DETAILED ACTION
In response to the communication filed on 09/18/2026, responded in following.
On this Office Action, claims 2-21, consisting of independent claims 2, 11, and 17.
Claims 2-21 are pending.
Claims 2-16 are Double Patent rejected.
Claims 17-21 are rejected under 35 USC § 103.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The U.S. Patents and U.S. Patent Applications of information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/17/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The Non-patent Literature Documents of information disclosure statement filed 01/17/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 01/17/2025. These drawings are accepted.
Priority
The benefit of 62/844,251 filed on 06/22/2020 has been acknowledged.
Examiner’s Notes-Restriction
Restriction was considered but is not required. Although claim 12,11 and 17 recite different participant roles and functions, the claims are directed to different aspects of a single secure multiparty computation protocol. The specification describes the claimed registration, provisioning, and collective data provenance generation as part of one integrated workflow, and no serious search burden has been identified.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 2-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. US 11553335 B2 (hereinafter “Pat-335”), as the claims of Pat-335 anticipate, or at least render not patentable distinct, the claims of the instant application.
A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a 35 patent claim to a species within that genus). “ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
As per independent claim 1, claim 1 of Pat-335 teaches all the limitations recited therein. Although the claim is not identical in wording except for the bolded features below, it is not patentably distinct because the cited prior U.S. Patent claims include every element of the claim of the instant application (See the features in the table below).
Instant Application 19/030614
Pat-335
2. A device for communication, comprising:
one or more memories storing processor-executable code; and
one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the device to:
receive, from a node, a group profile that identifies a device group associated with collective data provenance generation, the device group comprising the device and other devices;
transmit, to the node, a first portion of data, wherein the node is associated with the other devices identified by the group profile;
receive, from the node, a plurality of evaluation parameters for generating collective data provenance information, the plurality of evaluation parameters based at least in part on the first portion of the data and on additional portions of the data associated with the other devices;
generate a verification parameter of the collective data provenance information based at least in part on the first portion of the data and on the plurality of evaluation parameters; and
generate a collective verification key by combining device-specific verification keys associated with each of the other devices.
1. A method for communication at a device, comprising:
identify that the device is to provide collective data provenance information for data generated at the device and at other devices, with a first portion of the data being generated at the device and with additional portions of the data being generated at the other devices;
receive a group profile, from the node, which identifies the other devices to be included in collective data provenance generation with the device;
transmit the first portion of the data to a node associated with the devices identified by the group profile;
receive, from the node, a plurality of evaluation parameters for generating collective data provenance information, the plurality of evaluation parameters being based at least in part on the first portion of the data and on the additional portions of the data;
generate a verification parameter of the collective data provenance information based at least in part on the first portion of the data, and on the plurality of evaluation parameters; and
generate a collective verification key by combining device-specific verification keys associated with each of the other devices.
As per dependent claims 3-10 are likewise unpatentable for at least the same reasons set forth with respect to independent claim 2. The additional limitations recited therein merely constitute obvious various variations of the corresponding limitations recited in claims 2-19 of Pat-335 and therefore do not render the claim patentably distinct.
Claim 11-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. US 12250537 B2 (hereinafter “Pat-537”), as the claims of Pat-537 anticipate, or at least render not patentable distinct, the claims of the instant application.
A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a 35 patent claim to a species within that genus). “ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
As per independent claim 11, claim 1 of Pat-537 teaches all the limitations recited therein. Although the claims are not identical in wording except for the bolded features below, they are not patentably distinct because the cited prior U.S. Patent claims include every element of claims of the instant application (See the bold features in the table below).
Instant Application 19/030614
Pat-537
11. A node for communication, comprising:
one or more memories storing processor-executable code; and
one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the node to:
identify a device group for collectively providing data provenance information for data generated at the device group to a third party; and
provision a group profile, from the node, to each device of the device group, the group profile comprising a function for generation, by each device of the device group, of individual portions of the data, the individual portions of the data being generated by the function based at least in part on respective data sets generated by each device of the device group.
1. A method of communication at a node, comprising:
identifying a device group for collectively providing data provenance information for data generated at the device group to a third party;
provisioning a group profile, from the node, to each device of the device group, the group profile comprising a function for generation, by each device of the device group, of individual portions of the data, the individual portions of the data being generated by the function based at least in part on respective data sets generated by each device of the device group;
receiving, at the node, the data from the device group, with the individual portions of the data being generated at individual devices based at least in part on the function; and
provisioning, to the device group, a plurality of evaluation parameters for generating collective data provenance information, the plurality of evaluation parameters being based at least in part on the data from the device group.
As per dependent claims 12-16 are likewise unpatentable for at least the same reasons set forth with respect to independent claim 11. The additional limitations recited therein merely constitute obvious various variations of the corresponding limitations recited in claims 1-8 of Pat-537 and therefore do not render the claim patentably distinct.
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 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 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over REMPEL et al. (US 20200089547 A1, hereinafter “REMPEL”) in view of Macieira et al. (US 20190044726 A1, hereinafter “Macieira”).
Regarding independent claim 17, REMPEL discloses a node for communication, comprising (REMPEL: [0035-0036] The PaaS system 100 (“node”) includes a software architecture that decouples Southbound. the Northbound interface can be an application interface 114):
one or more memories storing processor-executable code; and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the node to (REMPEL: [0194] a computing device may also include system memory, and a system bus that couples various system components including the system memory to the processing device)
receive a first request to register a second node as a user with the node (REMPEL: [0072] The application interface 114 has a default API that allows application registration (“register a second node”), device claim-of-ownership by an application, and other device and application related workflows; [0108] A fully working product-as-a-service such as the PaaS system 100 can be instantiated by a vendor (e.g., one of vendors 110 (“second node”)) from a structured template 150 with a single action (“receive a first request”). [0109] Once instantiated (“registration”), the vendor may choose to publish the product-as-a-service into a publicly accessible catalog that allows searchable and browsable discovery of the product-as-a-service and, for server systems that support the application interface 114); and
receive, from a plurality of devices, a plurality of second requests to register the plurality of devices as a device group in accordance with a group identity (REMPEL: [0111] After instantiation by the vendor as described above with respect to FIG. 11, the PaaS system 100 can undergo a sequence of phases including a setup phase 160, a claim phase 162 (“a plurality of second requests”), and an association phase 164 in order to associate and facilitate interactions between the applications 106 and the connected devices 104; [0113] During the claim phase 162, a group identifier can be established for the connected device (“the plurality of devices”)),
wherein the device group is part of an ownership structure with the second node (REMPEL: [0113] The receipt of the claim code triggers or otherwise initiates a claiming process (e.g., a process by which an owner claims, establishes, or otherwise sets ownership of the connected device). During the claim phase 162, a group identifier can be established for the connected device; [0117] the device ownership data structure 356 identifies the owner (owner ID) of the connected device, which is associated to the connected device (identity ID) by the group ID).
However, REMPEL does not disclose, Macieira, in a same field of endeavor, teaches the node for communication, wherein the device group is for collectively providing data provenance information for data generated at the device group to a third party (Macieira: [0072] At 714, the aggregator node acts on the received sensor data. The aggregator node may compute an average, a mean, a median, or perform some other data transformation function on the received sensor data. The result of the action is an aggregate value (“data provenance information”). Additionally, the aggregator node may collect data values of its own (e.g., when it acts as both a sensor and an aggregator, in a complex sensor capacity). This additional sensed data may be used with the received sensor data in the data transformation function; [0073] At 716, the aggregator node updates its own DIR with the aggregate value (“data provenance information to a third party”)).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Products-as-a-service disclosed by REMPEL with the teachings of Macieira to include device group that is for collectively providing data provenance information for data generated at the device group to a third party. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because many different devices may contribute to a single aggregated packet of information that may then be passed on to a single receiver (e.g., actuator, controller, etc.) that performs a function based on the aggregate value (para. 0022).
Regarding claim 18, (New) the combination of REMPEL and Macieira teaches all elements of the current invention as stated above. REMPEL discloses the node of claim 17, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the node to:
store, based at least in part on the plurality of second requests, an indication of the ownership structure, wherein the second node comprises an owner of the device group (REMPEL: [0118] this single claim of ownership involving a plurality of users can be reset by releasing the group ID).
Regarding claim 19, (New) the combination of REMPEL and Macieira teaches all elements of the current invention as stated above. REMPEL discloses the node of claim 17, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the node to:
store, based at least in part on the first request, a credential of the second node, wherein the first request comprises the credential of the second node, wherein storage of the credential of the second node is associated with verification of an identity of the second node (REMPEL: [0087] The external web services 108 are used to augment product-as-a-service services either by providing additional functionality to the product-as-a-service processing environment, or by being activated/triggered by activity in the product-as-a-service environment. The external web services 108 are authorized by loading API definitions, and sometimes authentication tokens/credentials, into the product-as-a-service configuration; [0098] The vendors 110 gain access to these features through a product-as-a-service authentication user interface where team members (Operatives) can be invited, credentials established, and permissions managed); and
store, based at least in part on the plurality of second requests, a plurality of device credentials, wherein the plurality of second requests comprises the plurality of device credentials for the plurality of devices, wherein storage of the plurality of device credentials is associated with verification of a respective identity of a device of the plurality of devices (REMPEL: [0068] The Southbound or connected device interface 112 of the PaaS server 102 interacts with the connected devices 104. Device communications include bidirectional data and events, and interactions having to do with device authentication. In some embodiments, every communication of the connected device interface 112 is either uniquely authenticated to a device identity, or is part of a process to establish an authenticated device identity).
Regarding claim 20, (New) the combination of REMPEL and Macieira teaches all elements of the current invention as stated above. REMPEL discloses the node of claim 17, wherein, to receive the plurality of second requests, the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the node to:
receive, via a respective channel of a plurality of wireless channels, a respective second request of the plurality of second requests (REMPEL: [0195] Wireless communication devices include devices that can communicate using radio waves or other electromagnetic energy that can be communicated through the air. Examples of wireless communication devices include Wi-Fi (including a variety of IEEE 802.11 compatible devices) and Bluetooth communication devices).
Regarding claim 21, (New) the combination of REMPEL and Macieira teaches all elements of the current invention as stated above. REMPEL discloses the node of claim 17, wherein the node comprises an identity management node (REMPEL: [0087] The external web services 108 are authorized by loading API definitions, and sometimes authentication tokens/credentials, into the product-as-a-service configuration).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Quigley et al. (US 20230129494 A1): [0487] the ledger management system 104 includes a token generation system 302, a ledger update system 304, and a verification system 306. The token generation system 302 may be configured to generate tokens that correspond to items made available for transaction and that are based on respective virtual representations of the items. The ledger update system 304 receives requests to update the distributed ledger 310 and updates the distributed ledger accordingly 310. The verification system 306 receives requests to verify a token, an account, or the like and attempts to verify the token or account based on the distributed ledger.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW SUH whose telephone number is (571)270-5524. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM- 5:00 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, Carl Colin can be reached at (571) 272-3862. 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.
/ANDREW SUH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493
Prosecution Insights