DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s response/application filed on 03/17/2026.
The Examiner notes that citations to United States Patent Application Publication paragraphs are formatted as [####], #### representing the paragraph number.
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 11 have been amended.
No claims have been added or canceled.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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.
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(a) 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) 1-6, 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campero (US 9858781), in view of Campagna (US 20180324175), further in view of Biggs (US 20090089803).
Regarding claim(s) 1 and 11, Campero discloses:
a regulating entity (the “third party 18” in Col 9 lines 6-65 of Campero); a target entity (the user in Col 9 lines 6-65 of Campero); and a processing server (the “broker 16” of Col 9 lines 6-65 of Campero),
receiving, by a receiver of a processing server, a consent request for data associated with a target entity stored on the opaque blockchain, the consent request including a digital signature generated by a regulating entity using a private key of a first cryptographic key pair (By disclosing, “the third party
device [(regulating entity)] 18 (security system discussed below) sends 62 a message to the user's determined broker 16 [(processing server)], which message includes a request to access data on the user's [(target entity)] wallet 13a.” (Col 9 lines 6-65 of Campero); “The distributed ledger system 14 interacts with the user's wallet as well as third party systems to register user's and allow access to users to otherwise locked facilities.” (Col 5 line 5-7 of Campero); and the blockchain can be an opaque (private) blockchain (Col 10 lines 40-42 of Campero));
transmitting, by a transmitter of the processing server, the consent request to the target entity (By disclosing, “The request for data is sent 64 from the broker system 16. A “score” is calculated for determining the validity of the data (rather than being a measure of the secure transmission of the data). A scoring algorithm can be based on the number and types of attesters, etc., to the user's wallet 13a on device 12a.” (Col 9 lines 6-23 of Campero));
receiving, by the receiver of the processing server, a consent message digitally signed using a private key of a third cryptographic key pair associated with the target entity, the consent message granting the regulating entity access to the data associated with the target entity stored on the blockchain (By disclosing, “The wallet 13a includes a module 54c that allows a user to view the request and either approve, all or part of none of the request. Upon approval (partial or all) of the request, the wallet 13a encrypts via encryption module 55 the requested information using a public key infrastructure (PKI) where a public key of the third party is used along with one the private keys associated with the wallet 13a to encrypt the data. The encrypted data can either be sent to the user's broker system 16 or…” (Col 8 lines 30-44 of Campero)); and
transmitting, by the transmitter of the processing server, the consent message to the regulating entity (By disclosing, “At the broker 16 system, upon reception of the encrypted data from the user's wallet 18a, the broker system 16 sends the data to the third party system 18.” (Col 9 lines 54-65 of Campero)).
Campero does not disclose:
validating, by a processing device of the processing server, the digital signature of the regulating entity using a public key of the first cryptographic key pair;
digitally signing, by the processing device of the processing server, the received consent request using a private key of a second cryptographic key pair;
validating, by the processing device of the processing server, the digitally signed consent message using a public key of the third cryptographic key pair; and
the consent message being separate from the data associated with the target entity.
However, Campagna teaches:
validating, by a processing device of the processing server, the digital signature of the regulating entity using a public key of the first cryptographic key pair; digitally signing, by the processing device of the processing server, the received consent request using a private key of a second cryptographic key pair;
validating, by the processing device of the processing server, the digitally signed consent message using a public key of the third cryptographic key pair. (By disclosing, “A party may use its cryptographic keys in a number of ways. In some examples, the party uses its private cryptographic key to generate a digital signature for a message. The digital signature may be provided with the message to another party, and the other party is able to verify the signature using the party's public cryptographic key.” ([0067] of Campagna)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the invention of Campero in view of Campagna to include techniques of signing a message by using a private key of a cryptographic key pair of a sender, and a recipient
validating the signed message from the sender by using a public key of the
cryptographic key pair of the sender. Doing so would result in an improved
invention because this would leverage the advantages of using asymmetric encryption (e.g. improved communication security, etc.).
And Biggs teaches:
the consent message being separate from the data associated with the target entity (By disclosing, a user can provide a “give access” response to a requestor for accessing the user’s data ([0061], [0063], Fig. 7 of Biggs)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the invention of Campero and Campagna, in view of Biggs to include techniques of the consent message being separate from the data associated with the target entity. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would prevent data leakage.
Regarding claim(s) 2 and 12, Campero discloses:
wherein the data associated with the target entity stored on the opaque blockchain is hashed data (By disclosing, “In FIG. 6, the broker 16 and wallet 13a and user device 12a are not directly involved, but are shown. The
lookup request is actually for a hash of the desired user's attribute. The distributed public ledger 14a receives the request and accesses the hash of the
particular user's attribute and returns 72b that hash to the third party system 18.”
(Col 10 lines 17-34 of Campero)).
Regarding claim(s) 3 and 13, Campero discloses:
wherein the processing server is a moderating entity (By disclosing, “The system described uses a combination of an identity wallet that executes on a user device, a distributed ledger that manages proxies for PII (as well as other confidential information), along with a service broker system that securely manages data transmissions and verifications of the data without actually having the wallet directly access the distributed ledger.” (Col 3 lines 50-65 of Campero)).
Regarding claim(s) 4 and 14, Campero discloses:
wherein the processing server is a node a blockchain network of the opaque blockchain (By disclosing, “The broker systems 16a-16n are distributed over a network of servers that act together to manage the distributed ledger 14” (Col 7 lines 45-67 of Campero)).
Regarding claim(s) 5 and 15, Campero does not disclose, but Campagna teaches:
generating, by the processing device of the processing server, the first cryptographic key pair and the third cryptographic key pair; assigning, by the
processing device of the processing server, the first cryptographic key pair to the regulating entity; and assigning, by the processing device of the processing server, the third cryptographic key pair to the target entity. (By disclosing, a certificate authority generates cryptographic key pairs for each entity and transmits the generated key pairs to each entity ([0006], [0012], [0050], [0081] of Campagna)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the invention of Campero in view of Campagna to include techniques of generating, by the
processing device of the processing server, the first cryptographic key pair and the third cryptographic key pair; assigning, by the processing device of the
processing server, the first cryptographic key pair to the regulating entity; and assigning, by the processing device of the processing server, the third
cryptographic key pair to the target entity. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would allow the users to use the cryptographic key pair to encrypt the messages to be communicated.
Regarding claim(s) 6 and 16, Campero discloses:
storing, by the processing device of the processing server, the digitally signed consent message in a database. (By disclosing, “For some transactions, the broker system 16 accesses the distributed ledger system 16, whereas in other transactions the requesting system 18 accesses the
distributed ledger system 16. As shown in FIG. 3, the broker system 16 can be a compilation of many such broker systems 16a-16n. Each of the broker systems 16a-16n can comprise computer systems and associated distributed databases. The broker systems 16a-16n are distributed over a network of servers that act together to manage the distributed ledger 14. All attribute hashed values, attester information, etc. are stored in the distributed ledger 14 and as the flow diagram below will show the broker systems 16a-n are configured to access the distributed ledger 14 to obtain and validate such information.” (Col 7 lines 45-67 of Campero)).
Claim(s) 7, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campero (US 9858781), in view of Campagna (US 20180324175), further in view of Biggs (US 20090089803), and Coelho (US 20030130867).
Regarding claim(s) 7 and 17, Campero does not disclose, but Coelho teaches:
wherein the digitally signed consent request is set to expire after a predetermined period of time. (By disclosing, “The analysis unit may determine whether the consent has expired or whether it is still current.” ([0051], [0046] of Coelho)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the invention of Campero, Campagna, and Biggs, in view of Coelho to include techniques of wherein the digitally signed consent request is set to expire after a predetermined period of time. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would allow the user to set expiration requirements for other entities to access the data, thus expending the functionality of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 8, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campero (US 9858781), in view of Campagna (US 20180324175), further in view of Biggs (US 20090089803), and Finlow (US 20160254910).
Regarding claim(s) 8 and 18, Campero does not disclose, but Finlow teaches:
receiving, by the receiver of the processing server, a revocation message from the target entity, the revocation message being digitally signed using the private key of the third cryptographic key pair; and storing, by the processing device of the processing server, the revocation message in the opaque blockchain. (By disclosing, “In one embodiment the revocation message
is signed using a private key of a public/private key pair to be revoked.
In another embodiment an authorization for future revocation of the public/private key pair by a plurality of other public/private keys is sent for inclusion in the ledger, and subsequently the key revocation message is signed with one of the private keys of the plurality of public/private key pairs before sending the key revocation message.” (Abstract of Finlow)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the invention of Campero, Campagna, and Biggs, in view of Finlow to include techniques of receiving, by the receiver of the processing server, a revocation message from the target entity, the revocation message being digitally signed using the private key of the third cryptographic key pair; and storing, by the processing device of the processing server, the revocation message in the opaque blockchain. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would allow the revocation message to be securely stored in an irrevocable database.
Claim(s) 9, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campero (US 9858781), in view of Campagna (US 20180324175), further in view of Biggs (US 20090089803), and Brown (US 20200014664).
Regarding claim(s) 9 and 19, Campero does not disclose, but Brown teaches:
executing, by the processing device of the processing server, a query to insert the digitally signed consent message into a second blockchain; and inserting, by the processing device of the processing server, the digitally signed consent request into the second blockchain. (By disclosing, “the shadow transmission management module 214 is configured to store all
communications on a single blockchain. Alternatively, in other embodiments, the shadow transmission management module 214 is configured to store communications in multiple blockchains” ([0121] of Brown)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the invention of Campero, Campagna, and Biggs, in view of Brown to include techniques of executing, by the processing device of the processing server, a query to insert the digitally signed consent message into a second blockchain; and inserting, by the processing device of the processing server, the digitally signed consent request into the second blockchain. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would allow the communication message to be securely stored in an irrevocable database.
Claim(s) 10, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campero (US 9858781), in view of Campagna (US 20180324175), further in view of Biggs (US 20090089803), and Griffin (US 11153097).
Regarding claim(s) 10 and 20, Campero does not disclose, but Griffin teaches:
wherein the opaque blockchain is partitioned into a first partition and a second partition, the first partition storing the data associated with the target entity, and the second partition storing digitally signed consent messages, the method further comprising: executing, by the processing device of the processing server, a query to insert the digitally signed consent message into the second partition of the opaque blockchain; inserting, by the processing device of the processing server, the digitally signed consent request into the second partition of the opaque blockchain. (By disclosing, “The parent blockchain includes a first block including first content, the first block stored at a first location, and a second block stored at a second location different than the first location. The second block includes second content and a first SignerInfo element. The first SignerInfo element includes a hash on the second content, a hash on the first content of the first block, a pointer to the first location of the first block, and a first SignatureValue element generated by digitally signing at least the hash on the second content, the hash on the first content, and the pointer to the first location.” (Abstract of Griffin)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the invention of Campero, Campagna, and Biggs, in view of Griffin to include techniques of executing, by the processing device of the processing server, a query to insert the digitally signed consent message into the second partition of the opaque blockchain; inserting, by the processing device of the processing server, the digitally signed consent request into the second partition of the opaque blockchain. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would allow the data stored in the distributed ledger to be easily retrieved in the future.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection initiated by applicant’s amendment to the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 11144660 to Latka for disclosing:
A computer-implemented method is provided for secure data sharing. The method comprises: storing, by a data owner or an entity authorized by the data owner, via a data management user interface, in a decentralized data storage, data in an encrypted format; storing, via the data management user interface, in a blockchain, information indicating the data owner and a reference to the data stored in the decentralized data storage; and storing, by the data owner, via the data management user interface, in the blockchain, information indicating consent given to one or more authorized users for using the data.
US 20180349644 to Lee for disclosing:
A mechanism for secure sensitive private information dependent transactions. A query and a transaction token S associated with a current transaction between a SPI owner and the service provider is received. Particular SPI required is identified based on the query. A request for the particular SPI from the SPI owner is constructed thereby forming a constructed request. The constructed request is sent to one or more authorized devices associated with the SPI owner enrolled with the cognitive SPI broker. The particular SPI is received from a device of the SPI owner thereby forming received SPI. The received SPI is used complete the transaction. A notification is then sent to the SPI owner that the transaction has been completed.
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 DUAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4642. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10 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, Neha Patel can be reached at 571-270-1492. 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.
/DUAN ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights