in the first communication interaction includes one of: radio frequency identification (RFID), near-field communication, or secure machine-to-machine (M2M) communication (see Chow par. 0059, Communications protocols in accordance with various embodiments also include protocols facilitating data transfer using radio frequency identification (RFID) communications and/or NFC.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the teachings of Chow in to the system of Sethi in order to receive a signal representing data including an original document, append a unique identifier to the original document to generate a modified document, generate a hash value of the modified document, and transmit the hash value corresponding to the modified document to an electronic distributed ledger (see Chow par. 0004).
Regarding claims 9 and 15, Sethi in view of Chow discloses the computing platform of claim 1, the method of claim 10,
Chow further discloses wherein the hash of the first communication interaction is further based on an identifier of the first computing device and an identifier of the second computing device (see Chow par. 0038, Each client device 102, 104, and 106 may execute the stored software application(s) to obtain data from the hybrid distributed ledger that includes data identifying one or more tracked assets, and/or a public key of one or more users. The executed software applications may cause client devices 102, 104, and 106 to extract, from one or more accessed transaction blocks of the distributed ledger, a copy of an encrypted and/or hashed ownership/rules portion of the transaction block(s) (e.g., including the identification of a holder of a master key) and/or a copy of an encrypted and/or hashed master data block (e.g., encrypted using the master key and including rules permitting preconfigured and/or permissible actions involving the tracked assets). Client devices 102, 104, and 106 may provide information associated with one or more actions or transactions involving the tracked assets (e.g., information identifying the actions or transaction, information identifying the assets, a public key, a digital signature, etc.) to peer systems 160, along with copies of document images and/or other information regarding a tracked document).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the teachings of Chow in to the system of Sethi in order to receive a signal representing data including an original document, append a unique identifier to the original document to generate a modified document, generate a hash value of the modified document, and transmit the hash value corresponding to the modified document to an electronic distributed ledger (see Chow par. 0004).
Regarding claim 10, Sethi discloses a method, comprising:
“detecting, by a computing platform, the computing platform having at least one processor, and memory, via one or more quantum sensors, a pattern of communication between a first computing device of a plurality of computing devices and a second computing device of the plurality of computing devices, wherein the pattern of communication includes a communication method and a communication protocol used for communication for each communication interaction between the first computing device and the second computing device” (see Sethi pars. 0029, 0018, 0021, data transmission module 110 is also operatively coupled to tamper detection module 116. In some embodiments, tamper detection module 116 employs one or more quantum sensors configured to detect any edge network tampering (e.g., listening, manipulation, intrusion, etc.) caused by a quantum computer (part of step 214),authenticate edge devices to ensure only authorized devices access the secure communication channel, while quantum sensors continuously monitor the channel for any malicious activity and tamper detection techniques automatically take action to protect the data transmitted between the edge devices. For example, illustrative embodiments identify abnormal patterns that are indicative of real-time quantum computer-based attacks and dynamically reroute data ensuring data follows the most secure path. With reference to a quantum-secure communications methodology 200 illustrated in FIG. 2, prior to quantum-secure communication between edge devices 102-1 and 102-2 across the edge network, each of edge devices 102-1 and 102-2 are authenticated (step 202) by authentication module 104, in conjunction with the edge network, using one or more conventional authentication protocols, e.g., multi-factor credential exchange, etc.);
“detecting, by the at least one processor and via the one or more quantum sensors, a first communication interaction between a first computing device of the plurality of computing devices and a second computing device of the plurality of computing devices” (see Sethi par. 0031, quantum-secure communication between two edge devices, it is to be appreciated that quantum-secure communication functionalities described herein can be applied to data that is transmitted by one of the two edge devices but destined for an edge device other than the other of the two edge devices. Further, quantum-secure communication functionalities described herein can be applied to more than two edge devices and, more generally, to any set of computing, storage, network devices or any other electronic devices capable of transmitting data in a communication network or any information processing system);
“detecting, by the at least one processor and via the one or more quantum sensors, a second communication interaction between the first computing device and the second computing device, wherein the second communication interaction occurs after the first communication interaction” (see Sethi par. 0021, prior to quantum-secure communication between edge devices 102-1 and 102-2 across the edge network, each of edge devices 102-1 and 102-2 are authenticated (step 202) by authentication module 104, in conjunction with the edge network, using one or more conventional authentication protocols, e.g., multi-factor credential exchange, etc.);
Sethi does not explicitly discloses generate, by the at least one processor and for the first communication interaction between the first computing device and the second computing device, a hash of the first communication interaction, wherein the hash of the first communication interaction is based on a communication method and communication protocol used for communication between the first computing device and the second computing device in the first communication interaction; storing, by the at least one processor, the generated hash of the first communication interaction; generating, by the at least one processor and for the second communication interaction between the first computing device and the second computing device, a hash of the second communication interaction, wherein the hash of the second communication interaction is based on a communication method and communication protocol used for communication between the first computing device and the second computing device in the second communication interaction; comparing, by the at least one processor, the hash of the first communication interaction to the hash of the second communication interaction; responsive to determining, based on the comparing, that the hash of the first communication interaction matches the hash of the second communication interaction, storing, by the at least one processor, the hash of the second communication interaction; responsive to determining, based on the comparing, that the hash of the first communication interaction does not match the hash of the second communication interaction: pausing, by the at least one processor, communication between the first computing device and the second computing device; and executing, by the at least one processor, one or more machine-to-machine multi-factor verification processes.
However, in analogues art, Chow discloses generate, by the at least one processor and for the first communication interaction between the first computing device and the second computing device, a hash of the first communication interaction, wherein the hash of the first communication interaction is based on a communication method and communication protocol used for communication between the first computing device and the second computing device in the first communication interaction (see Chow pars. 0017, 0023-0025, 0114, generating a document image of an original document, modifying the document image using a unique identifier, and generating a hash of the modified document for storage and tracking by a distributed ledger. In the first transaction (transaction 202) depicted in FIG. 2, user 108 transfers ownership of a portion of tracked assets (e.g., of some amount of a virtual currency or cryptocurrency) to user 110. Transaction 202 includes a cryptographic hash (e.g., hash 202A) of one or more prior transactions, and a public key of the recipient (e.g., public key 202B of user 110). The transaction data may also include a digital signature 202C of user 108 (the prior owner), which is applied to hash 202A and public key 202B using a private key 202D of user 108 through any of a number of techniques apparent to one of skill in the art. establish communications with client devices 102, 104, and 106, and further, with system 140, using any of the communications protocols outlined above. For example, client devices 102, 104, and 106, system 140, and the connected devices may be uniquely identifiable and addressable within communications network 120, and may be capable of transmitting and/or receiving data across the established communications sessions); storing, by the at least one processor, the generated hash of the first communication interaction (see Chow par. 0057, data repository 144 may be configured to store the rules engine and/or event triggers in encrypted form (e.g., using the stored master key), and/or store a hashed representation of the rules engine and/or the event triggers list); generating, by the at least one processor and for the second communication interaction between the first computing device and the second computing device, a hash of the second communication interaction, wherein the hash of the second communication interaction is based on a communication method and communication protocol used for communication between the first computing device and the second computing device in the second communication interaction (see Chow pars. 0132-0133, At step 810, the system 140 generates a hash value of the unverified document image. The hash value of the unverified document image is generated using the same unique identifier and hash function(s) used to generate the hash value of the original document. The unique identifier is appended to the unauthenticated document and a hash of the unauthenticated document is generated using the same hash function(s) used to generate the hash of the original document. At step 812, the system 140 retrieves the hash value of the original document from the distributed ledger. In some embodiments, the system 140 retrieves the hash value by obtaining a current copy of the distributed ledger and traversing the ledger until the block containing the hash value of the original document is found. The system 140 unpacks the hash value from the block); comparing, by the at least one processor, the hash of the first communication interaction to the hash of the second communication interaction (see Chow pars. 0134, At step 814, the system 140 compares the hash value of the original document retrieved from the distributed ledger with the hash value generated for the unverified document image); responsive to determining, based on the comparing, that the hash of the first communication interaction matches the hash of the second communication interaction, storing, by the at least one processor, the hash of the second communication interaction (see Chow pars. 0132-0133, At step 812, the system 140 retrieves the hash value of the original document from the distributed ledger. In some embodiments, the system 140 retrieves the hash value by obtaining a current copy of the distributed ledger and traversing the ledger until the block containing the hash value of the original document is found. The system 140 unpacks the hash value from the block. In other embodiments, the system 140 can maintain a searchable database of document images and/or hashes stored on the distributed ledger and can retrieve the document hash value from the searchable database. The searchable database can be maintained by the central authority 150 and/or a third-party); responsive to determining, based on the comparing, that the hash of the first communication interaction does not match the hash of the second communication interaction: pausing, by the at least one processor, communication between the first computing device and the second computing device (see Chow par. If the hash values do not match, at step 818, the system 140 generates a not-authenticated message that is transmitted to the verifying party 108, 110, 112. The not-authenticated message indicates that the unverified document image could not be authenticated due to one or more issues. The verifying party 108, 110, 112 that generated the authentication request can perform one or more additional authentication attempts if they believe the not-authentication message to be in error, such as, for example, generating a new unverified document image for authentication, performing a hard-copy authentication, and/or otherwise authenticating the unverified document); and executing, by the at least one processor, one or more machine-to-machine multi-factor verification processes (see Chow par. 0087, the one or more software applications executed by client device 104 may cause client device 104 to perform operations that generate input and output data specifying a new transaction (e.g., transaction 310 of FIG. 3) that transfers ownership of the tracked asset portion from user 110 to user 112, and that transmit the generated data to one or more of peer systems 160 for verification, processing (e.g., additional cryptographic hashing) and inclusion into a new block of the hybrid distributed ledger).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the teachings of Chow in to the system of Sethi in order to receive a signal representing data including an original document, append a unique identifier to the original document to generate a modified document, generate a hash value of the modified document, and transmit the hash value corresponding to the modified document to an electronic distributed ledger (see Chow par. 0004).
Regarding claim 16, Sethi discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by a computing platform comprising at least one processor, memory, and a communication interface, cause the computing platform to:
“detect, via one or more quantum sensors, a pattern of communication between a first computing device of a plurality of computing devices and a second computing device of the plurality of computing devices, wherein the pattern of communication includes a communication method and a communication protocol used for communication for each communication interaction between the first computing device and the second computing device” (see Sethi pars. 0029, 0018, 0021, data transmission module 110 is also operatively coupled to tamper detection module 116. In some embodiments, tamper detection module 116 employs one or more quantum sensors configured to detect any edge network tampering (e.g., listening, manipulation, intrusion, etc.) caused by a quantum computer (part of step 214),authenticate edge devices to ensure only authorized devices access the secure communication channel, while quantum sensors continuously monitor the channel for any malicious activity and tamper detection techniques automatically take action to protect the data transmitted between the edge devices. For example, illustrative embodiments identify abnormal patterns that are indicative of real-time quantum computer-based attacks and dynamically reroute data ensuring data follows the most secure path. With reference to a quantum-secure communications methodology 200 illustrated in FIG. 2, prior to quantum-secure communication between edge devices 102-1 and 102-2 across the edge network, each of edge devices 102-1 and 102-2 are authenticated (step 202) by authentication module 104, in conjunction with the edge network, using one or more conventional authentication protocols, e.g., multi-factor credential exchange, etc.);
“detect, via the one or more quantum sensors, a first communication interaction between a first computing device of the plurality of computing devices and a second computing device of the plurality of computing devices” (see Sethi par. 0031, quantum-secure communication between two edge devices, it is to be appreciated that quantum-secure communication functionalities described herein can be applied to data that is transmitted by one of the two edge devices but destined for an edge device other than the other of the two edge devices. Further, quantum-secure communication functionalities described herein can be applied to more than two edge devices and, more generally, to any set of computing, storage, network devices or any other electronic devices capable of transmitting data in a communication network or any information processing system);
“detect, via the one or more quantum sensors, a second communication interaction between the first computing device and the second computing device, wherein the second communication interaction occurs after the first communication interaction” (see Sethi par. 0021, prior to quantum-secure communication between edge devices 102-1 and 102-2 across the edge network, each of edge devices 102-1 and 102-2 are authenticated (step 202) by authentication module 104, in conjunction with the edge network, using one or more conventional authentication protocols, e.g., multi-factor credential exchange, etc.);
Sethi does not explicitly discloses generate, for the first communication interaction between the first computing device and the second computing device, a hash of the first communication interaction, wherein the hash of the first communication interaction is based on a communication method and communication protocol used for communication between the first computing device and the second computing device in the first communication interaction; store the generated hash of the first communication interaction; generate, for the second communication interaction between the first computing device and the second computing device, a hash of the second communication interaction, wherein the hash of the second communication interaction is based on a communication method and communication protocol used for communication between the first computing device and the second computing device in the second communication interaction; compare the hash of the first communication interaction to the hash of the second communication interaction; responsive to determining, based on the comparing, that the hash of the first communication interaction matches the hash of the second communication interaction, store the hash of the second communication interaction; responsive to determining, based on the comparing, that the hash of the first communication interaction does not match the hash of the second communication interaction: pause communication between the first computing device and the second computing device; and execute one or more machine-to-machine multi-factor verification processes.
However, in analogues art, Chow discloses generate, for the first communication interaction between the first computing device and the second computing device, a hash of the first communication interaction, wherein the hash of the first communication interaction is based on a communication method and communication protocol used for communication between the first computing device and the second computing device in the first communication interaction (see Chow pars. 0017, 0023-0025, 0114, generating a document image of an original document, modifying the document image using a unique identifier, and generating a hash of the modified document for storage and tracking by a distributed ledger. In the first transaction (transaction 202) depicted in FIG. 2, user 108 transfers ownership of a portion of tracked assets (e.g., of some amount of a virtual currency or cryptocurrency) to user 110. Transaction 202 includes a cryptographic hash (e.g., hash 202A) of one or more prior transactions, and a public key of the recipient (e.g., public key 202B of user 110). The transaction data may also include a digital signature 202C of user 108 (the prior owner), which is applied to hash 202A and public key 202B using a private key 202D of user 108 through any of a number of techniques apparent to one of skill in the art. establish communications with client devices 102, 104, and 106, and further, with system 140, using any of the communications protocols outlined above. For example, client devices 102, 104, and 106, system 140, and the connected devices may be uniquely identifiable and addressable within communications network 120, and may be capable of transmitting and/or receiving data across the established communications sessions); store the generated hash of the first communication interaction (see Chow par. 0057, data repository 144 may be configured to store the rules engine and/or event triggers in encrypted form (e.g., using the stored master key), and/or store a hashed representation of the rules engine and/or the event triggers list); generate, for the second communication interaction between the first computing device and the second computing device, a hash of the second communication interaction, wherein the hash of the second communication interaction is based on a communication method and communication protocol used for communication between the first computing device and the second computing device in the second communication interaction (see Chow pars. 0132-0133, At step 810, the system 140 generates a hash value of the unverified document image. The hash value of the unverified document image is generated using the same unique identifier and hash function(s) used to generate the hash value of the original document. The unique identifier is appended to the unauthenticated document and a hash of the unauthenticated document is generated using the same hash function(s) used to generate the hash of the original document. At step 812, the system 140 retrieves the hash value of the original document from the distributed ledger. In some embodiments, the system 140 retrieves the hash value by obtaining a current copy of the distributed ledger and traversing the ledger until the block containing the hash value of the original document is found. The system 140 unpacks the hash value from the block); compare the hash of the first communication interaction to the hash of the second communication interaction (see Chow pars. 0134, At step 814, the system 140 compares the hash value of the original document retrieved from the distributed ledger with the hash value generated for the unverified document image); responsive to determining, based on the comparing, that the hash of the first communication interaction matches the hash of the second communication interaction, store the hash of the second communication interaction (see Chow pars. 0132-0133, At step 812, the system 140 retrieves the hash value of the original document from the distributed ledger. In some embodiments, the system 140 retrieves the hash value by obtaining a current copy of the distributed ledger and traversing the ledger until the block containing the hash value of the original document is found. The system 140 unpacks the hash value from the block. In other embodiments, the system 140 can maintain a searchable database of document images and/or hashes stored on the distributed ledger and can retrieve the document hash value from the searchable database. The searchable database can be maintained by the central authority 150 and/or a third-party); responsive to determining, based on the comparing, that the hash of the first communication interaction does not match the hash of the second communication interaction: pause communication between the first computing device and the second computing device (see Chow par. If the hash values do not match, at step 818, the system 140 generates a not-authenticated message that is transmitted to the verifying party 108, 110, 112. The not-authenticated message indicates that the unverified document image could not be authenticated due to one or more issues. The verifying party 108, 110, 112 that generated the authentication request can perform one or more additional authentication attempts if they believe the not-authentication message to be in error, such as, for example, generating a new unverified document image for authentication, performing a hard-copy authentication, and/or otherwise authenticating the unverified document); and execute one or more machine-to-machine multi-factor verification processes (see Chow par. 0087, the one or more software applications executed by client device 104 may cause client device 104 to perform operations that generate input and output data specifying a new transaction (e.g., transaction 310 of FIG. 3) that transfers ownership of the tracked asset portion from user 110 to user 112, and that transmit the generated data to one or more of peer systems 160 for verification, processing (e.g., additional cryptographic hashing) and inclusion into a new block of the hybrid distributed ledger).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the teachings of Chow in to the system of Sethi in order to receive a signal representing data including an original document, append a unique identifier to the original document to generate a modified document, generate a hash value of the modified document, and transmit the hash value corresponding to the modified document to an electronic distributed ledger (see Chow par. 0004).
5. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sethi et al. US Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0211608 (hereinafter Sethi) in view of Chow et al. US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0048216 (hereinafter Chow) in further view of Clark et al. US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0109713 (hereinafter Clark)..
Regarding claim 3,Sethi in view of Chow discloses the computing platform of claim 1, Sethi in view of Chow does not explicitly discloses wherein the communication protocol used for the communication between the first computing device and the second computing device in the first communication interaction includes one of: message queuing telemetry transport (MQTT), constrained application protocol (CoAP), OPC unified architecture (OPC UA), or secure RADIUS.
However, in analogues art, Clark discloses wherein the communication protocol used for the communication between the first computing device and the second computing device in the first communication interaction includes one of: message queuing telemetry transport (MQTT), constrained application protocol (CoAP), OPC unified architecture (OPC UA), or secure RADIUS (see Clark par. 0887, the data protocol may comprise a Data Distribution Service DDS. In certain embodiments, for example, the data protocol may comprise a Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP). In certain embodiments, for example, the data protocol may comprise an Open Platform Communications Unified Architecture (OPC UA) protocol).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the teachings of Clark in to the system of Sethi and Chow in order to provide a data protocol field may identify a Constrained Application Protocol (CaOP) (see Clark par. 0406).
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 4-8, 11-14, and 17-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion 7. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
/SAMUEL AMBAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2433
/JEFFREY C PWU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2433
Prosecution Insights