DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to application filed on October 22nd, 2024.
Claims 1~20 are examined.
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 10/22/24 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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1~20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1~20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,166,904. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the U.S Patent mentioned above substantially teaches and/or anticipates claims 1~20 of the instant application. For example, claim 1 of the U.S Patent reciting, “…similarities among client network asset deployments” anticipates the instant application’s “performing scans of client networks to assess the client networks…”, and thus not patentably distinct from each other. See the comparison of claims 1 below:
Application: 18/923,396
U.S Patent 12,166,904
1. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing one or more sequences of instructions executable by one or more processors to perform a set of steps comprising:
registering, with an authority, a digital certificate; storing, accessible to the authority, information for the digital certificate; and writing data, associated with the digital certificate, to a blockchain, wherein a validity of the digital certificate is able to be performed using the stored information and the written data
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising: receiving, to a certificate authority, a request to issue a digital certificate on behalf of a user; authenticating an identity of the user and a validity of a public key associated with the user; issuing, by the certificate authority, a digital certificate for use by the user in performing one or more secure operations; storing first information for the issuing of the digital certificate to a secure database accessible by the certificate authority; and writing second information for the issuing of the digital certificate as a transaction record to a blockchain, wherein a party to a communication involving the digital certificate is able to validate information in the digital certificate and independently verify that the information is also contained in the transaction record stored to the blockchain.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 2~3 recites the limitation “the one or more transcoding jobs…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
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.
Claims 1~20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Peterka et al. hereinafter Peterka (WO/2019161412).
Regarding Claim 1,
Peterka taught a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing one or more sequences of instructions executable by one or more processors to perform a set of steps comprising:
registering, with an authority, a digital certificate [¶30, certificate authority (CA) issue cryptographic certificates to service providers as well as end-user devices that use these certificates to establish secure communication; ¶64, manufacturer may decide to use a public certificate authority in which case the manufacturer certificate would be a sub-CA certificate signed by the public CA];
storing, accessible to the authority, information for the digital certificate [¶36, a digital certificate includes a public key combined with meta information about this key such as, but not limited to, an owner’s name, issue data, and/or expiration date; ¶112]; and
writing data, associated with the digital certificate, to a blockchain, wherein a validity of the digital certificate is able to be performed using the stored information and the written data [¶35, a transaction or entry in the distributed certification ledger (DCL) contains information that pertains to a specific digital certificate associated with and/or signed by the cryptographic key.
Regarding Claim 2,
Peterka taught wherein executing the one or more transcoding jobs further includes: receiving, to the authority, a valid request to perform an operation with respect to the digital certificate; performing, by the authority, the operation with respect to the digital certificate; and updating the information for the digital certificate and the transaction record on the blockchain to reflect the performing of the operation [¶127, hashing and timestamps are available by design and for each transaction timestamps gets updated on the entire chain right after the closing of a block. Hence, the relying party can verify the certificate health and status of the certificate any time on the ledger system and updates occur regularly and frequently].
Regarding Claim 3,
Peterka taught wherein executing the one or more transcoding jobs further includes: receiving, to the authority, a request to validate the digital certificate; verifying, by the authority, that the digital certificate is valid according to current information for the digital certificate stored both accessible to the authority and to the blockchain; and providing a response indicating that the digital certificate is valid [¶124, the trust is established between an end-user and a relying (or verifying) party via trusted third party (i.e. Certification Authority). The relying party should verify the validity by checking if a certificate has been revoked, by reviewing Certificate Revocation Lists (CRLs) e.g. using OCSP (online certificate status protocol) servers provided by the Certification Authority prior to trusting the end-user certificate. With the ledger system, just one entity provides the certificate health status (i.e. Good or Bad) and relevant information is retrieved from published information on the ledger].
Regarding Claim 4,
Peterka taught wherein the current information stored to the blockchain for the digital certificate is able to be determined by accessing the blockchain [¶62; ¶65; ¶69] or by accessing data stored to a local cache that were obtained by previously accessing the blockchain or receiving data for an update to the blockchain.
Regarding Claim 5,
Peterka taught wherein the certificate authority is provided for operation as a service subordinate to a trusted root certificate authority [¶61, gateway connects to the blockchain, looks up the device model, checks its certificate, verifies device compliance and interoperability, further looks up the manufacturer record and the root certificate also included in the blockchain].
Regarding Claim 11,
Peterka taught further comprising: verifying that the digital certificate is not identified in a bad certificate list or a revoked certificate list before verifying that the digital certificate is valid [¶122, query a CRL to establish a trust level].
Regarding Claim 12,
Peterka taught further comprising: auditing a process used by the authority to register the digital certificate by analyzing all data stored for the digital certificate to the blockchain [¶36, if a certificate is signed (aka issued), the signer vouches for this information to be correct, e.g. a digital certificate certifies the ownership of a public key by the subject named in the certificate].
Regarding Claim 13,
Peterka taught wherein the data includes identifying information for the digital certificate, authentication information for any entity involved in the registration, a result of the registration, and a time of the registration [¶36, a digital certificate includes a public key combined with meta information about this key such as, but not limited to, an owner’s name, issue data, and/or expiration date].
Regarding Claims 6~10 and 14~20, the claim is similar in scope to claim(s) 1~5 and 11~13 and therefore, rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEE SOO KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3229. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas Taylor can be reached on (571) 272-3889. 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.
/HEE SOO KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443