DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the application 18/837,269 filed on August 09th, 2024.
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.
Claims 11-20 have been added. Claims 1-20 are pending and herein considered.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted on 08/09/2024, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CRR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 10; claims 1, 9 and 10 are/is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claims are/is directed to an abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application nor being significantly more.
The claims reciting the limitations “generat[ing] a code which enables correction of the original data,” “generat[ing] a first tag which enables detection of falsification of the original data,” “stor[ing] the code and the first tag in a storage part,” “retriev[ing] a falsified code and the first tag from the storage part,” “generat[ing] a second tag based on the falsified code and determin[ing] a falsified portion(s) in the falsified code by using the first tag and the second tag” and “outputt[ing] corrected original data by using the determined falsified portion(s) and the falsified code” are directed to an abstract idea as the claims recite mental processes. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. It’s noted that the claims recite additional element(s) (i.e, a computer). However, said additional element is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of generating/generating/storing/retrieving/generating/determining/outputting) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not integrated into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As mentioned above, although the claims recite additional element, said element taken individually or as a combination, do not result in the claim amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea because as the additional elements perform generic computer content distributing functions routinely used in information technology field. Outputting corrected original data by using the determined falsified portion(s) and the falsified code is conventional, well know routing in view of Berkeeimer memo here. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Therefore, the claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 2-8, 11-15 & 16-20; claims 2-8, 11-15 & 16-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter for the same reasons addressed above as the claims are directed to abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application nor being significantly more.
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.
Claims 1, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Kawazu, U.S. Pub. Number 2017/0249483, in view of Fujiki, U.S. Pub. Number 2021/0314307.
Regarding claim 1; Kawazu discloses a data storage apparatus (par. 0032; fig. 1; an information processing apparatus 100.), comprising:
at least a processor (par. 0032; fig. 1; CPU 105.); and
a memory (par. 0032; fig. 1; a ROM 101.) in circuit communication with the processor, wherein the processor is configured to execute program instructions stored in the memory to perform:
generating, based on original data and a falsification frequency, a code which enables correction of the original data (par. 0088; generates verification data including the hash values stored by the first storage unit 202, the hash value stored by the second storage unit 204, and the digital signature.);
storing the code and the first tag in a storage part (pars. 0087-0088; store the hash value of the first predetermined value in the security chip 205; store the hash value in the second storage unit 204.);
retrieving a falsified code and the first tag from the storage part (par. 0088; transmits the verification data generated by the security chip 205 to the reception unit 207 of the server.); and
outputting corrected original data by using the determined falsified portion(s) and the falsified code (par. 0100; outputs the combined hash value calculated by the calculation unit of each data to a second storage unit. ).
Kawazu fails to explicitly disclose generating a first tag which enables detection of falsification of the original data, based on the original data; generating a second tag based on the falsified code, and determining a falsified portion(s) in the falsified code by using the first tag and the second tag.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Fujiki discloses transmitting device and transmitting method, and receiving device and receiving method comprising generating a first tag which enables detection of falsification of the original data, based on the original data (Fujiki: par. 0053; the encoding unit 32 creates/generates a plaintext data bit sequence in which an error detection/correction code is added to the Payload and the CMAC tag, then converts the plaintext data bit sequence into an encrypted data bit sequence, and transmits the encrypted data bit sequence to the LPWA communication unit 33.); generating a second tag based on the falsified code, and determining a falsified portion(s) in the falsified code by using the first tag and the second tag (Fujiki: par. 0063; generates a Payload corresponding to the sensor data, performs CAMC processing on the basis of the Payload, generates a CMAC tag, and outputs the Payload and the CAMC tag to the encoding unit 32.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Fujiki into the apparatus, system, and method of Kawazu comprising generating a first tag which enables detection of falsification of the original data, based on the original data; generating a second tag based on the falsified code, and determining a falsified portion(s) in the falsified code by using the first tag and the second tag to improve the confidentiality and communication (Fujiki: par. 0002).
Regarding claim 9; Claim 9 is directed to a data storage method which has similar scope as claim 1. Therefore, claim 9 remains un-patentable for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 10; Claim 10 is directed to a computer-readable non-transitory recording medium which has similar scope as claim 1. Therefore, claim 10 remains un-patentable for the same reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3 and 4, 5, 6 and 7, 3 and 8, 11, 12 and 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18, 19, or 20 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2; Claim 2 recites additional features of “generating the code which enables correction of the original data by duplicating the original data based on the falsification frequency; generating the first tag by processing the original data based on a block cipher using a shared key; processing individual data, which corresponds to the duplicated original data included in the falsified code, based on the block cipher using the shared key to generate the second tag for each of the individual data, and comparing the first tag with each of the second tags to determine falsified data corresponding to the duplicated original data in the falsified code; and outputting the data corresponding to the duplicated original data other than the falsified data in the falsified code, as the corrected original data” which meets the requirements of PCT with respect to novelty and/or inventive step.
Regarding claim 3; Claim 3 recites additional features of “generating the code which enables correction of the original data by executing erasure correction coding on the original data based on the falsification frequency; generating the first tag by using a combinatorial group testing matrix and a message authentication code using a block cipher using a shared key for the code; generating the second tag by using the combinatorial group testing matrix and the message authentication code using the block cipher using the shared key for the falsified code, and determining the falsified portion( s) in the falsified code by using the first tag and the second tag; and executing erasure correction on the falsified code by using the falsified portion(s) in the falsified code, and outputting data in the code on which the erasure correction has been executed, as the corrected original data” which meets the requirements of PCT with respect to novelty and/or inventive step.
Regarding claim 4; Claim 4 depends from claim 3. Therefore, claim 4 is allowable.
Regarding claim 5; Claim 5 recites additional features of “generating the code which enables correction of the original data by duplicating the original data based on the falsification frequency; generating the first tag by processing the original data with a collision-resistant hash function; processing individual data, which corresponds to the duplicated original data included in the falsified code, based on the collision resistant hash function to generate the second tag for each of the individual data, and comparing the first tag with each of the second tags to determine falsified data corresponding to the duplicated original data in the falsified code; and outputting the data corresponding to the duplicated original data other than the falsified data in the falsified code, as the corrected original data” which meets the requirements of PCT with respect to novelty and/or inventive step.
Regarding claim 6; Claim 6 recites additional features of “generating the code which enables correction of the original data by executing erasure correction coding on the original data based on the falsification frequency; generating the first tag by using a combinatorial group testing matrix and an exclusive OR group-test-based message authentication code using a block cipher using a shared key for the code; generating the second tag by using the combinatorial group testing matrix and the exclusive OR group-test-based message authentication code using the block cipher using the shared key for the falsified code, and determining the falsified portion(s) in the falsified code by using the first tag and the second tag; and executing erasure correction on the falsified code by using the falsified portion(s) in the falsified code, and outputting data in the code on which the erasure correction has been executed, as the corrected original data” which meets the requirements of PCT with respect to novelty and/or inventive step.
Regarding claim 7; Claim 7 depends from claim 6. Therefore, claim 7 is allowable.
Regarding claim 8; Claim 8 depends from claim 3. Therefore, claim 8 is allowable.
Regarding claim 11; Claim 11 recites additional features of “generating the code which enables correction of the original data by duplicating the original data based on the falsification frequency; generating the first tag by processing the original data based on a block cipher using a shared key; processing individual data, which corresponds to the duplicated original data included in the falsified code, based on the block cipher using the shared key to generate the second tag for each of the individual data, and comparing the first tag with each of the second tags to determine falsified data corresponding to the duplicated original data in the falsified code; and outputting the data corresponding to the duplicated original data other than the falsified data in the falsified code, as the corrected original data” which meets the requirements of PCT with respect to novelty and/or inventive step.
Regarding claim 12; Claim 12 recites additional features of “generating the code which enables correction of the original data by executing erasure correction coding on the original data based on the falsification frequency; generating the first tag by using a combinatorial group testing matrix and a message authentication code using a block cipher using a shared key for the code; generating the second tag by using the combinatorial group testing matrix and the message authentication code using the block cipher using the shared key for the falsified code, and determining the falsified portion(s) in the falsified code by using the first tag and the second tag; and executing erasure correction on the falsified code by using the falsified portion( s) in the falsified code, and outputting data in the code on which the erasure correction has been executed, as the corrected original data” which meets the requirements of PCT with respect to novelty and/or inventive step.
Regarding claim 13; Claim 13 depends from claim 12. Therefore, claim 13 is allowable.
Regarding claim 14; Claim 14 recites additional features of “generating the code which enables correction of the original data by duplicating the original data based on the falsification frequency; generating the first tag by processing the original data with a collision-resistant hash function; processing individual data, which corresponds to the duplicated original data included in the falsified code, based on the collision-resistant hash function to generate the second tag for each of the individual data, and comparing the first tag with each of the second tags to determine falsified data corresponding to the duplicated original data in the falsified code; and outputting the data corresponding to the duplicated original data other than the falsified data in the falsified code, as the corrected original data” which meets the requirements of PCT with respect to novelty and/or inventive step.
Regarding claim 15; Claim 15 recites additional features of “generating the code which enables correction of the original data by executing erasure correction coding on the original data based on the falsification frequency; generating the first tag by using a combinatorial group testing matrix and an exclusive OR group-test-based message authentication code using a block cipher using a shared key for the code; generating the second tag by using the combinatorial group testing matrix and the exclusive OR group-test-based message authentication code using the block cipher using the shared key for the falsified code, and determining the falsified portion(s) in the falsified code by using the first tag and the second tag; and executing erasure correction on the falsified code by using the falsified portion( s) in the falsified code, and outputting data in the code on which the erasure correction has been executed, as the corrected original data” which meets the requirements of PCT with respect to novelty and/or inventive step.
Regarding claim 16; Claim 16 recites additional features of “generating the code which enables correction of the original data by duplicating the original data based on the falsification frequency; generating the first tag by processing the original data based on a block cipher using a shared key; processing individual data, which corresponds to the duplicated original data included in the falsified code, based on the block cipher using the shared key to generate the second tag for each of the individual data, and comparing the first tag with each of the second tags to determine falsified data corresponding to the duplicated original data in the falsified code; and outputting the data corresponding to the duplicated original data other than the falsified data in the falsified code, as the corrected original data” which meets the requirements of PCT with respect to novelty and/or inventive step.
Regarding claim 17; Claim 17 recites additional features of “generating the code which enables correction of the original data by executing erasure correction coding on the original data based on the falsification frequency; generating the first tag by using a combinatorial group testing matrix and a message authentication code using a block cipher using a shared key for the code; generating the second tag by using the combinatorial group testing matrix and the message authentication code using the block cipher using the shared key for the falsified code, and determining the falsified portion(s) in the falsified code by using the first tag and the second tag; and executing erasure correction on the falsified code by using the falsified portion( s) in the falsified code, and outputting data in the code on which the erasure correction has been executed, as the corrected original data” which meets the requirements of PCT with respect to novelty and/or inventive step.
Regarding claim 18; Claim 18 depends from claim 17. Therefore, claim 18 is allowable.
Regarding claim 19; Claim 19 recites additional features of “generating the code which enables correction of the original data by duplicating the original data based on the falsification frequency; generating the first tag by processing the original data with a collision-resistant hash function; processing individual data, which corresponds to the duplicated original data included in the falsified code, based on the collision-resistant hash function to generate the second tag for each of the individual data, and comparing the first tag with each of the second tags to determine falsified data corresponding to the duplicated original data in the falsified code; and outputting the data corresponding to the duplicated original data other than the falsified data in the falsified code, as the corrected original data” which meets the requirements of PCT with respect to novelty and/or inventive step.
Regarding claim 20; Claim 20 recites additional features of “generating the code which enables correction of the original data by executing erasure correction coding on the original data based on the falsification frequency; generating the first tag by using a combinatorial group testing matrix and an exclusive OR group-test-based message authentication code using a block cipher using a shared key for the code; generating the second tag by using the combinatorial group testing matrix and the exclusive OR group-test-based message authentication code using the block cipher using the shared key for the falsified code, and determining the falsified portion(s) in the falsified code by using the first tag and the second tag; and executing erasure correction on the falsified code by using the falsified portion( s) in the falsified code, and outputting data in the code on which the erasure correction has been executed, as the corrected original data” which meets the requirements of PCT with respect to novelty and/or inventive step.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHOI V LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5087. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, Shewaye Gelagay can be reached on 571-272-4219. 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.
/KHOI V LE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2436
Prosecution Insights