DETAILED ACTION
This is a final office action on the merits. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the Office) has received claims 1 -13 in application 18/925313.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8-10, 12 and 13 are amended.
Claims 2, 6, 7, 11 are canceled.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8-10, 12 and 13 are pending and have been examined on the merits.
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
Claim Objection
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11/20/2025, with respect to the “Claim Objection” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of Claim 3 has been withdrawn.
35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed 11/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The amended claim limitations adds more detail for access history, user information, time of access, log hash value, and historical collection from a device, however, the claims are still collecting information (who, when, what file), analyzing information (hashing), and storing information (into a distributed ledger). This is the same general abstract concept of data collection, data processing and recordkeeping with more specific fields. The abstract grouping of the claims are mental processes (observation and recording of information and certain methods of organizing human activity. The added limitations (user information, timestamp, device ID, hash of access history) does not integrate the idea into a practical application because the claims do not recite a specific technical improvement. See 101 rejection.
35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments filed 11/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments are based on Yamauro not teaching the newly amended claims. New prior art is added in combination of Yamauro to teach the amended claims. See rejection below.
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, 3, 5, 8-10, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites and is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., an abstract idea) and does not provide an integration of the recited abstract idea into a practical application nor include an inventive concept that is “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea to which the claim is directed. MPEP §2106.
In determining subject matter eligibility in an Alice rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101, it is first determined at Step 1 whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of an invention (i.e., a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter). MPEP §2106.03. Here, it is determined that claims 1-13 are directed to an apparatus. Under a Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more enumerated categories of patent ineligible subject matter that amounts to a judicial exception to patentability. MPEP §2106.04. Here, independent claim 1 recites (Abstract idea bolded):
A data management apparatus, comprising:
a first storage storing an access history indicating an access to a monitored file; the access history including user information indicating a user accessed the monitored file, and a time of the access to the monitored file;
a second storage storing a distributed ledger; and
a processor that updates the distributed ledger, wherein
the processor stores transaction data generated from the access history into the distributed ledger.
Here, the claims are directed to the abstract idea, or combination of abstract ideas of collecting, processing, and recording information. This concept/abstract idea, which is seen above, falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping because it describes a commercial or legal interaction (e.g., asset management). Accordingly, it is determined that the claims recite an abstract idea since they fall within one or more of the three enumerated categories of patent ineligible subject matter. The claims also recite a mathematical concept.
Since it is determined that the claim(s) contain a judicial exception, it must then be determined, under Step 2A, Prong 2, whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of the exception. MPEP §2106.04. Here, claim 1 recites the additional elements of: “first storage,” “second storage,” “processor,” “monitored file” and “distributed ledger.” Therefore, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Examiner further notes that even though the claims may not preempt all forms of the abstraction, this alone, does not make them any less abstract. See OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Under the Step 2B analysis, it is determined whether the recited additional elements amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea to which the claims are directed (i.e., provide an inventive concept). MPEP §2106.05. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) : first storage,” “second storage,” “processor,” “monitored file,” and “distributed ledger” to implement the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. That is, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Accordingly, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
Independent claims 10 and 13 is similar and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 and is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 3, 5, 8, 9, and 12 when analyzed are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 3 recites “wherein the distributed ledger includes a first ledger and a second ledger, wherein the processor: stores, into the first ledger, another transaction data which includes a file hash value obtained by hashing the monitored file; and generates the transaction data so that the log hash value is associated with a hash value obtained by hashing data included in the other transaction data, and stores the transaction data into the second ledger.” There are no new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 4 recites “wherein each time the other transaction data is stored into the first ledger, the processor generates and stores the transaction data into the second ledger.” There are no new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 5 recites “wherein each time the access to the monitored file is sensed, the processor generates and stores the transaction data into the second ledger, even if the monitored file is not updated” There are no new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 8 recites “wherein the access history further includes a type of operation performed on the monitored file by the user.” There are no new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 9 recites “wherein the processor: restricts access to a specific area of a storage area for the log data in the first storage; and provides each user distinguished by the user information with permission to access the specific area.” There are no new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 12 recites “wherein the processor manages the distributed ledger for each device distinguished by the identification information.” There are no new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
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, 3, 5, 8-10, 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Yamamuro (US20230115180A1) in view of Barinov (US20180025181A1).
Regarding Claim 1. Yamamuro teaches:
A data management apparatus, comprising:
Yamamuro - A secret key 371 and proof data 372 are stored in storage device 37 (¶ 0154). Proof data 372 includes a suspension table 373 and commit table 374 (stored records evidencing update events) (¶ 0155). suspension table 373 includes a prescribed type of information included in transaction data that has not been used. Specifically, for example, a suspension record including such information as Key and Nonce is stored in suspension table 373 (¶ 0156). Commit table 374 includes a prescribed type of information included in used transaction data. Specifically, a commit record including such information as Key, Age, HV, and Nonce is stored in commit table 374 (¶ 0159).
…including user information indicating a user accessed…
Yamamuro - sender information on a sender of the transaction data… an individual (an employee of the A company) who has performed the operation to transmit transaction data to network NW (¶ 0067).
a second storage storing a distributed ledger; and
Yamamuro - The data management apparatus includes a storage device where a distributed ledger is stored, in the distributed ledger, a record including information on the data being stored in a time-series manner, and a controller that adds the record to the distributed ledger (¶ 0006).
a processor that updates the distributed ledger,
Yamamuro - Record creation unit 2123 reads such information as Key, Age, Obj-HV, Nonce, Sig, Prev-HV, and HV from the transaction data and creates a record including such information (¶ 0099). , ledger updating unit 2124 adds the record to distributed ledger 51 (¶ 0100). update of distributed ledger set 50 is completed (¶ 0101).
wherein the processor stores transaction data generated…into the distributed ledger.
Yamamuro - transaction data generator 2105 generates transaction data including such information as Key, Age, Obj-HV, Nonce, Sig, Prev-HV, and HV. Record creation unit 2123 reads such information as Key, Age, Obj-HV, Nonce, Sig, Prev-HV, and HV from the transaction data and creates a record including such information (¶ 0099). , ledger updating unit 2124 adds the record to distributed ledger 51 (¶ 0100). update of distributed ledger set 50 is completed (¶ 0101). Context for the “log”: suspension record including such information as Key and Nonce is stored in suspension table 373 (¶ 0156). a commit record including Key set to k1 is stored and commit data 376 where a commit record including Key set to k2 is stored (¶ 0159).
Yamamuro does not teach, however Barinov discloses:
a first storage storing an access history indicating access to a monitored file,
Barinov - monitoring changes (e.g., additions, removals, modifications, etc.) to the files, and transmitting metadata to the external transaction log 140 relating to such changes (teaches a logged history of file access on monitored files) (¶ 0027).
the access history…the monitored file, and a time of the access to the monitored file;
Barinov - the adding of metadata relating to the at least one data operation to the transaction log comprises adding a timestamp indicating a date and time of when the at least one data operation was performed on the at least one of the plurality of data files (¶ 0010).
…from the access history…
Barinov - adding metadata relating to the at least one data operation to a transaction log; creating a second hash value of the metadata relating to the at least one data operation; and transmitting the second hash value to the blockchain network in which at least one node in the blockchain network adds the second hash value as one or more additional blocks in the blockchain, such that the blockchain can be used to verify the accuracy of the plurality of data files stored on the electronic data storage (¶ 0009).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the data management system using a distributed ledger of Yamamuro with the monitoring file changes of Barinov because doing so yields a more reliable audit trail for monitored data files.
Regarding Claim 3. The combination of Yamamuro and Barinov further discloses:
The data management apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the distributed ledger includes a first ledger and a second ledger, wherein the processor: stores, into the first ledger, another transaction data which includes a file hash value obtained by hashing the monitored file; and generates the transaction data so that the log hash value is associated with a hash value obtained by hashing data included in the other transaction data, and stores the transaction data into the second ledger.
Yamamuro - The distributed ledger includes a first distributed ledger where a record including first information on the first data is stored in a time-series manner and a second distributed ledger where a record including second information on the second data is stored in a time-series manner (¶ 0006). The hash value is a numeric value obtained as a result of hashing of the component data (¶ 0059). generates transaction data for adding the record of Age “3” to distributed ledger 51 (¶ 0074).
Regarding Claim 4. The combination of Yamamuro and Barinov further discloses:
The data management apparatus according to claim 3, wherein each time the other transaction data is stored into the first ledger, the processor generates and stores the transaction data into the second ledger.
Yamamuro - creates a record (Age “3”) including the generated terminal hash value and the record hash value of the parent record (Age “2”) in distributed ledger 52 and has the record stored in distributed ledger 52 (¶ 0075).
Regarding Claim 5. The combination of Yamamuro and Barinov further discloses:
The data management apparatus according to claim 3, wherein each time the access to the monitored file is sensed, the processor generates and stores the transaction data into the second ledger, even if the monitored filed is not updated.
Yamamuro - In one embodiment, the controller causes the record including the first terminal value to be stored in the second distributed ledger based on a request from a user (¶ 0012).
Regarding Claim 8. The combination of Yamamuro and Barinov further discloses:
The data management apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the access history further includes a type of operation performed on the monitored file by the user.
Yamamuro - The distributed ledger includes a first distributed ledger where a record including first information on the first data is stored in a time-series manner and a second distributed ledger where a record including second information on the second data is stored in a time-series manner (¶ 0006). The hash value is a numeric value obtained as a result of hashing of the component data (¶ 0059). generates transaction data for adding the record of Age “3” to distributed ledger 51 (¶ 0074).
Regarding Claim 9. The combination of Yamamuro and Barinov further discloses:
The data management apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor: restricts access to a specific area of a storage area for the access history in the first storage; and provides each user distinguished by the user information with permission to access the specific area.
Yamamuro - The distributed ledger includes a first distributed ledger where a record including first information on the first data is stored in a time-series manner and a second distributed ledger where a record including second information on the second data is stored in a time-series manner (¶ 0006). The hash value is a numeric value obtained as a result of hashing of the component data (¶ 0059). generates transaction data for adding the record of Age “3” to distributed ledger 51 (¶ 0074).
Regarding Claim 10. Yamamuro teaches:
A data management apparatus comprising:
Yamamuro - a data management apparatus that manages data based on a distributed ledger technology (¶ 0006).
a first storage storing historical collection of a monitored file collected from a device;
Barinov - the system 100 generally includes a computer 110, data storage 120, a blockchain network 130 and an external transaction log 140 (¶ 0027). the transaction log 140 is provided to store metadata relating to operations performed on the one or more files 122 that are transmitted from computer 110 as well as information about the users/devices that add, remove and/or modify the files 122, including the date and time of such transaction (i.e., the “timestamp”) (¶ 0030).
a second storage storing a distributed ledger; and
Yamamuro - The data management apparatus includes a storage device where a distributed ledger is stored, in the distributed ledger, a record including information on the data being stored in a time-series manner, and a controller that adds the record to the distributed ledger (¶ 0006).
a processor that updates the distributed ledger, wherein
Yamamuro - Record creation unit 2123 reads such information as Key, Age, Obj-HV, Nonce, Sig, Prev-HV, and HV from the transaction data and creates a record including such information (¶ 0099). , ledger updating unit 2124 adds the record to distributed ledger 51 (¶ 0100). update of distributed ledger set 50 is completed (¶ 0101).
the processor stores transaction data generated from the historical collection into the distributed ledger,
Yamamuro - transaction data generator 2105 generates transaction data including such information as Key, Age, Obj-HV, Nonce, Sig, Prev-HV, and HV. Record creation unit 2123 reads such information as Key, Age, Obj-HV, Nonce, Sig, Prev-HV, and HV from the transaction data and creates a record including such information (¶ 0099). , ledger updating unit 2124 adds the record to distributed ledger 51 (¶ 0100). update of distributed ledger set 50 is completed (¶ 0101). Context for the “log”: suspension record including such information as Key and Nonce is stored in suspension table 373 (¶ 0156). a commit record including Key set to k1 is stored and commit data 376 where a commit record including Key set to k2 is stored (¶ 0159).
Yamamuro does not teach, however Barinov discloses:
the transaction data including a log hash value obtained by hashing the historical collection, the historical collection including identification information identifying the device, and a time of collection of the data from the device.
Barinov - the adding of metadata relating to the at least one data operation to the transaction log comprises adding a timestamp indicating a date and time of when the at least one data operation was performed on the at least one of the plurality of data files (¶ 0010). using the MD5 hashing algorithm, resulting in a 128-bit hash value, or using the SHA-256 hashing algorithm, resulting in a 256-bit hash value, applied to the value of the DATA field, including the braces and stripped of spaces and line break symbols, for example. It should be appreciated that the disclosure is not limited to these two common hashing algorithms according to an alternative embodiment (¶ 0039).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the data management system using a distributed ledger of Yamamuro with the monitoring file changes of Barinov because doing so yields a more reliable audit trail for monitored data files.
Regarding Claim 12. The combination of Yamamuro and Barinov further discloses:
The data management apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the processor manages the distributed ledger for each device distinguished by the identification information.
Yamamuro - transaction data generator 2105 generates transaction data including such information as Key, Age, Obj-HV, Nonce, Sig, Prev-HV, and HV. Record creation unit 2123 reads such information as Key, Age, Obj-HV, Nonce, Sig, Prev-HV, and HV from the transaction data and creates a record including such information (¶ 0099). , ledger updating unit 2124 adds the record to distributed ledger 51 (¶ 0100). update of distributed ledger set 50 is completed (¶ 0101). Context for the “log”: suspension record including such information as Key and Nonce is stored in suspension table 373 (¶ 0156). a commit record including Key set to k1 is stored and commit data 376 where a commit record including Key set to k2 is stored (¶ 0159).
Regarding Claim 13. Yamamuro further teaches:
A data management method using a distributed ledger technology, the data management method comprising:
obtaining, by a processor, access history indicating an access to a monitored file, the access history including user information indicating a user accessed the monitored file, and a time of the access to the monitored file;
Yamamuro - A secret key 371 and proof data 372 are stored in storage device 37 (¶ 0154). Proof data 372 includes a suspension table 373 and commit table 374 (stored records evidencing update events) (¶ 0155). suspension table 373 includes a prescribed type of information included in transaction data that has not been used. Specifically, for example, a suspension record including such information as Key and Nonce is stored in suspension table 373 (¶ 0156). Commit table 374 includes a prescribed type of information included in used transaction data. Specifically, a commit record including such information as Key, Age, HV, and Nonce is stored in commit table 374 (¶ 0159).
storing, by the processor, the transaction data into the distributed ledger.
Yamamuro - transaction data generator 2105 generates transaction data including such information as Key, Age, Obj-HV, Nonce, Sig, Prev-HV, and HV. Record creation unit 2123 reads such information as Key, Age, Obj-HV, Nonce, Sig, Prev-HV, and HV from the transaction data and creates a record including such information (¶ 0099). , ledger updating unit 2124 adds the record to distributed ledger 51 (¶ 0100). update of distributed ledger set 50 is completed (¶ 0101). Context for the “log”: suspension record including such information as Key and Nonce is stored in suspension table 373 (¶ 0156). a commit record including Key set to k1 is stored and commit data 376 where a commit record including Key set to k2 is stored (¶ 0159).
Yamamuro does not teach, however Barinov discloses:
generating, by the processor, transaction data from access history, the transaction data including a log hash value obtained by hashing the access history; and
Barinov - the adding of metadata relating to the at least one data operation to the transaction log comprises adding a timestamp indicating a date and time of when the at least one data operation was performed on the at least one of the plurality of data files (¶ 0010). using the MD5 hashing algorithm, resulting in a 128-bit hash value, or using the SHA-256 hashing algorithm, resulting in a 256-bit hash value, applied to the value of the DATA field, including the braces and stripped of spaces and line break symbols, for example. It should be appreciated that the disclosure is not limited to these two common hashing algorithms according to an alternative embodiment (¶ 0039).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the data management system using a distributed ledger of Yamamuro with the monitoring file changes of Barinov because doing so yields a more reliable audit trail for monitored data files.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kannan et al. (US20210133079A1) - Examples include a blockchain system for managing and validating log files generated corresponding to transactions of a plurality of computing resources. Some examples include creating a block, in the blockchain system, corresponding to a log file generated corresponding to a transaction of a computing resource of the plurality of computing resources. Some examples include performing checksum validation of log files generated corresponding to transactions of a plurality of computing resources, using a blockchain system.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CHRISTINA C whose telephone number is (571)270-7280. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8am to 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patrick Mcatee, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-7575. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form. /C.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698