DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendment
A preliminary amendment was received concurrently with the filing of the present application on 22 October 2024. This preliminary amendment does not fully comply with the requirement of 37 CFR 1.121(c) that the status of every claim must be indicated, noting that Claim 9 includes the unclear status indicator “Orig Currently amended inal”. It appears that the claim should have been indicated as currently amended based on the marked amendments. The amendments to the claims also do not fully comply with the requirement of 37 CFR 1.121(c)(2) that the text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strikethrough cannot be easily perceived, noting that double brackets may also be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters, and also noting the alternative recommendations in MPEP § 714 II.C(B). In particular, several claims appear to include text (e.g. single letters such as “a”, numerals such as “4”) which may be intended to be marked with strikethrough for deletion; however, in the font used, it is difficult to discern whether such text is, in fact, marked with strikethrough. As a courtesy and to advance prosecution, the preliminary amendment has been entered and the claims have been interpreted to the extent possible; however, it is possible that a claim amendment has not been clearly reflected or considered in this Office action if it was not clearly marked.
By the above preliminary amendment, Claims 3-10 and 13-20 have been amended. No claims have been added or canceled. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the present application.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it includes informalities. In particular, the first sentence of the abstract is a fragment (i.e. it does not include a verb). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraphs 0026, 0030, and 0033, the abbreviations “X-DIDDocs”, “DO-DID”, and “SMC-Data” have been used before they have been defined. Abbreviations should be written out in full the first time they appear. Further, the abbreviation “DSP” appears to be used to refer to at least both a digital signal processor (paragraph 0072) and a decentralized storage platform (paragraph 0126). In paragraph 0557, it appears that the abbreviation “Reg-ID” has not been explicitly defined in the specification.
Appropriate correction is required. The above is not intended as an exhaustive list of errors in the specification. The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The use of the terms Wi-Fi, WiMax, and Bluetooth, which are trade names or marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the terms should be capitalized wherever they appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) is permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 8, 10, 11, 14, 18, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claims 1, 4, 10, 11, 14, and 20, Arabic numerals appear in parentheses; however, as per MPEP § 608.01(m), Arabic numerals in parentheses should be used for reference characters in the figures. These could be replaced with letters or Roman numerals.
Claim 1 recites “an identifier of the owner” in line 6. It is not clear if this is intended to refer to the same identifier of the owner as recited in line 3 or a distinct identifier; however, for purposes of interpreting the prior art, it has been assumed that this is intended to refer to the same identifier. Similarly, in Claim 11, line 7, it is not clear if “an identifier of the owner” is intended to refer to the same identifier as in line 4.
In Claim 8, lines 2-3, and Claim 18, lines 2-3, the series of prepositional phrases “associated with a storage address of the data with the access control entity” is somewhat unclear as to what is “with the access control entity”. If this is intended to be a storage address at the access control entity, it is recommended to clarify this in the claim.
In Claim 10, lines 1-2, and Claim 20, lines 1-2, it appears that “the” should be deleted before “(1)” in order to avoid the repeated use in the phrase “the (1) the data”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Independent Claim 1 recites a method that includes sending information indicating a request to register data; determining a set of chameleon hash collision public parameters based on a collision function using a secret key, chameleon hash value, hash value, and public parameters; sending information indicating the data to be registered and the collision public parameters; and receiving information indicating an identifier of the registered data. The step of determining the collision public parameters constitutes a mathematical calculation (for example, see paragraph 0305). This calculation constitutes a mathematical concept, which is one of the groupings of abstract ideas set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). Abstract ideas are judicial exceptions as per MPEP § 2106.04(I). See also Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank, International, et al, 573 U.S. 208, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014).
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the only result of the calculation is sending the determined parameters, which is insignificant post-solution activity as per MPEP § 2106.05(g). Although the claim also recites receiving information indicating an identifier of the registered data, this is also insignificant extra-solution activity as per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because nothing further is done with the received identifier. Neither the sending of the data or parameters or receiving the identifier would result in a particular transformation, as per MPEP § 2106.05(c). Further, the claim does not require the use of the abstract idea in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture, as per MPEP § 2106.05(b). The recitations of the steps being performed by a WTRU constitute nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or a limitation to a particular technological environment, as per MPEP § 2106.05(f) and (h). The step of sending the information indicating the request to register data is also insignificant extra-solution activity as per MPEP § 2106.05(g). There are no additional elements that apply or use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond merely linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. There is no further step taken beyond sending the result of the calculation and receiving an identifier which is not subsequently used. Therefore, the claim is not directed to a practical application of the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for similar reasons as detailed above with respect to the question of a practical application of the judicial exception. The steps of sending the request, the data to be registered, and the collision public parameters, as well as the step of receiving the information indicating an identifier are merely directed to sending and receiving data over a network in a generic manner. These have been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), citing Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs, and buySAFE. Therefore, the claim as a whole, whether the functions are considered individually or as an ordered combination, is not directed to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Independent Claim 11 is directed to a WTRU having functionality corresponding to the method of Claim 1 and recites abstract ideas for similar reasons. The recitations of the processor and transceiver in Claim 11 are at a generic level and constitute nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract ideas on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, the system claims are also not directed to significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Dependent Claims 2-10 and 12-20 only recite further details of the abstract idea such as particular values of the various parameters used in the calculation (e.g. Claims 2 and 6) or of data that is sent or received (e.g. Claims 5 and 7-10), or additional steps of determining keys or deriving the parameters (e.g. Claims 3 and 4), which constitute additional abstract mathematical calculations. These claims recite abstract ideas for the same reasons as the independent claims, and also are not directed to a practical application and do not add significantly more to the abstract ideas recited in the independent claims.
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claims as an ordered combination and as a whole, Claims 1-20 are determined to be directed to abstract ideas without a practical application and without significantly more, as detailed above. Therefore, based on the above analysis, the claimed inventions are not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xu et al, “An Identity Management and Authentication Scheme Based on Redactable Blockchain for Mobile Networks” (cited by Applicant).
In reference to Claim 1, Xu discloses a method implemented by a wireless transmit/receive unit (see sections II.B and III.B, wireless mobile networks, which include mobile devices corresponding to the WTRU; see also paragraph 0058 of the present specification, where a WTRU broadly may include or be user equipment, a mobile station, a laptop, or a device operating on wireless networks, inter alia), where the method includes sending, by the WTRU, information indicating a request to register data including an identifier of the owner of the data (section III.A, “user” is owner of SSI data; Figure 2 and section V.B, user generates SSI for registration and sends ID); determining a set of chameleon hash collision public parameters (section IV.B, chameleon hash with CH.Col collision function, see also algorithm 1), including a--u’ and bu’ parameters (section IV.B, r’ and s’ correspond directly to au’ and bu’, compare step 4 of algorithm 1 with the equation in paragraph 0305 of the specification) which are based on a CH collision function (CH.Col) using a secret key of the owner (trapdoor key tk), a CH value of the identifier of the owner (chameleon hash h), a hash value of the data to be registered (message m), and a set of public parameters (see algorithms 1 and 2, public parameters generator g, prime numbers p and q); sending, by the WTRU, information indicating the data to be registered and the set of collision public parameters (Figure 2 and section V.B, user sends IDu and public key); and receiving from an access control entity information indicating an identifier of the registered data (Figure 2 and section V.B, receiving claim and signature corresponding to the identifier of the registered data, issuer corresponds to access control entity).
In reference to Claim 2, Xu further discloses that the secret key is a trapdoor key (section IV.B, trapdoor key tk).
In reference to Claim 3, Xu further discloses determining the private trapdoor key as a random number from a set of numbers associated with a prime q and determining a public hash key based on a function of a cryptographic primitive g, the private trapdoor key, and a prime p (see section IV.B, generating tk and hk; algorithm 2, step 3, trapdoor key random value from set of numbers associated with q, and steps 1, 2, and 4, where public key is calculated based on g and the trapdoor key and g is based on p).
In reference to Claim 4, Xu further discloses deriving the collision public parameters based on the collision function and the private trapdoor key, a CH value of the identifier, the hash value of the data, the primes p and q and the generator g as input parameters (see section IV.B, CH.Col, and algorithm 1, for the calculation of the CH and the derivation of r’ and s’ from the trapdoor key, CH h, hash of data m, and p, q, and g).
In reference to Claim 5, Xu further discloses that the identifier of the owner is verified credential information (section IV.C, verifiable claim is verified credential information, see also Figure 2 and section V.B).
In reference to Claim 6, Xu further discloses determining the hash value based on a data fingerprint of the data using a hashing algorithm (see Figure 2, algorithm 3, and section V.B step 3, where H is a hash using a predetermined standard collision-resistant hash function).
In reference to Claim 7, Xu further discloses that the information indicating the data to be registered includes a hash value or content of the data (section III.A, SSI, see also Figure 2 and section V.B, user generates SSI for registration and sends ID).
In reference to Claim 8, Xu further discloses the identifier of the registered data is associated with a storage address of the data with the access control entity (section III.A, blockchain transactions have associated storage addresses, see also section V.A).
In reference to Claims 9 and 10, Xu further discloses that the request to register the data as well as the data to be registered and set of public parameters are sent to the access control entity (see Figure 2 and section V.B, request, ID, and public parameters sent from user, corresponding to owner, to issuer, corresponding to access control entity).
Claims 11-20 are directed to a WTRU having functionality corresponding to the methods of Claims 1-10, and are rejected by a similar rationale, mutatis mutandis (noting that a device in a mobile network as per sections II.B and III.B would inherently include a transceiver to communicate with the network and a processor).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ateniese et al, US Patent 9774578, discloses a system for a rewritable blockchain that uses chameleon hashes.
Panwar et al, US Patent 12229302, discloses a method for rewriting blockchain records using chameleon hashes having public parameters.
Ma et al, US Patent Application Publication 2021/0144006, discloses a traceable method for blockchain data using a chameleon hash with public parameters.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zachary A Davis whose telephone number is (571)272-3870. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:30pm, Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Rupal D Dharia can be reached at (571) 272-3880. 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.
/Zachary A. Davis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492
Prosecution Insights