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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Regarding Claim 17, it is not clear what claim it depends on. For purposes of this examination, the examiner is assuming Claim 17, depends on Claim 4. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "wherein generation of the random key". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13, recites the limitation "wherein the third hash-based message authentication code”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1, 7, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hui et al., (US 20110202767 A1) hereinafter referred to as Hui.
Regarding Claims 1 and 14, Hui discloses A pseudonymisation method, wherein the pseudonymisation method comprises: receiving a data subject identifier from a first data controller, the first data controller having a first data controller identifier, [paragraph 0003, In the pseudonymization method, the association between the real identity of a user and his health records has been removed, and the relationship of correspondence is established between the user's health records and one or more of his pseudonyms] [paragraph 0012, receiving a user identity ID.sub.user from a user device]
computing a pseudonym seed based on the data subject identifier using a cryptographic mixing function based on a pseudonym seed generation key, [paragraph 0012, determining a set of public parameters and a set of private parameters] [paragraph 0037, on the basis of an identity-based encryption (IBE) method. In the initial setup phase S210, the PIM D220 determines a set of public parameters and a set of private parameters used for pseudonym generation and authentication based on the IBE method]
computing a global pseudonym as a first hash-based message authentication code on the pseudonym seed with a global pseudonym key.[paragraph 0012, generating a prime pseudonym Pprime=<H1 (1Duser),H1 <ᵊ>(IDuser)> based on the determined set of private parameters and the IDuser, in which H1 is a one-way hash function, ᵊ is a random number selected from a domain Zp, and p is a selected prime number]
Regarding Claim 7, Hui discloses wherein different keys, the global pseudonym, the local pseudonym and the data controller identifier are bit sequences of a predetermined length [paragraph 0038, H.sub.1 is a first one-way hash function which maps a sequence of 0 and 1 having an arbitrary length]
and the cryptographic mixing function is exclusive or function. [paragraph 0057, in which .sym. represents an XOR operation]
Regarding Claim 15, Hui discloses wherein the separate entities comprise separate computers programmed for performing the pseudonymisation method respectively performed at the separate entities, the separate computers being interconnected by a computer network. [paragraph 0004, teaches multiple different computing devices performing the pseudonymisation]
Regarding Claim 16, Hui discloses wherein the pseudonym seed is computed based on an encrypted data subject identifier using the cryptographic mixing function based on a pseudonym seed key, the pseudonym seed key being computed based on the pseudonym seed generation key as a cryptographic mixing function based on a random key and wherein the encrypted data subject identifier is computed based on the data subject identifier using the cryptographic mixing function based on the random key and wherein the first hash-based message authentication code is computed on the cryptographic mixing function of the encrypted data subject identifier based on the pseudonym seed key. [paragraph 0012, determining a set of public parameters and a set of private parameters…generating a prime pseudonym Pprime=<H1 (1Duser),H1 <ᵊ>(IDuser)> based on the determined set of private parameters and the IDuser, in which H1 is a one-way hash function, ᵊ is a random number selected from a domain Zp, and p is a selected prime number]] [paragraph 0037, on the basis of an identity-based encryption (IBE) method. In the initial setup phase S210, the PIM D220 determines a set of public parameters and a set of private parameters used for pseudonym generation and authentication based on the IBE method]
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.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hui, as applied to Claim 1, above, in view of Chase et al., (US 20100185861 A1) hereinafter referred to as Chase.
Regarding Claim 5, Hui does not explicitly teach wherein steps of receiving the data subject identifier, computing the pseudonym seed, computing the global pseudonym, computing the local pseudonym key, computing the local pseudonym, and providing the local pseudonym are performed by a second entity separate from the data controller.
Chase teaches wherein steps of receiving the data subject identifier, computing the pseudonym seed, computing the global pseudonym, computing the local pseudonym key, computing the local pseudonym, and providing the local pseudonym are performed by a second entity separate from the data controller. [Figure 5, element 506, “Attribute Authority”]
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Chase with the disclosure of Hui. The motivation or suggestion would have been “for protecting user privacy with a pseudonym.” (paragraph 0001)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 8-12, and 19-20 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding Claims 2-4, 8-12, and 19-20, the closest prior art of record does not explicitly teach nor suggest in detail, the limitations of these claims in view of other limitations of the intervening claims.
Regarding Claims 6 and 13 would be 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 if the 112(b) rejections were obviated.
Thus the prior arts of record taking singly or in combination do not teach or suggest the above-stated limitations taking wholly in combination with all the elements of each independent claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J STEINLE whose telephone number is (571)272-9923. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm CT.
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, Eleni Shiferaw can be reached at (571) 272-3867. 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.
/ANDREW J STEINLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2497