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 .
This action is in response to the communication filed on July 14, 2026, in response to the first office action on merit.
Remarks
Pending claims for reconsideration are claims 1-20. Applicant has
Amended claims 1, 11, 12, and 17.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims filed on July 14, 2026, have been considered but they are deemed moot in view of the new grounds of rejection (see 103 rejection below).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmehl et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: US 2025/0278510 Al / or “Schmehl” hereinafter) in view of Anthony Turner Pratkanis (US 2020/0174990 Al/ or “Pratkanis” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Schmehl discloses “A method comprising” (Para 0005: method of interacting with user personal information):
“transmitting, from a network node to at least one additional network node, a data transaction request message associated with a data set containing personal data” (Fig. 2: Steps 202-204; and Para 059: receives communication form a user; and Para 0059: the information is personal information);
“receiving, from one or more additional network nodes of the at least one additional network node, at least one data transaction validation message based on the data transaction request message” (Para 0060-0061, receives personal and non-personal information from different sources and blockchain determines output of the data),
But Schmehl fails to specially disclose a blockchain transaction validation message is based on a blockchain access rights stored in a blockchain associated with the data and receiving anonymized data set.
However, Pratkanis discloses “wherein the at least one data transaction validation message is based on a blockchain permission value stored in a blockchain associated with the data set” (Pratkanis, Para 0070-0072: the redaction is performed based on parameters);
“and receiving, based on the at least one data transaction validation message, an additional data set comprising at least one of a copy of the data set or an anonymized data set corresponding to the data set, wherein the additional data set comprises the copy of the data set or the anonymized data set based on the blockchain permission value” (Pratkanis, Para 0073: redacted i.e., an “anonymized” data set is stored ).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teachings of a blockchain transaction validation message is based on a blockchain access rights stored in a blockchain associated with the data and receiving anonymized data set of Pratkanis to the Distributed Data Security of Schmehl to create a system where personal data can be anonymized based on rules and regulation based on decision made by a system engineer and the ordinary person skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine to preserve sensitivity of the data (Pratkanis, Para 0070).
Regarding claim 2, in view of claim 1, Schmehl in view of Pratkanis disclose “wherein the blockchain permission value is based on at least one of a role-based access control scheme, a user-based access control scheme, a group-based access control scheme, or an object-based access control scheme” (Para 094). [see claim 1 for motivation]
Regarding claim 3, in view of claim 1, Schmehl discloses “further comprising: determining that the data set comprises personal data, wherein transmitting the data transaction request message comprises transmitting the data transaction request message based on determining that the data set comprises personal data” (Para 0059: the information is personal information).
Regarding claim 4, in view of claim 1, Schmehl discloses “further comprising: transmitting a transaction request message indicative of a proposed data transaction associated with the data set; receiving at least one transaction validation message based on the transaction request message; and causing an occurrence of the proposed data transaction based on the at least one transaction validation message, wherein the data transaction is detected based on causing the occurrence of the proposed data transaction” (Para 0060-0061, receives personal and non-personal information from different sources and blockchain determines output of the data).
Regarding claim 5, in view of claim 1, Schmehl discloses “further comprising: providing the additional data set as input to a machine learning model; and adding a block to the blockchain based on providing the additional data set as input to the machine learning model” (Para 0052: providing additional data; and Para 0009).
Regarding claim 6, in view of claim 1, Schmehl discloses “further comprising: adding a block to the blockchain based on receiving the additional data set” (Para 0052: providing additional data; and Para 0009: adding block).
Regarding claim 7, in view of claim 1, Schmehl in view of Pratkanis disclose “wherein the additional data set comprises the anonymized data set, the method further comprising: adding a block to the blockchain based on receiving the anonymized data set, wherein the block comprises a data type indicator indicative of the anonymized data set” (Pratkanis, Para 0074: redacted data type is stored along with the proof).
Regarding claim 8, in view of claim 1, Schmehl in view of Pratkanis disclose “wherein the additional data set comprises the anonymized data set, the method further comprising: adding a block to the blockchain based on receiving the anonymized data set, wherein the block comprises an access type indicator indicative of the anonymized data set” (Pratkanis, Para 0074: redacted data type is stored along with the proof).
Regarding claim 9, in view of claim 1, Schmehl in view of Pratkanis disclose “wherein the additional data set comprises the copy of the data set, the method further comprising: adding a block to the blockchain based on receiving the copy of the data set, wherein the block comprises a data type indicator indicative of the copy of the data set” (Para 0073: redacted i.e., an “anonymized” data set is stored).
Regarding claim 10, in view of claim 1, Schmehl in view of Pratkanis disclose “further comprising: adding a block to the blockchain based on receiving the additional data set; and transmitting a copy of the blockchain to at least one additional network node” (Para 0073: redacted i.e., an “anonymized” data set is stored).
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium corresponding to the method recited in claim 1. Claim 11 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium corresponding to the method recited in claim 10. Claim 12 is similar in scope to claim 10, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 13, in view of claim 11, Schmehl in view of Pratkanis disclose “further comprising: adding a block to the blockchain based on receiving the additional data set; and transmitting a blockchain update indication to the at least one additional network node, wherein the blockchain update indication comprises at least one of a copy of the data set or an additional copy of the additional data set” (Para 0073: redacted i.e., an “anonymized” data set is stored). [see claim 1 for motivation]
Regarding claim 14, in view of claim 11, Schmehl in view of Pratkanis disclose “further comprising: receiving, from at least one additional network node, a blockchain update indication associated with a data transaction, wherein the blockchain update indication comprises at least one of a copy of the data set or an additional copy of the additional data set; and adding a block to the blockchain based on the blockchain update indication” (Para 0073: redacted i.e., an “anonymized” data set is stored). [see claim 1 for motivation]
Regarding claim 15, in view of claim 11, Schmehl in view of Pratkanis disclose “further comprising: adding a block to the blockchain based on receiving the additional data set; transmitting, to the at least one additional network node, a blockchain update indication associated with adding the block; performing a data transaction associated with the additional data set; adding an additional block to the blockchain based on the data transaction; and transmitting, to the at least one additional network node, a blockchain update indication associated with adding the additional block” (Para 0094). [see claim 1 for motivation]
Regarding claim 16, in view of claim 11, Schmehl in view of Pratkanis disclose “wherein receiving the additional data set comprises receiving the additional data set from the at least one additional network node” (Para 0094). [see claim 1 for motivation]
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is directed to a system corresponding to the method recited in claim 1. Claim 17 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 18, in view of claim 17, Schmehl discloses “wherein the network node comprises a telemetry service, and wherein, to receive the additional data set, the one or more processors are configured to cause the system to: receive the additional data set from a customer device” (Fig. 2: Steps 202-204; and Para 059: receives communication form a user).
Regarding claim 19, in view of claim 17, Schmehl in view of Pratkanis disclose “wherein the network node comprises a data web service, and wherein, to receive the additional data set, the one or more processors are configured to cause the system to: receive the additional data set from an infrastructure” (Para 0094). [see claim 1 for motivation]
Regarding claim 20, in view of claim 17, Schmehl in view of Pratkanis disclose “wherein the network node comprises a compute engine, and wherein, to receive the additional data set, the one or more processors are configured to cause the system to: receive the additional data set from a data store” (Pratkanis). [see claim 1 for motivation]
Relevant Prior Arts
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shang et al. (US 2020/0320217 A1) discloses:
[Abstract] … Data permission information in a target block in a target block chain of the block chain system is obtained according to the data identifier. Based on the data permission information not including the user identifier, a query permission request is transmitted to at least one target server in the block chain system, the query permission request including the user identifier and the data identifier. Based on a received query
permission response satisfying a target policy in the data permission information, the first data is obtained from a data storage system according to the data identifier.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDULLAH ALMAMUN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3392. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, Lynn Feild can be reached on (571) 272-2092. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDULLAH ALMAMUN/Examiner, Art Unit 2431
/LYNN D FEILD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2431
Prosecution Insights