DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
With respect to Applicant’s argument that D1 allegedly performs splitting “before storing” whereas claim 1 requires dividing data “after first data is acquired from a storage apparatus,” the argument is not persuasive because D1 expressly discloses obtaining data to be stored, dividing the data into segments, and performing verification calculations on the segments. See D1, pars. [0006]-[0008], [0043]-[0047]. The claim merely requires “dividing at least part of first data acquired from a storage apparatus into at least one data segment,” and does not positively recite any temporal limitation requiring that the division occur only after storage or retrieval from persistent storage. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the data processed by D1 constitutes acquired first data because the data has already been obtained by the system before segmentation and calculation are performed.
Applicant’s argument that D1 fails to disclose “searching for data that conforms to a constraint relationship with the calculation result” is likewise unpersuasive because D2 expressly teaches this feature. D2 discloses that, after generating check codes, the system determines data whose calculated check code matches the original check code and further determines corresponding position information. See D2 pars. [0043], [0045], [0047], and [0049]. In particular, D2 teaches determining “final selection data” whose target check code is consistent with the original check code, which constitutes searching for data satisfying a constraint relationship with a calculation result. The claimed “constraint relationship” broadly encompasses equality or consistency relationships between calculated values.
Applicant’s contention that D2 merely performs an “enumeration process” rather than a claimed searching operation is not persuasive because generating candidate data values and determining which candidate satisfies a calculated constraint is itself a form of search. The claim does not limit the searching operation to any specific algorithmic technique, nor does it exclude exhaustive or iterative searching methodologies. D2 expressly searches among candidate data values to identify data satisfying the check code relationship. See D2 pars. [0045]-[0047].
Applicant’s argument that the “primary selection data” of D2 is not divided from the first data is also unpersuasive. D2 teaches generating candidate data corresponding to original XOR information derived from the original data and then evaluating those candidate data values using calculated check codes and positional information. See D2 pars. [0043]-[0049]. The rejection relies on D1 for the segmented-data calculation operations and relies on D2 for the searching, matching, and positional determination operations. A proper obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. §103 does not require that each reference independently disclose every claimed feature.
Applicant further argues that D2 determines position information only as an “order” among generated data rather than “a position mapping to the first data.” However, D2 expressly discloses determining original position information corresponding to original data among all data having a consistent check code. See D2 pars. [0043], [0047], and Fig. 1 (steps S11-S14). The claimed “position” is broadly recited and does not require any particular mapping structure. Determining relative or indexed position information among candidate data sets reasonably meets the claimed positional determination under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Applicant’s argument that D1 and D2 fail to disclose “associatively storing a correspondence relationship between the position and the calculation result” is also not persuasive. D1 expressly teaches storing each data segment together with its corresponding check value. See D1 pars. [0008], [0027], [0055], and Fig. 2. D2 further teaches associating determined position information with corresponding verification/check code information during recovery processing. See D2 pars. [0043]-[0049]. Collectively, the references teach maintaining an association between calculated verification values and corresponding positional information. The claim does not require any specialized storage structure beyond maintaining such an association.
Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine D1 and D2 because both references are directed to improving data integrity, verification, and recovery reliability in storage systems using calculated check values and corresponding positional information. Combining D2’s error-recovery and positional matching techniques with D1’s segmented storage verification framework would have predictably improved the reliability and recoverability of segmented stored data. Therefore, the prior rejection of the claims is maintained for the aforementioned reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10, 12, and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 108573172 A (hereinafter D1) and further in view of CN 105279048 (hereinafter D2).
Claim 1: D1 teaches a data validation method (e.g. [0075] & Figs. 1-4), comprising:
dividing at least part of first data acquired from a storage apparatus into at least one data segment (e.g. data is divided into segments- step S101, Fig. 1);
performing calculation for each of the at least one data segment to obtain at least one calculation result (e.g. step S102 - performing hash/digest for each divided block and mapping each block to a verification value – [0088]-[0095]);
associatively storing a correspondence relationship between a data segment and the calculation result (e.g. Abstract & step S103, Fig. 1).
Not explicitly taught by D1 is for each of the at least one calculation result, searching for data that conforms to a constraint relationship with the calculation result from the acquired first data, and determining a position of the data obtained through the searching in the first data and storing a correspondence relationship between the position and the calculation result.
However, D2 discloses storing derived information (e.g., “original XOR information”) representing the original data. When corruption occurs, D2 uses this stored calculation result to identify multiple candidate versions of the original data that could produce the stored XOR output (e.g. [0042]-[0051]). This inherently constitutes using a calculated value as a constraint to determine which data segments satisfy that mathematical relationship. Thus, D2 demonstrates the same type of searching based on a constraint between data and a previously computed result as required by Claim 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a POSITA, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate D2's data-location principle into D1's data-validation architecture to create a more robust or versatile data management system.
As per claims 12, 14, 20 and 21 the claimed features are rejected similarly to claim 1 above.
Claim 2: D1 and D2 teach the method according to claim 1, but fail to further teach comprising: acquiring second data at the position from the storage apparatus; determining, based on the correspondence relationship, whether the acquired second data and the calculation result corresponding to the position conform to the constraint relationship; if there is second data that does not conform to the constraint relationship with the calculation result corresponding to the position, determining that the first data is tampered with. However, D1 teaches retrieving data based on stored mapping and hashing mismatch detection (e.g. [0091]-[00997]). Furthermore, D2 teaches retrieving data at failing position for verification and determining corruption by performing XOR constraint mismatch (e.g. [0042]-[0051]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a POSITA, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to enhance D1 with D2’s known re-check and error determination for more robust tampering detection.
As per claim 7, the claimed features are rejected similarly to claim 2 above. D1 further teaches creating an index that stores check values associated with data segments for validation purposes (e.g. [0032], [0075]-[0077]). And using D2's teaching of storing position information with a calculation result to create an "index" that records a "position-to-result" correspondence (e.g.[0046], [0059]-[0061]), and then using it for validation as in D1, would have been an obvious combination of the two teachings to perform data integrity checking to a POSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As per claim 15, the claimed features are rejected similarly to claim 2 above.
Claim 3: D1 and D2 teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the step of performing the calculation for each of the at least one data segment comprises: using a digest algorithm to perform the calculation for each of the at least one data segment, to map the data segment of a first number of bits to data of a second number of bits, wherein the second number is less than the first number (e.g. D1 specifically describes using the MD5 algorithm, a digest/hash algorithm, to generate a check value for a data segment- [0089]).
As per claim 16, the claimed features are rejected similarly to claim 3 above.
Claim 4: D1 and D2 teach the method according to claim 1, but fail to teach that both the data obtained through the searching and the calculation result are binary data, the data obtained through the searching and the calculation result are of a same number of bits, and the constraint relationship is: a value of any bit of the bits for the data obtained through the searching is equal to a value of a corresponding bit of the bits for the calculation result; or a value of any bit of the bits for the data obtained through the searching is not equal to a value of a corresponding bit of the bits for the calculation result; or a part of the binary data for the data obtained through the searching is equal to a corresponding part of the binary data for the calculation result, and a value of a bit of a remaining part of the binary data for the data obtained through the searching is not equal to a value of a corresponding bit of a remaining part of the binary data for the calculation result. However, D2's core operation is a bitwise XOR constraint. The XOR result dictates a specific relationship between input bits (e.g., for bits to yield a '0', they must be equal; to yield a '1', they must not be equal). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a POSITA, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that defining constraints as bitwise equality/inequality is an obvious way to implement D2's taught principle.
As per claims 17 and 19, the claimed features are rejected similarly to claim 4 above.
Claim 5: D1 and D2 teach the method according to claim 1, but fail to teach that the storage apparatus is a non-volatile storage apparatus, and the first data is firmware data. However, D1's "storage apparatus" is generic. And using a non-volatile storage apparatus for persistent data would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a POSITA, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Also, applying data integrity validation methods (like those of D1 and D2) to firmware data stored in non-volatile memory would have been an a predictable and obvious application in the field of electronic device security to a POSITA, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As per claim 10, the claimed features are rejected similarly to claim 5 above.
Claim 6: D1 and D2 teach the method according to claim 1, but fail to teach that the step of the performing the calculation for each of the at least one data segment comprises: using a hash algorithm to perform the calculation for each of the at least one data segment, and/or the step of the for each of the at least one calculation result, searching for data that conforms to the constraint relationship with the calculation result from the acquired first data, and determining the position of the data obtained through the searching in the first data comprises: dividing the calculation result into at least one first data segment; for each of the at least one first data segment, searching for a second data segment that conforms to the constraint relationship with the first data segment from the acquired first data, and determining a data segment position of the second data segment obtained through the searching in the first data, the step of the associatively storing the correspondence relationship between the position and the calculation result comprises: associatively storing a correspondence relationship between the data segment position and the first data segment. However, D1 teaches dividing source data into segments. And the step of dividing a calculation result and using its parts as constraints would have been to a POSITA, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, an obvious inversion of D1's segmentation step, guided by D2's principle of using derived data (XOR info) to find source data. Searching for a segment matching a part of a calculation result is directly motivated by D2's teaching of searching with constraints.
As per claim 18, the claimed features are rejected similarly to claim 6 above.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUERRIER MERANT whose telephone number is (571)270-1066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 Am - 5:00 PM.
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, Mark Featherstone can be reached at 571-270-3750. 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.
/GUERRIER MERANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2111 5/1/2026
Prosecution Insights