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 .
Status of Claims
This is the first office action on the merits in response to the application filed on
04/16/2025.
Claims 2-7 and 9-14 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 2-7 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 1:
Claims 2-7 are directed to a system and claims 8-14 are directed to a method. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2A – Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groups: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Representative independents claims 2 and 9 include limitations that recite at least one abstract idea.
Claims 2 and 9 are directed to the abstract idea of “obtain current data related to a particular corporate event of a publicly traded company from at least one electronic source associate with at least one EOP member node of the plurality of EOP member nodes; perform the at least one explicit policy criteria check associated with at least one of the at least one electronic source, the at least one EOP member node, and the current data; generate at least one meeting state hash representative the current data of the particular corporate event; store the at least one meeting state hash and the current data of the particular corporate event in at least one meeting persistent data object in the at least one distributed database; keep the at least one meeting state hash within the meeting SESC; and generate an output representative of a current state of the particular corporate event.” Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this claim is generating a meeting state hash using cryptographic hashing, and storing the generated hash and data in persistent data objects in the distributed database, and hence falls under mathematical concepts (i.e., as mathematical relationships such as cryptographic hashing).
Dependent Claims:
Claims 3 and 10 recites: wherein each meeting SESC is further configured to generate the at least one state hash based on at least one of the following cryptographic hash functions: SHA-256, Dagger-Hashimoto Hashes, and SHA3; further describes the abstract idea of mathematical concepts (i.e., as mathematical relationships such as cryptographic hashing).
Claims 4 and 11 recites: wherein the at least one state hash is generated by applying an entropy by hashing at least one random value; further describes the abstract idea of mathematical concepts (i.e., as mathematical relationships such as cryptographic hashing).
Claims 5 and 12 recites: wherein the at least one distributed database is configured to store the at least one persistent data object and the corresponding at least one generated hash representative of the at least one persistent data object; further describes the abstract idea of mathematical concepts (i.e., as mathematical relationships such as cryptographic hashing).
Claims 6 and 13 recites: wherein the particular corporate event is an annual meeting, the current data related to the annual meeting preferably comprising agenda data, ballot data, entitlement data, and voting data, and/or wherein the at least one explicit policy criteria check is at least one of: i) verifying that a particular investor can access only a vote entitlement related to the particular investor; ii) verifying that a particular custodian can access only the vote entitlement when the particular investor is a client of the particular custodian; and iii) verifying that a particular issuer can access only vote details without accessing related investor data; further describes the abstract idea of mathematical concepts (i.e., as mathematical relationships).
Claims 7 and 14 recites: wherein the plurality of meeting SESCs comprises: a plurality of re-purchase contract SESCs, wherein each re-purchase contract SESC is at least configured to: obtain current re-purchase contract data for a particular re-purchase contract from at least one electronic source associate with at least one EOP member node; perform the at least one explicit policy criteria check associated with at least one of the at least one electronic source, the at least one EOP member node, and the current re-purchase contract data; obtain electronic signatures from all parties to the particular re-purchase contract; generate at least one re-purchase contract state hash representative of the current re-purchase contract data; store the at least one re-purchase contract state hash and the current re-purchase contract data of the particular re-purchase contract in at least one re-purchase contract persistent data object in the at least one distributed database; keep the at least one re-purchase contract state hash within the re-purchase contract SESC; substitute at least one first collateral being used in the particular re-purchase contract for another collateral; and generate an output representative of an updated current state of the particular re-purchase contract; further describes the abstract idea of mathematical concepts (i.e., as mathematical relationships).
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2A – Prong Two:
Claim 2 and 9 recites to a distributed databases, EOP member nodes, self-contained, self-executing software containers, and persistent data objects as additional elements to the judicial exception in the preamble. Viewed individually and in combination, this additional element to the identified judicial exception of Step 2A.1, amounts to no more than mere instructions for obtaining and validating data from EOP member nodes, generating a meeting state hash using cryptographic hashing, and storing the generated hash and data in persistent data objects in the distributed database, and hence falls under mathematical concepts distributed computer components. Therefore, at Step 2A.2, these additional elements do not act in combination to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements of claims 2 and 9 considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element of distributed computer components does no more than “[s]imply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry.” See MPEP 2106.05 (citing to Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225 (2014)).
Therefore claims 2 and 9 is found ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2B:
Viewed as a whole, instructions/method claims recite the concept of mathematical concepts (i.e., as mathematical relationships such as cryptographic hashing) in generating a meeting state hash using cryptographic hashing, and storing the generated hash and data in persistent data objects in the distributed database, and hence falls under mathematical concepts are performed by distributed computer components. The method claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using some unspecified, generic computer. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 573 U.S. 208. Mere instructions to apply the exception using computer components and limitations to a particular field of use or technological environment cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The use of a computer server is to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 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 2-5 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnold et al. (US 20160260169 A1), in view of Nolan et al. (US 20210126826 A1), and further in view of Pazdziora et al. (US 20110288973 A1).
7. Regarding claims 2 and 9, Arnold discloses a computer system (and a computer-implemented method, (Para. 0084)),
comprising: a network of externally-owned presence (EOP) member nodes, (Para. 0009-0010, the ledger administration server may further employ the processor to identify a set of asset validation servers that validate the transaction. For example, each of the asset validation servers may be associated with the issuing authority of a specific asset involved in the transaction. Responsive to identifying the set of asset validation servers, the ledger administration server creates data messages based on the transaction data and sends it to each of the asset validation servers. As part of creating the data messages, the ledger administration server may append electronic signatures that can be used by each of the asset validation servers to verify that the data message has been sent by the ledger administration server. An asset validation server associated with a given asset creates and stores redundant records of account balances included in the ledger for that given asset. The redundant records may be employed by the asset validation server to verify the balances of an accountholder independently from the ledger administration server. )
at least one distributed database storing a plurality of persistent data objects, (Para. 0008, The system stores redundant copies of the data tables, which include account information and account balances, at the ledger administration server and at asset validation servers associated with the asset issuing authorities.; and Para. 0014, The periodic transmission of account balances from the ledger administration server to the asset validation servers helps ensure that the distributed and redundant copies of the encrypted ledger, which are maintained separately at the ledger administration server and the asset validation server, remain consistent.)
wherein each meeting SESC is at least configured to: obtain current data related to a particular corporate event of a publicly traded company from at least one electronic source associate with at least one EOP member node of the plurality of EOP member nodes, (Para. 0009-0010, Accountholders may submit transactions to the system through client devices, such as personal computers, laptops, smartphones, or other suitable types of devices. Responsive to user input, the client devices may generate data messages that include transaction amounts to be transferred, e.g., from a first to a second party. The transaction may involve a single asset or multiple assets, as is the case in foreign exchange transactions. Client devices may send data messages directly to the ledger administration server that controls the processing of the transaction… Responsive to receiving a data message corresponding to a transaction from the ledger administration server, the asset validation server may employ a processor to compare an account balance stored in its records with the transaction amount provided in the data message. If the account balance is greater than the transaction amount (i.e., if sufficient funds are available), the asset validation server may continue the processing of the transaction. Otherwise, the asset validation server may transmit a data message to the ledger administration server to indicate that the transaction should be rejected. The asset validation server may append an electronic signature to the data message that can be used by the ledger administration server to verify the authenticity of the data message.)
perform the at least one explicit policy criteria check associated with at least one of the at least one electronic source, the at least one EOP member node, and the current data, (Para. 0009, Client devices may also send the data messages to other servers, such as servers maintained by a commercial bank, and these servers may in turn relay the messages to the ledger administration server. The data messages may include electronic signatures appended by the client devices. These electronic signatures may be processed by the ledger administration server to verify that the data messages were sent from the client device and authorized by the respective accountholder. Responsive to verifying the electronic signatures, ledger administration server may employ a processor to identify the assets associated with the transaction, check available balances, and perform KYC validation.; and Para. 0012, the ledger administration server may determine to accept a KYC authorization if the corresponding KYC validator indicates that it trusts the client and the ledger administration server (or asset validator associated with the asset involved in the transaction) in turn trusts the KYC validator. If the ledger administration server determines that any of the parties of a transaction is not associated with a valid KYC authorization, the ledger administration server may reject the transaction and provide a corresponding signed message to parties involved in the transaction.)
store the at least one meeting state hash and the current data of the particular corporate event in at least one meeting persistent data object in the at least one distributed database,
(Para. 0013, Responsive to the receipt of the messages, the ledger administration server determines if one or more of the data messages includes an indication that the transaction should be rejected (e.g., due to insufficient funds). If at least one of the data messages includes such a rejection, ledger administration server rejects the transaction in its entirety and does not update the ledger account balances of any parties involved in the transaction. Conversely, if all of the data messages received from the asset validation servers include indications that the transaction should be approved, the ledger administration server updates the account balances maintained in its copy of the encrypted ledger.; and Para. 0008, The system stores redundant copies of the data tables, which include account information and account balances, at the ledger administration server and at asset validation servers associated with the asset issuing authorities. The distributed storage of the data tables provides additional protection from attempts to falsify information stored in the data tables of the ledger because more than one server would need to be compromised. The system uses authentication techniques to verify identifying information and perform know-your-customer (KYC) or anti-money laundering (AML) checks.)
generate an output representative of a current state of the particular corporate event, (Para. 0014, The ledger administration server sends portions of the updated ledger to the asset validation servers in form of data messages. The data message sent to a specific asset validation server may only include balances for accounts held in the asset maintained by the specific asset validation server… The data messages may also include a list of completed transactions that have been incorporated into the updated ledger together with their respective unique identifiers and transaction amounts. Responsive to receiving the data message, the asset validation server may update its records based on the list of completed transactions, by modifying the account balances and records of reserved and pending payments.)
Arnold does not explicitly disclose a plurality of meeting self-contained self-executing software containers (SESCs), wherein the plurality of SESCs comprises: a plurality of meeting SESCs, keep the at least one meeting state hash within the meeting SESC.
However, Nolan teaches a plurality of meeting self-contained self-executing software containers (SESCs), wherein the plurality of SESCs comprises: a plurality of meeting SESCs, keep the at least one meeting state hash within the meeting SESC,(Claim 37, wherein the blockchain is a ledger and the contract is a smart contract.; and Claim 49. A system comprising: an off-chain datastore to store a contract; and an IoT device to: generate a hash value of the contract; store the hash value on a blockchain accessible to multiple nodes in the system; sense data using a sensor; determine whether an objective of the contract is satisfied based on sensed data; and store a transaction corresponding to the determination on the blockchain.; and Abstract Section, generate a hash value of the contract; cause storage of the hash value on a blockchain to be accessible to multiple nodes in an IoT network; and cause storage of a transaction on the blockchain, the transaction corresponding to an objective of the contract based on data sensed by an IoT device in the IoT network.; and Para. 0162, At block 1218, the content creator stores the URI, any additional metadata prescribed by the blockchain protocol, and a hash of the contents of the object as stored in the DHT. The hash, stored in the blockchain, assures the providence of the data object, and may be used to verify its contents have not changed. Further, storing the hash in a blockchain may be used to confirm that it existed on a particular date, was created or owned by a specific identity, and the like.)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Nolan to the known invention of Arnold would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate SESCs into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the system to include a plurality of meeting self-contained self-executing software containers (SESCs), wherein the plurality of SESCs comprises: a plurality of meeting SESCs, keep the at least one meeting state hash within the meeting SESC results in an improved invention because applying said technique ensures that a plurality of computer systems work together to validate and manage data, thus improving the overall performance of the invention.
Arnold as modified does not explicitly disclose generate at least one meeting state hash representative the current data of the particular corporate event.
However, Pazdziora teaches generate at least one meeting state hash representative the current data of the particular corporate event, (Para. 0023, In some embodiments, the SMS 110 sends the SMS state hash to the computer system (e.g., computer system 120A) being registered to the SMS 110 as part of its credential, which the computer system has to present during any subsequent interaction with the SMS 110. Optionally, upon each communication of the computer system with the SMS 110, new state information can be generated on the SMS 110, including the timestamp of the communication and new credentials can be handed to the computer system to be used in the future. This way, the hash of full server entitlement state with full history may be stored at any new computer system being registered and being managed.; and Para. 0025, At the end of a billing period, the customer submits a report 180 enumerating the usage of individual entitlements during the billing period. The customer may use the SMS 110 to generate the report 180. As part of the report 180, the last state of the SMS 110 is presented, including its hash, and a list of state hashes since the start of the operation of the SMS 110, or since the end of last billing period.)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Pazdziora to the known invention of Arnold as modified would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate state hashes into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the system to include a generate at least one meeting state hash representative the current data of the particular corporate event results in an improved invention because applying said technique ensures that a plurality of computer systems work together to validate and manage data with the system staying available, thus improving the overall performance of the invention.
8. Regarding claims 3 and 10, Arnold as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein each meeting SESC is further configured to generate the at least one state hash based on at least one of the following cryptographic hash functions: SHA-256, Dagger-Hashimoto Hashes, and SHA3.
However, Pazdziora teaches wherein each meeting SESC is further configured to generate the at least one state hash based on at least one of the following cryptographic hash functions: SHA-256, Dagger-Hashimoto Hashes, and SHA3, (Para. 0022, In general, any time a new computer system is registered to the SMS 110, or is added to new service, the state of the SMS 110 changes. The SMS 110 may take its state, including a list of computer systems registered at that moment (e.g., computer systems 120A-120C), the registered computer systems' entitlements, optionally including software and configuration channels, as well as a list of packages installed on the registered computer systems (as reported by the registered computer systems), format the above information, and then compute a hash of the formatted information using a cryptographically strong algorithm, such as SHA-2. The SMS 110 may further add a timestamp and a hash of the previous state of the SMS 110 to the hash in order to compute a final SMS state hash. In some embodiments, the hash computation is seeded by a random seed generated and stored on the SMS 110 when the SMS 110 is installed in the customer's internal network 130. Note that each SMS state hash describes and identifies a previous SMS state. The SMS state hash may represent all the information which might be important for compliance verification and billing purposes, together with full entitlement usage history, as each SMS state hash includes information of previous SMS state, which in turns leads to information which has hash to its predecessor, etc.)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Pazdziora to the known invention of Arnold as modified would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate cryptographic hash functions into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the system to include a wherein each meeting SESC is further configured to generate the at least one state hash based on at least one of the following cryptographic hash functions: SHA-256, Dagger-Hashimoto Hashes, and SHA3 results in an improved invention because applying said technique allows the system to detect whether data has been altered , thus improving the overall security of the invention.
9. Regarding claims 4 and 11, Arnold as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one state hash is generated by applying an entropy by hashing at least one random value.
However, Pazdziora teaches wherein the at least one state hash is generated by applying an entropy by hashing at least one random value, (Para. 0022, The SMS 110 may further add a timestamp and a hash of the previous state of the SMS 110 to the hash in order to compute a final SMS state hash. In some embodiments, the hash computation is seeded by a random seed generated and stored on the SMS 110 when the SMS 110 is installed in the customer's internal network 130. Note that each SMS state hash describes and identifies a previous SMS state. The SMS state hash may represent all the information which might be important for compliance verification and billing purposes, together with full entitlement usage history, as each SMS state hash includes information of previous SMS state, which in turns leads to information which has hash to its predecessor, etc..; and Para. 0029, Initially, processing logic installs a system management server (SMS) internally in a customer's internal network (processing block 210). The SMS manages computer systems in the customer's internal network as discussed above. Details of one embodiment of a SMS are further discussed below with reference to FIG. 3. Processing logic further seeds hash computation by a random seed stored on the SMS (processing block 212).)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Pazdziora to the known invention of Arnold as modified would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate state hashes into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the system to include wherein the at least one state hash is generated by applying an entropy by hashing at least one random value results in an improved invention because applying said technique adds random values when generating state hashes to prevent unauthorized users, thus improving the overall security of the invention.
10. Regarding claims 5 and 12, Arnold does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one distributed database is configured to store the at least one persistent data object and the corresponding at least one generated hash representative of the at least one persistent data object.
However, Nolan teaches wherein the at least one distributed database is configured to store the at least one persistent data object and the corresponding at least one generated hash representative of the at least one persistent data object, (Abstract Section, Methods, apparatus, and articles of manufacture for decentralized data storage and processing for IoT devices are disclosed. An example apparatus includes memory; and a processor to cause storage of a contract in an off-chain datastore; generate a hash value of the contract; cause storage of the hash value on a blockchain to be accessible to multiple nodes in an IoT network; and cause storage of a transaction on the blockchain, the transaction corresponding to an objective of the contract based on data sensed by an IoT device in the IoT network.; and Para. 0162, At block 1218, the content creator stores the URI, any additional metadata prescribed by the blockchain protocol, and a hash of the contents of the object as stored in the DHT. The hash, stored in the blockchain, assures the providence of the data object, and may be used to verify its contents have not changed. Further, storing the hash in a blockchain may be used to confirm that it existed on a particular date, was created or owned by a specific identity, and the like.)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Nolan to the known invention of Arnold would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate data objects into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the system to include wherein the at least one distributed database is configured to store the at least one persistent data object and the corresponding at least one generated hash representative of the at least one persistent data object results in an improved invention because applying said technique ensures that both the event data and its corresponding hash is stored in the distributed database, thus improving the overall performance of the invention.
11. Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnold et al. (US 20160260169 A1), in view of Nolan et al. (US 20210126826 A1), in view of Pazdziora et al. (US 20110288973 A1), and further in view of Mardikar et al. (US 9491200 B2).
12. Regarding claims 6 and 13, Arnold as modified discloses wherein the particular corporate event is an annual meeting, the current data related to the annual meeting preferably comprising agenda data, ballot data, entitlement data, and voting data, and/or wherein the at least one explicit policy criteria check, (Para. 0008-0009, The system stores redundant copies of the data tables, which include account information and account balances, at the ledger administration server and at asset validation servers associated with the asset issuing authorities. The distributed storage of the data tables provides additional protection from attempts to falsify information stored in the data tables of the ledger because more than one server would need to be compromised. The system uses authentication techniques to verify identifying information and perform know-your-customer (KYC) or anti-money laundering (AML) checks. The system uses cryptographic codes to authenticate electronic signatures appended to data messages by comparing the electronic signatures to hashes obtained from processing the data messages with a public key of the signing party… These electronic signatures may be processed by the ledger administration server to verify that the data messages were sent from the client device and authorized by the respective accountholder. Responsive to verifying the electronic signatures, ledger administration server may employ a processor to identify the assets associated with the transaction, check available balances, and perform KYC validation.; and Para. 0012, If the ledger administration server determines that any of the parties of a transaction is not associated with a valid KYC authorization, the ledger administration server may reject the transaction and provide a corresponding signed message to parties involved in the transaction.)
Arnold as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one explicit policy criteria check is at least one of: i) verifying that a particular investor can access only a vote entitlement related to the particular investor; ii) verifying that a particular custodian can access only the vote entitlement when the particular investor is a client of the particular custodian; and iii) verifying that a particular issuer can access only vote details without accessing related investor data.
However, Mardikar teaches wherein the at least one explicit policy criteria check is at least one of: i) verifying that a particular investor can access only a vote entitlement related to the particular investor; ii) verifying that a particular custodian can access only the vote entitlement when the particular investor is a client of the particular custodian; and iii) verifying that a particular issuer can access only vote details without accessing related investor data,
(Column 2/line 1, Another example is Attribute Based Access Control (ABAC) in which access is granted based on attributes of the subject (e.g., the user), the resource (e.g., object) being accessed, the action the user wants to perform on or with the resource, and the environment. For example, the user's name and password, the privacy aspects of the object (e.g., account information), whether read or write access is sought, and type of encryption being used may be values of attributes that can affect whether an access is granted or denied under ABAC.; and Column 4/line 18, Authorization is generally based on the assurance of identity proofing and confidence level of authentication for a particular session; authorization may in general refer to providing a determination of what a subject can do on the system…The authorization services 130 may provide a response 131 whether to allow access to the system 110 by the access device 102 according to input from the token 119, and input from a risk based access control (e.g., input from risk services 150), a role based access control model and policies, and an attribute based access control model and policies, both or either of which may use input from user information database 140. In an alternative embodiment, the authentication services 120 may provide a response 132 whether to allow access to the system 110 by the access device 102 according to an authentication confidence level, a role based access control model and policies, and an attribute based access control model and policies, both or either of which may use input from user information database 140. ; and Column 2/line 14, According to one or more embodiments of the present invention, methods and systems for access control provide enhanced access control security through the use of a unique combination of authentication context, confidence estimation, identity assurance, risk assessment, attributes, and roles that may be included in an underlying role-based attribute based access control (RABAC) model.)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Mardikar to the known invention of Arnold as modified would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate policy checks into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the system to include wherein the at least one explicit policy criteria check is at least one of: i) verifying that a particular investor can access only a vote entitlement related to the particular investor; ii) verifying that a particular custodian can access only the vote entitlement when the particular investor is a client of the particular custodian; and iii) verifying that a particular issuer can access only vote details without accessing related investor data results in an improved invention because applying said technique enforces policy criteria checks that protects data while still allowing authorize parties to view particular data, thus improving the overall security and user convenience of the invention.
13. Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnold et al. (US 20160260169 A1), in view of Nolan et al. (US 20210126826 A1), in view of Pazdziora et al. (US 20110288973 A1), and further in view of Russo et al. (US 20110191233 A1).
14. Regarding claims 7 and 14, Arnold discloses wherein the plurality of meeting SESCs comprises: a plurality of re-purchase contract SESCs, wherein each re-purchase contract SESC is at least configured to: obtain current re-purchase contract data for a particular re-purchase contract from at least one electronic source associate with at least one EOP member node, perform the at least one explicit policy criteria check associated with at least one of the at least one electronic source, the at least one EOP member node, and the current re-purchase contract data; obtain electronic signatures from all parties to the particular re-purchase contract, (Para. 0008-0009, The system uses cryptographic codes to authenticate electronic signatures appended to data messages by comparing the electronic signatures to hashes obtained from processing the data messages with a public key of the signing party…Responsive to user input, the client devices may generate data messages that include transaction amounts to be transferred, e.g., from a first to a second party. The transaction may involve a single asset or multiple assets, as is the case in foreign exchange transactions. Client devices may send data messages directly to the ledger administration server that controls the processing of the transaction. Client devices may also send the data messages to other servers, such as servers maintained by a commercial bank, and these servers may in turn relay the messages to the ledger administration server. The data messages may include electronic signatures appended by the client devices. These electronic signatures may be processed by the ledger administration server to verify that the data messages were sent from the client device and authorized by the respective accountholder. Responsive to verifying the electronic signatures, ledger administration server may employ a processor to identify the assets associated with the transaction, check available balances, and perform KYC validation.)
generate at least one re-purchase contract state hash representative of the current re-purchase contract data; store the at least one re-purchase contract state hash and the current re-purchase contract data of the particular re-purchase contract in at least one re-purchase contract persistent data object in the at least one distributed database; keep the at least one re-purchase contract state hash within the re-purchase contract SESC; and generate an output representative of an updated current state of the particular re-purchase contract, (Para. 0009, Accountholders may submit transactions to the system through client devices, such as personal computers, laptops, smartphones, or other suitable types of devices. Responsive to user input, the client devices may generate data messages that include transaction amounts to be transferred, e.g., from a first to a second party. The transaction may involve a single asset or multiple assets, as is the case in foreign exchange transactions. Client devices may send data messages directly to the ledger administration server that controls the processing of the transaction. Client devices may also send the data messages to other servers, such as servers maintained by a commercial bank, and these servers may in turn relay the messages to the ledger administration server. The data messages may include electronic signatures appended by the client devices.; and Para. 0010, An asset validation server associated with a given asset creates and stores redundant records of account balances included in the ledger for that given asset. The redundant records may be employed by the asset validation server to verify the balances of an accountholder independently from the ledger administration server. Responsive to receiving a data message corresponding to a transaction from the ledger administration server, the asset validation server may employ a processor to compare an account balance stored in its records with the transaction amount provided in the data message. If the account balance is greater than the transaction amount (i.e., if sufficient funds are available), the asset validation server may continue the processing of the transaction. Otherwise, the asset validation server may transmit a data message to the ledger administration server to indicate that the transaction should be rejected. The asset validation server may append an electronic signature to the data message that can be used by the ledger administration server to verify the authenticity of the data message.; and Para. 0014, The data messages may also include a list of completed transactions that have been incorporated into the updated ledger together with their respective unique identifiers and transaction amounts. Responsive to receiving the data message, the asset validation server may update its records based on the list of completed transactions, by modifying the account balances and records of reserved and pending payments. For example, an asset validation server may remove the transaction amount of a completed transaction from the shadow balance because that completed transaction is now reflected in the account balances included in the updated ledger. The asset validation server may further update status indications corresponding to transactions included in the list of transactions to denote that they have been completed and are no longer pending. The periodic transmission of account balances from the ledger administration server to the asset validation servers helps ensure that the distributed and redundant copies of the encrypted ledger, which are maintained separately at the ledger administration server and the asset validation server, remain consistent.; and Para. 0022, In some implementations, the validator stores a redundant copy of the data table and the systems and methods further comprise sending modified portions of the data table to the validator, in response to modifying the data table. In some implementations, the redundant copy of the data table is encrypted to prevent the validator from accessing data that is of an asset different from the at least one asset.)
Arnold as modified does not explicitly disclose substitute at least one first collateral being used in the particular re-purchase contract for another collateral;
However, Russo teaches substitute at least one first collateral being used in the particular re-purchase contract for another collateral, (Para. 0008, The method includes receiving, at an auto substitution system, a request for the required collateral upon failure to locate unencumbered required collateral. Upon receipt of the request, the method includes implementing computer processing components of the auto substitution system to perform actions including searching for required collateral in the encumbered shells and upon finding the required collateral, searching for replacement collateral for the required collateral. The method further includes locating available cash upon failure to locate replacement collateral. implementing the required collateral found in the encumbered shells to fulfill delivery instructions, and substituting the available cash for the required collateral found in the encumbered shells. The method further includes dynamically scanning encumbered shells for cash upon receipt of securities and re-collateralizing the cash with the received securities.)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Russo to the known invention of Arnold as modified would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate collateral features into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the system to include substitute at least one first collateral being used in the particular re-purchase contract for another collateral results in an improved invention because applying said technique manages re-purchase contracts for collateral, thus improving the overall user convenience of the invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Method For Establishing, Securing And Transferring Computer Readable Information Using Peer-to-peer Public And Private Key Cryptography (US 20170324711 A1) teaches system and method for confirming and transferring information from one party to another via block chain escort, using central and decentralized databases acting as online storage providers. Files are linked to cryptographic currency structures comprised of a public and private key identification processes. Locking, unlocking, retrieving, storing, confirming and transferring files requires linked association to block chain protocol measures of crypto-currency processes.
In addition to the foregoing, other aspects are described in the claims, drawings, and text. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Davida L. King whose telephone number is (571) 272-4724. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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 on (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.
/D.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3699
/NEHA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3699