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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 02/20/2025. In which, claims 1-27 are pending and being considered, claims 1, 25, 26 and 27 are independent, claims 1-27 are rejected.
Drawings
The drawings (Figure 8) is/are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p) (4) because there are no present descriptive legends or labels for reference character number 8000, 8100, and 8200. Examiner has difficulties understanding the drawings without proper labels.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code on Page 42 “https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybil attack”. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3, 8, 21 and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regards to Claim 2, the applicant recites the limitation “the data associated with the metadata”, this is a typographical error and a lack of antecedent basis as the claim should read “data associated with the metadata”. Examiner suggest amending the claim by removing the phrase “the” to eliminate the typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
In regards to Claim 3, the applicant recites the limitation “data indicative”, this is a typographical error as the claim should read “the data indicative”. Appropriate correction is required.
In regards to Claim 3, the applicant recites the limitation “the object identifier”, this is a typographical error and a lack of antecedent basis as the claim should read “object identifier”. Examiner suggest amending the claim by removing the phrase “the” to eliminate the typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
In regards to Claim 8, the applicant recites the limitation “storing data associated”, this is a typographical error as the claim should read “storing the data associated”. Appropriate correction is required.
In regards to Claims 21 and 23, the applicant recites the limitation “data indicative of the identity of the first device”, this is a typographical error as the claim should read “the data indicative of the identity of the first device”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 12-14, 16-18, and 22-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathew et al (U.S Pub. No. 20240004712, hereinafter referred to as “Mathew”) and Howard et al (U.S Pub. No. 20210027033, hereinafter referred to as “Howard”) further in view of Wang et al (U.S Pub. No. 20190295162, hereinafter referred to as “Wang”)
In regards to Claim 1, Mathew teaches a method for providing authenticatable data, the method comprising: (Par. (0031, 0037); authentication with data, objects and request)
at a first device with one or more processors and memory storing instructions for execution by the one or more processors: (Par. (0008-0009); first device (first node), (Par. (0090-0091); processor and memory)
receiving a message to submit a signed commitment request for a digital object; and, (Par. (0022-0023); receiving a cluster message then submitting (sending) signed request for object and resources in object storage), (Par. (0022-0023); signed commitment request for a digital object (signed request corresponding to commitment (validation and storage) of object and resource)
wherein the signed commitment request comprises the commitment string and a cryptographic signature for the commitment string; and (Par. (0032-0035); request with set of string and signature generated from string)
Mathew does not explicitly teach in response to receiving the message to submit the signed commitment request for the digital object: obtaining a content identifier for the digital object; generating a commitment string associated with the digital object, wherein the commitment string includes a content identifier for the digital object; generating the signed commitment request based on the commitment string and a private key associated with the first device, subsequent to generating the signed commitment request, sending, to a second device that is distinct from the first device, the signed commitment request and data indicative of an identity of the first device.
Wherein Howard teaches in response to receiving the message to submit the signed commitment request for the digital object: (Par. (0218-0220 and 0230-0231); signed request is sent and received corresponding to message/payload)
obtaining a content identifier for the digital object; (Par. (0215, 0230-0231) (send and receive identifiers for digital object (code))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mathew to incorporate the teaching of Howard to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of signed data and verification techniques using identifiers of digital objects, with the motivation of verifying the authenticity of codes and records based on signed data and identifying possible tampering based on the process and records. (Howard Par. (0220-0222))
Mathew and Howard do not explicitly teach generating a commitment string associated with the digital object, wherein the commitment string includes a content identifier for the digital object; generating the signed commitment request based on the commitment string and a private key associated with the first device, subsequent to generating the signed commitment request, sending, to a second device that is distinct from the first device, the signed commitment request and data indicative of an identity of the first device.
Wherein Wang teaches generating a commitment string associated with the digital object, (Par. (0050); digital object (electronic record) generated with commitment string (electronic identifier with string of characters)
wherein the commitment string includes a content identifier for the digital object; (Par. (0021, 0050, 0054); commitment string (string of characters corresponding to electronic identifier) for the digital object (for the electronic record)
generating the signed commitment request based on the commitment string and a private key associated with the first device, (Par. (0077); signed request generated with private key of computing entity and commitment string (electronic identifier)), (Par. (0050); commitment string (electronic identifier that is string of characters)
subsequent to generating the signed commitment request, sending, to a second device that is distinct from the first device, the signed commitment request and data indicative of an identity of the first device. (Par. (0077); sending the signed commitment request (signed information request corresponding to data file) from first device (computing entity) to second device (origination entity) with portions of account-specific information and data file and identity of first device with its own private/public key to verify entity), (Par. (0036, 0077-0081); computing and originating entity being distinct with different keys tasks of verification)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mathew and Howard to incorporate the teaching of Wang to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of digital objects and signed data for verification, with the motivation of creating a level of trust based on records submitted to allow providers based on criteria to give access to sensitive documents based on identifying identifiers and digital objects and electronic records matched with it. (Wang Par. (0003, 0021-0022 and 0033))
In regards to Claim 2, the combination of Mathew, Howard and Wang teach the method of claim 1, Wang further teaches the commitment string further includes at least one of: metadata or set information associated with the digital object. (Par. (0021, 0054); commitment string (electronic identifier with string of characters) includes at least one of: metadata or set information (string includes data of date of birth, name, social security and information of digital object (electronic record))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mathew and Howard to incorporate the teaching of Wang to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of digital objects and signed data for verification, with the motivation of utilizing string data that contains information to regulate access based on data with digital object to indicate appropriate access and analyze risk more effectively. (Wang Par. (0021-0022 and 0049-0050))
In regards to Claim 3, the combination of Mathew, Howard and Wang teach the method of claim 1, Howard further teaches obtaining a set content identifier for the data associated with the metadata or set information associated with the digital object; and (Par. (0215-0216); receiving a set of identifiers for the data associated with metadata (data and information with message payloads of code type))
storing the set content identifier, the object content identifier, and data indicative of the identity of the first device in a database. (Par. (0212-0215); storing set of content identifier (set of identifiers) in datastore/database, storing object content identifier (Code ID with payload and payload stored in database) in system and data indicative of identity (identity of requestor) stored as record in database)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mathew and Wang to incorporate the teaching of Howard to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of signed data and verification techniques using identifiers of digital objects, with the motivation of verifying the authenticity of codes and records based on signed data and identifying possible tampering based on the process and records as well as using the store identifiers as a form of comparison to identify correct patterns and enhance verification. (Howard Par. (0048 and 0221))
In regards to Claim 4, the combination of Mathew, Howard and Wang teach the method of claim 1, Howard further teaches storing data associated with object content identifiers associated with the set content identifier and the identity of the first device in a database. (Par. (0212-0215); storing data associated with object content identifiers (storing payload associated with Code ID) with set of content identifiers and the identity of the first device (set of identifiers and identity of requestor stored in database)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mathew and Wang to incorporate the teaching of Howard to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of signed data and verification techniques using identifiers of digital objects, with the motivation of verifying the authenticity of codes and records based on signed data and identifying possible tampering based on the process and records as well as using the store identifiers as a form of comparison to identify correct patterns and enhance verification. (Howard Par. (0048 and 0221))
In regards to Claim 5, the combination of Mathew, Howard and Wang teach the method of claim 1, Mathew further teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the signed commitment request is associated with an event generated during the storing of the data associated with the commitment string in the database, (Par. (0023); event messages with signed request that is sent to storage), (Par. (0032-0035); request with set of string and signature generated from string)
Mathew does not explicitly teach the event includes the set content identifier associated with the digital object, and the event is recorded in a database.
Wherein Howard teaches the event includes the set content identifier associated with the digital object, and the event is recorded in a database. (Par. (0224-0226); the event (changes and modification in code and record of code) with content identifier (identifier corresponding to code and record at time of event (modification) and record and code stored), (Par. (0232); digital object (code with code record) stored in database (ledger))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mathew and Wang to incorporate the teaching of Howard to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of signed data and verification techniques using identifiers of digital objects, with the motivation of implementing a form of comparison using the database events stored to enhance validation and add another level of security. (Howard Par. (0048 and 0089))
In regards to Claim 7, the combination of Mathew, Howard and Wang teach the method of claim 1, Mathew further teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: storing data associated with the commitment string in a database. (Par. (0071); data objects/data files associated with string is recorded in distributed log)), (Par. (0032-0033, 0037-0038), string and data associated i.e hash values, keys etc. with string corresponding to shared storage))
In regards to Claim 12, the combination of Mathew, Howard and Wang teach the method of claim 1, Mathew further teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the database is provided by a set of computer nodes on a network. (Par. (0008-0009); set of nodes corresponding to shared storage in network)), (Par. (0026); database)
In regards to Claim 13, the combination of Mathew, Howard and Wang teach the method of claim 1, Wang further teaches wherein the database comprises a ledger. (Par. (0082) (database or log is blockchain ledger)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mathew and Howard to incorporate the teaching of Wang to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of digital objects and signed data for verification, with the motivation of creating an immutable ledger to prevent tampering and securely verify data using blockchain. (Wang Par. (0018))
In regards to Claim 14, the combination of Mathew, Howard and Wang teach the method of claim 1, Wang further teaches wherein the database is a blockchain. (Par. (0082) (database or log is blockchain ledger)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mathew and Howard to incorporate the teaching of Wang to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of digital objects and signed data for verification, with the motivation of creating an immutable ledger to prevent tampering and securely verify data using blockchain. (Wang Par. (0018))
In regards to Claim 16, the combination of Mathew, Howard and Wang teach the method of claim 1, Wang further teaches wherein the data indicative of the identity of the first device is a key stored on the first device. (Par. (0077); data indicative of the identity (account-specific information and data file with identity of first device) of the first device is a key (entity with its own private/public key to verify), (Par. (0032); memory and storage of device includes a private key)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mathew and Howard to incorporate the teaching of Wang to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of digital objects and signed data for verification, with the motivation of linking cryptographic keys to the device to maintain verification and allow nodes to authenticate each other based on linked keys. (Wang Par. (0051-0052))
In regards to Claim 17, the combination of Mathew, Howard and Wang teach the method of claim 1, Wang further teaches wherein the data indicative of the identity of the first device is based on a public key associated with the first device (Par. (0038,0051); verifying identity of entity/device using public key that is stored)
or a derivative such as a token
or a hash value generated using a private key of the first device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mathew and Howard to incorporate the teaching of Wang to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of digital objects and signed data for verification, with the motivation of linking cryptographic keys to the device to maintain verification and allow nodes to authenticate each other based on linked keys. (Wang Par. (0051-0052))
In regards to Claim 18, the combination of Mathew, Howard and Wang teach the method of claim 1, Wang further teaches wherein the public key and the private key associated with the first device form a cryptographic key pair. (Par. (0051); private and public key pair of device)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mathew and Howard to incorporate the teaching of Wang to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of digital objects and signed data for verification, with the motivation of linking cryptographic keys to the device to maintain verification and allow nodes to authenticate each other based on linked keys. (Wang Par. (0051-0052))
In regards to Claim 22, the combination of Mathew, Howard and Wang teach the method of claim 1, Howard further teaches wherein: the digital object is metadata or set information associated with other digital objects such that the content identifier is a set content identifier. (Par. (0215-0216); digital object (code) is metadata or set information ( data and information with message payloads of code type)), (Par. (0214-0215); such that the content identifier is a set content identifier. (identifier and code identifier is a unique identifier by itself)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mathew and Howard to incorporate the teaching of Wang to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of digital objects and signed data for verification, with the motivation of regulating access based on data with digital object to indicate appropriate access and analyze risk more effectively based on identifiers. (Wang Par. (0021-0022 and 0049-0050))
In regards to Claim 23, the combination of Mathew, Howard and Wang teach the method of claim 1, Howard further teaches storing data indicative of the identity of the first device and the set content identifier in a database. (Par. (0212-0215); storing set content identifier (set of identifiers) in datastore/database, storing data indicative of identity (identity of requestor) stored as record in database))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mathew and Wang to incorporate the teaching of Howard to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of signed data and verification techniques using identifiers of digital objects, with the motivation of verifying the authenticity of codes and records based on signed data and identifying possible tampering based on the process and records as well as using the store identifiers as a form of comparison to identify correct patterns and enhance verification. (Howard Par. (0048 and 0221))
In regards to Claim 24, the combination of Mathew, Howard and Wang teach the method of claim 1, Mathew further teaches the method of claim 23, wherein the signed commitment request is associated with an event generated during the storing of the data associated with the commitment string in the database, (Par. (0023); event messages with signed request that is sent to storage), (Par. (0032-0035); request with set of string and signature generated from string)
Mathew does not explicitly teach the event includes data indicative of the identity of the first device and the set content identifier, and the event is recorded in a database.
Wherein Howard teaches the event includes data indicative of the identity of the first device and the set content identifier, and the event is recorded in a database. (Par. (0224-0226); the event (changes and modification in code and record of code) with content identifier (identifier corresponding to code and record at time of event (modification) and record and code stored), (Par. (0232); digital object (code with code record) stored in database (ledger))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mathew and Wang to incorporate the teaching of Howard to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of signed data and verification techniques using identifiers of digital objects, with the motivation of implementing a form of comparison using the database events stored to enhance validation and add another level of security. (Howard Par. (0048 and 0089))
In regards to Claim 25, Mathew teaches an electronic device comprising one or more processors and memory storing one or more programs for execution by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for: (Par. (0089-0090); device with processor memory and medium)
receiving a message to submit a signed commitment request for a digital object; and, (Par. (0022-0023); receiving a cluster message then submitting (sending) signed request for object and resources in object storage), (Par. (0022-0023); signed commitment request for a digital object (signed request corresponding to commitment (validation and storage) of object and resource)
wherein the signed commitment request comprises the commitment string and a cryptographic signature for the commitment string; and (Par. (0032-0035); request with set of string and signature generated from string)
Mathew does not explicitly teach in response to receiving the message to submit the signed commitment request for the digital object: obtaining a content identifier for the digital object; generating a commitment string associated with the digital object, wherein the commitment string includes a content identifier for the digital object; generating the signed commitment request based on the commitment string and a private key associated with the first device, subsequent to generating the signed commitment request, sending, to a second device that is distinct from the first device, the signed commitment request and data indicative of an identity of the first device.
Wherein Howard teaches in response to receiving the message to submit the signed commitment request for the digital object: (Par. (0218-0220 and 0230-0231); signed request is sent and received corresponding to message/payload)
obtaining a content identifier for the digital object; (Par. (0215, 0230-0231) (send and receive identifiers for digital object (code))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mathew to incorporate the teaching of Howard to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of signed data and verification techniques using identifiers of digital objects, with the motivation of verifying the authenticity of codes and records based on signed data and identifying possible tampering based on the process and records. (Howard Par. (0220-0222))
Mathew and Howard do not explicitly teach generating a commitment string associated with the digital object, wherein the commitment string includes a content identifier for the digital object; generating the signed commitment request based on the commitment string and a private key associated with the first device, subsequent to generating the signed commitment request, sending, to a second device that is distinct from the first device, the signed commitment request and data indicative of an identity of the first device.
Wherein Wang teaches generating a commitment string associated with the digital object, (Par. (0050); digital object (electronic record) generated with commitment string (electronic identifier with string of characters)
wherein the commitment string includes a content identifier for the digital object; (Par. (0021, 0050, 0054); commitment string (string of characters corresponding to electronic identifier) for the digital object (for the electronic record)
generating the signed commitment request based on the commitment string and a private key associated with the first device, (Par. (0077); signed request generated with private key of computing entity and commitment string (electronic identifier)), (Par. (0050); commitment string (electronic identifier that is string of characters)
subsequent to generating the signed commitment request, sending, to a second device that is distinct from the first device, the signed commitment request and data indicative of an identity of the first device. (Par. (0077); sending the signed commitment request (signed information request corresponding to data file) from first device (computing entity) to second device (origination entity) with portions of account-specific information and data file and identity of first device with its own private/public key to verify entity), (Par. (0036, 0077-0081); computing and originating entity being distinct with different keys tasks of verification)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mathew and Howard to incorporate the teaching of Wang to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of digital objects and signed data for verification, with the motivation of creating a level of trust based on records submitted to allow providers based on criteria to give access to sensitive documents based on identifying identifiers and digital objects and electronic records matched with it. (Wang Par. (0003, 0021-0022 and 0033))
In regards to Claim 26, Mathew teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing one or more programs for execution by one or more processors of an electronic device, the one or more programs including instructions for: (Par. (0089-0090); no-transitory computer readable medium with processor memory and medium)
receiving a message to submit a signed commitment request for a digital object; and, (Par. (0022-0023); receiving a cluster message then submitting (sending) signed request for object and resources in object storage), (Par. (0022-0023); signed commitment request for a digital object (signed request corresponding to commitment (validation and storage) of object and resource)
wherein the signed commitment request comprises the commitment string and a cryptographic signature for the commitment string; and (Par. (0032-0035); request with set of string and signature generated from string)
Mathew does not explicitly teach in response to receiving the message to submit the signed commitment request for the digital object: obtaining a content identifier for the digital object; generating a commitment string associated with the digital object, wherein the commitment string includes a content identifier for the digital object; generating the signed commitment request based on the commitment string and a private key associated with the first device, subsequent to generating the signed commitment request, sending, to a second device that is distinct from the first device, the signed commitment request and data indicative of an identity of the first device.
Wherein Howard teaches in response to receiving the message to submit the signed commitment request for the digital object: (Par. (0218-0220 and 0230-0231); signed request is sent and received corresponding to message/payload)
obtaining a content identifier for the digital object; (Par. (0215, 0230-0231) (send and receive identifiers for digital object (code))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mathew to incorporate the teaching of Howard to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of signed data and verification techniques using identifiers of digital objects, with the motivation of verifying the authenticity of codes and records based on signed data and identifying possible tampering based on the process and records. (Howard Par. (0220-0222))
Mathew and Howard do not explicitly teach generating a commitment string associated with the digital object, wherein the commitment string includes a content identifier for the digital object; generating the signed commitment request based on the commitment string and a private key associated with the first device, subsequent to generating the signed commitment request, sending, to a second device that is distinct from the first device, the signed commitment request and data indicative of an identity of the first device.
Wherein Wang teaches generating a commitment string associated with the digital object, (Par. (0050); digital object (electronic record) generated with commitment string (electronic identifier with string of characters)
wherein the commitment string includes a content identifier for the digital object; (Par. (0021, 0050, 0054); commitment string (string of characters corresponding to electronic identifier) for the digital object (for the electronic record)
generating the signed commitment request based on the commitment string and a private key associated with the first device, (Par. (0077); signed request generated with private key of computing entity and commitment string (electronic identifier)), (Par. (0050); commitment string (electronic identifier that is string of characters)
subsequent to generating the signed commitment request, sending, to a second device that is distinct from the first device, the signed commitment request and data indicative of an identity of the first device. (Par. (0077); sending the signed commitment request (signed information request corresponding to data file) from first device (computing entity) to second device (origination entity) with portions of account-specific information and data file and identity of first device with its own private/public key to verify entity), (Par. (0036, 0077-0081); computing and originating entity being distinct with different keys tasks of verification)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mathew and Howard to incorporate the teaching of Wang to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of digital objects and signed data for verification, with the motivation of creating a level of trust based on records submitted to allow providers based on criteria to give access to sensitive documents based on identifying identifiers and digital objects and electronic records matched with it. (Wang Par. (0003, 0021-0022 and 0033))
Claim(s) 6 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathew et al (U.S Pub. No. 20240004712, hereinafter referred to as “Mathew”), Howard et al (U.S Pub. No. 20210027033, hereinafter referred to as “Howard”) and Wang et al (U.S Pub. No. 20190295162, hereinafter referred to as “Wang”) further in view of Lee et al (U.S Pub. No. 20200301944, hereinafter referred to as “Lee”)
In regards to Claim 6, the combination of Mathew, Howard and Wang do not explicitly teach the content identifier for the digital object is included as part of a Merkle tree or a list of hash values associated with the digital object.
Wherein Lee teaches the content identifier for the digital object is included as part of a Merkle tree or a list of hash values associated with the digital object. (Par. (0045, 0049); identifier of data object corresponding to Merkle tree and list of hash values or hash table)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mathew, Howard and Wang to incorporate the teaching of Lee to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of verification of digital objects, with the motivation of implementing Merkle hashes and root values to identify digital objects and determine a threshold value in comparison to storage in the blockchain. (Lee Par. (0034-0036))
In regards to Claim 15, the combination of Mathew, Howard and Wang do not explicitly teach wherein the content identifier is based on a hash value of the digital object.
Wherein Lee teaches wherein the content identifier is based on a hash value of the digital object. (Par. (0045, 0049); identifier of data object corresponding to Merkle tree and list of hash values or hash table)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mathew, Howard and Wang to incorporate the teaching of Lee to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of verification of digital objects, with the motivation of linking hash values with identifier of digital objects as a way to ensure integrity of data storage and identify deleted modified data and increase storage capacity based on identifier of digital object and its linking hash values. (Lee Par. (0006-0007 and 0038))
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathew et al (U.S Pub. No. 20240004712, hereinafter referred to as “Mathew”), Howard et al (U.S Pub. No. 20210027033, hereinafter referred to as “Howard”) and Wang et al (U.S Pub. No. 20190295162, hereinafter referred to as “Wang”) further in view of Sheets et al (U.S Pub. No. 20190279321, hereinafter referred to as “Sheets”)
In regards to Claim 8, the combination of Mathew, Howard and Wang do not explicitly teach determining data associated with the time of recording of the commitment string to the database; and storing data associated with the time of recording of the commitment string to the database in the database.
Wherein Sheets teaches determining data associated with the time of recording of the commitment string to the database; and (Par. (0032); determining timestamp of string representing database state when stored)
storing data associated with the time of recording of the commitment string to the database in the database. (Par. (0032, 0035); storing files, hashes and block data associated with timestamp of string in blockchain)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mathew, Howard and Wang to incorporate the teaching of Sheets to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of verification of digital objects, with the motivation of utilizing a blockchain network to verify digital object and documents based on time and as comparison to data stored in database. By using strings stored proof linked with a period of time can prove authenticity and certainty to users. (Sheets Par. (0019 and 0032))
In regards to Claim 9, the combination of Mathew, Howard and Wang teach the method of claim 1, Mathew further teaches the method of claim 8,wherein the signed commitment request is associated with an event generated during the storing of the data associated with the commitment string in the database, and (Par. (0023); event messages with signed request that is sent to storage), (Par. (0032-0035); request with set of string and signature generated from string)
the event is recorded in a database. (Par. (0023); event messages with signed request that is sent to storage) , (Par. (0054-0055); sending of event messages to distributed logs of storage)
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathew et al (U.S Pub. No. 20240004712, hereinafter referred to as “Mathew”), Howard et al (U.S Pub. No. 20210027033, hereinafter referred to as “Howard”),Wang et al (U.S Pub. No. 20190295162, hereinafter referred to as “Wang”) and Sheets et al (U.S Pub. No. 20190279321, hereinafter referred to as “Sheets”) further in view of Aleksander et al (U.S Pub. No. 20190379531, hereinafter referred to as “Aleksander”)
In regards to Claim 10, the combination of Mathew, Howard and Wang teach the method of claim 1, Howard further teaches determining a time of creation or modification of the digital object; and (Par. (0221); creation timestamp of digital object (electronic record))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mathew and Wang to incorporate the teaching of Howard to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of signed data and verification techniques using identifiers of digital objects, with the motivation of verifying the authenticity of codes and records based on signed data and identifying possible tampering based on the process and records as well as using the store identifiers as a form of comparison to identify correct patterns and enhance verification. (Howard Par. (0048 and 0221))
Mathew, Howard, Wang and Sheets do not explicitly teach sending, to a third device for verification of the digital object, (i) a timestamp associated with recording the data associated with the commitment string to the database and (ii) the time of creation or modification of the digital object.
Wherein Aleksander sending, to a third device for verification of the digital object, (Par. (0007, 0014); verification of the digital object (verification of data files) by sending a third device (sending to one or more nodes))
(i) a timestamp associated with recording the data associated with the commitment string to the database and (Par. (0014-0022, 0059, 0065) sending to a third device (one or more approval nodes) a timestamp associated with recording data (timestamp associated with block transaction), associated with the commitment string to the database (string with data, block and transaction is stored with timestamp of registration of blockchain database), (Par. (0057-0059, 0083, 0102); commitment string to the database (string corresponding to transaction/block stored in blockchain database)
(ii) the time of creation or modification of the digital object. (Par. (0065-0066); sending to nodes in blockchain creation timestamp of block)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mathew, Howard, Wang and Sheets to incorporate the teaching of Aleksander to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of verification of digital objects, with the motivation of securely storing data files based on time as a form of comparison to match timestamps of data files to confirm to users origin and authenticity. (Aleksander Par. (0007 and 0029-0035))
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathew et al (U.S Pub. No. 20240004712, hereinafter referred to as “Mathew”), Howard et al (U.S Pub. No. 20210027033, hereinafter referred to as “Howard”) and Wang et al (U.S Pub. No. 20190295162, hereinafter referred to as “Wang”) further in view of Davies et al (U.S Pub. No. 20210182849, hereinafter referred to as “Davies”)
In regards to Claim 11, the combination of Mathew, Howard and Wang do not explicitly teach wherein the database is an append-only database.
Wherein Davies teaches wherein the database is an append-only database. (Par. (0038); append only data base associated with ledger)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mathew, Howard and Wang to incorporate the teaching of Davies to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of verification of signed data with digital objects, with the motivation of managing transactions more effectively by the state of append only and allow digital objects and artifacts to securely store and verify data based on identifying a state change and what is allowed. (Davies Par. (0038 and 0046))
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathew et al (U.S Pub. No. 20240004712, hereinafter referred to as “Mathew”), Howard et al (U.S Pub. No. 20210027033, hereinafter referred to as “Howard”) and Wang et al (U.S Pub. No. 20190295162, hereinafter referred to as “Wang”) further in view of Ornelas et al (U.S Pub. No. 20210182806, hereinafter referred to as “Ornelas”)
In regards to Claim 19, the combination of Mathew, Howard and Wang teach the method of claim 1, Mathew further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the signed commitment request is generated based in part on cryptographic information associated with the first device and (Par. (0022-0023); signed request generated using cryptographic information (signing key)), (Par. (0032-0033); signed request generated using cryptographic information (hashes associated with signed request)
Mathew, Howard and Wang do not explicitly teach cryptographic information associated with a third device distinct and separate from the first device.
Wherein Ornelas teaches cryptographic information associated with a third device distinct and separate from the first device. (Par. (0189); signed request using cryptographic information (key) of third computing device)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mathew, Howard and Wang to incorporate the teaching of Ornelas to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of cryptographic signing of digital objects, with the motivation of adding another layer of security by regulating access types of assets and digital objects of various devices to visibly allow nodes to blockchain to identify transmitted cryptographically signed data and requests. (Ornelas Par. (0026-0028))
In regards to Claim 20, the combination of Mathew, Howard and Wang do not explicitly teach receiving, from a third device distinct and separate from the first device and the second device, signature information based on a key associated with the third device, wherein the signed commitment request is generated based in part on the received signature information based on the key associated with the third device and signature information based on the private key associated with the first device.
Wherein Ornelas teaches receiving, from a third device distinct and separate from the first device and the second device, signature information based on a key associated with the third device, (Par. (0189, 0206); third computing device and network nodes receiving and verifying signatures associated with private/public keys), (Par. (0149, 0157, 0189); first and second computing device distinct from third by validating of signatures and specific public keys and private keys)
wherein the signed commitment request is generated based in part on the received signature information based on the key associated with the third device and (Par. (0189); signed request based on signature and private key of third computing device)
signature information based on the private key associated with the first device. (Par. (0166, 0169-0172, 0189); signature with private key of first node/first computing device)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mathew, Howard and Wang to incorporate the teaching of Ornelas to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of cryptographic signing of digital objects, with the motivation of adding another layer of security by regulating access types of assets and digital objects of various devices to visibly allow nodes to blockchain to identify transmitted cryptographically signed data and requests as well as identifying and verifying with various levels based on different signatures to prevent compromise by malicious actors. (Ornelas Par. (0026-0028 and 0031-0033))
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathew et al (U.S Pub. No. 20240004712, hereinafter referred to as “Mathew”), Howard et al (U.S Pub. No. 20210027033, hereinafter referred to as “Howard”) and Wang et al (U.S Pub. No. 20190295162, hereinafter referred to as “Wang”) further in view of Nicol et al (U.S Pub. No. 20170270024, hereinafter referred to as “Nicol”)
In regards to Claim 21, the combination of Mathew, Howard and Wang do not explicitly teach at the second device, generating a forward request based on the signed commitment request, wherein the forward request includes the signed commitment request and data indicative of the identity of the first device; and subsequent to generating the forward request, sending, to a third device, the forward request and data indicative of an identity of the second device.
Wherein Nicol teaches at the second device, generating a forward request based on the signed commitment request, ((Par. (0070 and 0046-0048); at a second (plurality of users/developers with ID’s) (Par. (0022); developer generates forward request (profiling request)), (Par. (0048, 0051); request are signed)
wherein the forward request includes the signed commitment request and data indicative of the identity of the first device; and (Par. (0048); forward request with signed profiling request that include user ID and identity of user)
subsequent to generating the forward request, sending, to a third device, the forward request and data indicative of an identity of the second device. (Par. (0044-0046); sending of forward request (profiling request) to a plurality of machine devices within the cluster that include ID and identifies users)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mathew, Howard and Wang to incorporate the teaching of Nicol to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of cryptographic signing of digital objects, with the motivation of authentication based on identity of users included in request to avoid potential hacks and securely guarantee provenance. (Nicol Par. (0048))
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathew et al (U.S Pub. No. 20240004712, hereinafter referred to as “Mathew”) and Sazonov et al (U.S Pub. No. 20210021577, hereinafter referred to as “Sazonov”) further in view of Wang et al (U.S Pub. No. 20190295162, hereinafter referred to as “Wang”)
In regards to Claim 27, Mathew teaches a method for providing authenticatable data, (Par. (0031, 0037); authentication with data, objects and request)
the method comprising: at a first electronic device with one or more processors and memory storing instructions for execution by the one or more processors: (Par. (0089-0090); device with processor and memory)
the signed commitment request comprises the commitment string and a cryptographic signature for the commitment string; and (Par. (0032-0035); request with set of string and signature generated from string)
Mathew does not explicitly teach generating a forward request based on a signed commitment request, wherein: the forward request includes a signed commitment request and data indicative of an identity of a second electronic device that is distinct from the first electronic device; the signed commitment request is generated based on a commitment string associated with a digital object and a private key associated with the second electronic device; the commitment string includes a content identifier for the digital object; and subsequent to generating the forward request, sending, to a third device, the forward request and data indicative of an identity of the second device.
Wherein Sazonov teaches generating a forward request based on a signed commitment request, wherein: (Par. (0051-0053); generates a forward request (request to send data) based on signed commitment request (generated request that is signed by third party)
the forward request includes a signed commitment request and data indicative of an identity of a second electronic device that is distinct from the first electronic device; (Par. (0018-0020); forward request (request for data) indicative of an identity of a second electronic device (request with identifier of authorized user), (Par. (0051-0053); request includes signed commitment request (request that is signed by third party), (Figure 1 labels 120, 130, 105, 110; second electronic device (user 110, 105) that is distinct from the first electronic device (trusted party device 120)
subsequent to generating the forward request, sending, to a third device, the forward request and data indicative of an identity of the second device. (Par. (0020-0021); sending of request that container identity of second device (identifier of authorized user), (Par. (0049-0051); sending to third device (sending request with identifier of second device (authorized user) to third device (third party device)) and data indicative of an identity of the second device (identifier of authorized user), (Figure 1 labels 110, 105, 120 and 130 and Par. (0049-0051); first, second and third devices (110, 120, 130) and sending to third device (third party device) identity of second device (identifier of authorized user))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mathew to incorporate the teaching of Sazonov to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of cryptographic signing of digital objects, with the motivation of securely protecting personal data and creating confidentiality and protection to data transmitted based on identifiers fir trust within devices. (Nicol Par. (0003-0009))
Mathew and Sazonov do not explicitly teach the signed commitment request is generated based on a commitment string associated with a digital object and a private key associated with the second electronic device; the commitment string includes a content identifier for the digital object; and
Wherein Wang teaches the signed commitment request is generated based on a commitment string associated with a digital object and a private key associated with the second electronic device; (Par. (0077); signed request generated with private key of computing entity and commitment string (electronic identifier)), (Par. (0050); commitment string (electronic identifier that is string of characters)
the commitment string includes a content identifier for the digital object; and (Par. (0021, 0050, 0054); commitment string (string of characters corresponding to electronic identifier) for the digital object (for the electronic record)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mathew and Sazonov to incorporate the teaching of Wang to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of digital objects and signed data for verification, with the motivation of creating a level of trust based on records submitted to allow providers based on criteria to give access to sensitive documents based on identifying identifiers and digital objects and electronic records matched with it. (Wang Par. (0003, 0021-0022 and 0033))
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
HUANG; Kyle (U.S Pub. No. 20230370282) “DISTRIBUTED LEDGER BASED CRYPTOGRAPHIC SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR IMPROVING DATA INTEGRITY”. Considered this reference because it addressed digital objects and signing techniques with cryptographic information for secure storage.
LAM; Brian Andrew (U.S Pub. No. 20200052903) “DYNAMICALLY MANAGING EXCHANGES OF DATA USING A DISTRIBUTED LEDGER AND HOMOMORPHIC COMMITMENTS”. Considered this application because it relates commitment strings and request for cryptographic information.
MA; Baoli (U.S Pub. No. 20190268312) “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR INFORMATION PROTECTION”. Considered this application because it addressed secure storage of digital objects using identifiers and encryption keys.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASSAN A HUSSEIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3554. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am-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, Eleni Shiferaw can be reached on (571)272-3867. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HASSAN A HUSSEIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2497
Prosecution Insights