DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 08/14/2024. Claims 1-8 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 .
Priority
Applicant’s benefit claim is hereby acknowledged of the U.S patent application No. 17/654,944, filed on 03/15/2022, which papers have been placed on record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/14/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
Claims 1-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-10, 12-18 and 20 of any patents granted on application No. 17/654,944.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are both claiming a common subject matter, “receiving from a trusted entity an endorsement pointer, referencing to a transaction claim which is approved by the same trusted entity and recording the pointer on a branch blockchain leger wherein the transaction was originally initiated.”.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehmet Aydar et al. ("Towards a Blockchain based digital identity verification, record attestation and record sharing system", ARXIV.ORG, CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY, 201 OLIN LIBRARY CORNELL UNIVERSITY ITHACA, NY, Pages: 1-25, 24 June 2019, referred to as Mehmet) in view of Zhong Tao et el. ("JointCloud Cross-chain Verification Model of Decentralized Identifiers", 2021 IEEE INTERNATIONAL PERFORMANCE, COMPUTING, AND COMMUNICATIONS CONFERENCE (IPCCC), IEEE, pages: 1-8, 29 October 2021, Referred to as Zhong).
Regarding claims 1, 4 and 7, Mehmet teaches:
creating a trunk blockchain ledger (Mehmet: P9. Par 3.3: Self-sovereign identity, “Self-sovereign identity (SSI) is an identity model in which any person; organization, or thing fully owns and controls their own data, and it is not governed by centralized authorities”; fig. 4: user's SSI; P12; Par 4.1: Digital identity management”), comprising:
a first unique identifier usable to access the trunk blockchain ledger (Mehmet: Fig. 4; P12, Par 4.1: Digital identity management,” A DDO includes the public key associated with the corresponding DID and metadata. needed to prove ownership the corresponding DID, and. endpoints of the DID objects to initiate trusted peer interactions between the ledger entities.”);
one or more signature rules (Mehmet: P7- P9, Par. Cryptography, hashing and digital signature); and
one or more public keys (Mehmet: Fig. 4; P12, Par 4.1: Digital identity management,” A DDO includes the public key associated with the corresponding DID and metadata. needed to prove ownership the corresponding DID, and. endpoints of the DID objects to initiate trusted peer interactions between the ledger entities.”);
creating, a first branch blockchain ledger off of the trunk blockchain ledger, the first branch blockchain ledger (Mehmet: fig. 3, P10; fig. 4, P12) comprising:
the first unique identifier (Mehmet: Fig. 4; P12, Par 4.1: Digital identity management, “DID”); and
a second unique identifier usable to access the first branch blockchain ledger (Mehmet: Fig. 4; P12, Par 4.1: Digital identity management, “DDO”);
recording, on the first branch blockchain ledger, at least a first blockchain transaction, wherein the first blockchain transaction comprises a first claim that is digitally signed using a private key corresponding to a public key of the one or more public keys (Mehmet: fig. 3, P11- P12, Par. 4: Proposed solution; Fig. 4, P12, Par. 4.1: Digital identity management);
providing the first claim to a trusted entity (Mehmet: fig.3, P10- P11, Par 3.5: Verifiable credentials; fig. 6, P14- P16, Par 4.3 Verifiable credentials in the system);
receiving, from the trusted entity, a first endorsement pointer that references the first claim, wherein the first endorsement pointer (Mehmet: fig. 3, fig. 6; P10- P11 and P14- P16) comprises:
a first hash of the first claim (Mehmet: P8- P9; hashed version; fig. 7; P17); and
recording, on the first branch blockchain ledger, the first endorsement pointer (Mehmet: fig. 3, fig. 6, fig. 7; 6; P10- P11 and P14- P17).
Mehmet does not explicitly disclose, however Zhong teaches:
a reference to a first endorsement that is located on a second blockchain ledger that is controlled by the trusted entity (Zhong: Fig. 4, D. Phases: (3) issuing verifiable claims, (4) signing for verifiable claims).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Mehmet by Zhong for an entity to store a verifiable claim on its blockchain in order to allow every entity to conduct verification for the claim.
Regarding claims 2 and 5, the combination of Mehmet and Zhong teaches all the features of claim 1 and 4, as outlined above.
Mehmet further teaches:
wherein the second blockchain ledger comprises a plurality of hashes corresponding to different endorsements (Mehmet: P8- P9; hashed version; fig. 7; P17).
Claims 3, 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehmet in view of Zhong and further in view of Novotny et al. (U.S Pub No. 2022/0398567 A1, referred to as Novotny).
Regarding claims 3, 6 and 8, the combination of Mehmet and Zhong teaches all the features of claim 1, 4 and 7, as outlined above.
Mehmet in view of Zhong does not explicitly disclose, however Novotny teaches:
wherein the first claim is encoded in a plaintext format (Novotny: Fig. 8, Step 810; ¶ 0145, “For example, plaintext claims are validated against the hashed claims in the secret information proof on the blockchain network by encrypting the plaintext claims and comparing them to the hashed claim. If the encrypted claims are identical or similar to the hashed claims, the plaintext claims may be verified.”).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Mehmet in view of Zhong by to validate plaintext claims against claims in a secret information proof on a blockchain network by encrypting the plaintext claims and comparing them to the hashed claim in order to verify plaintext claims in a blockchain network environment. (Novotny: ¶ 0145).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASSAN SAADOUN whose telephone number is (571)272-8408. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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, Joseph Hirl can be reached at 571-272-3685. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HASSAN SAADOUN/Examiner, Art Unit 2435
/JOSEPH P HIRL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2435