DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office correspondence is in response to the application number 19/069201 filed on March 3, 2025.
Preliminary Amendment
This applicant filed a preliminary amendment on 9/24/2024 which has been accepted.
Claims 1 – 18 are cancelled.
Claims 19 – 36 are added.
Claims 19 – 36 are rejected.
Authorization for Internet Communications
The examiner encourages Applicant to submit an authorization to communicate with the examiner via the Internet by making the following statement (from MPEP 502.03):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only be submitted via Central Fax (not Examiner's Fax), Regular postal mail, or EFS Web using PTO/SB/439.
Priority
This application is a continuation of prior filed application No.17/745603 (now U.S. Patent 12,244,723) ) under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c). Co-pendency between the current application and the prior application is required. Since the applications were co-pending at the time of the instant application’s file date, the applicant is entitled to the benefit claim to the prior-filed application, which claimed benefit to provisional application No. 63/189,198 filed on May 16, 2021. Therein the instant application is entitled to a priority date of May 16, 2021.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 19 - 36 are rejected on the ground of non-provisional non-statutory anticipatory-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 3, 5 – 6, 9 – 10, and 15 - 17 of U.S. Patent 12,244,723. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patently distinct from each other because both sets of claims are directed to the same invention. This is a non-provisional non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have in fact been patented.
In regard to claim 19:
Application 19/069201
U.S. Patent 12,244,723
19. A computer-implemented method of generating cryptographic proofs, comprising:
1. A method of managing data in a computer-hosted database system providing cryptographic verifiability and comprising an immutable key-value data store, the method comprising:
hosting a computer-hosted database system comprising computer instructions that when
executed by one or more processors cause the computer-hosted database system to generate cryptographic proof data, an immutable key-value data store, and a hash tree data structure logically coupled with the immutable key-value data store, the hash tree data structure comprising cryptographic proof data concerning transaction data stored in the immutable key-value data store;
hosting a computer-hosted database system comprising an immutable key-value data store, wherein the computer-hosted database system comprises one or more data records and cryptographic proof data associated with the one or more data records,
4 The method of claim 1, wherein the computer-hosted database system further comprises a Merkle hash tree comprising the cryptographic proof data associated with the one or more data records
storing a first transaction comprising first transaction data in the immutable key-value data
store, wherein the first transaction data comprises one or more key-value entries, including a first key-value entry, wherein a key-value entry comprises a key-component and a value-component, the value-component comprising a plurality of data elements, and the value-component of the first key-value entry comprises a first data element and a second data element;
1 wherein the computer-hosted database system comprises a first data record comprising transaction data, including first transaction data stored in the first field and second transaction data stored in the second field, and cryptographic proof data associated with the first data record (first data record proof data);
2 The method of claim 1, wherein the first transaction data is stored in a first key-value entry and the second transaction data is stored in a second key-value entry.
splitting the value-component of the first key-value entry into n split-values, where n>1, each split-value comprising a data element and a unique label, wherein then split-values comprise a first split-value, the first split-value comprising the first data element and a first unique label, and a second split-value comprising the second data element and a second unique label;
15 The method of claim 1 wherein the first transaction data and the second transaction data are stored in a first key-value entry in the immutable key-value data store, and returning the first cryptographic proof data comprises splitting the value component of the first key-value entry into 2 or more elements and computing a hash tree over the two more elements of the value component of the first key-value entry.
computing a first root hash of a first key-value hash tree computed over then split-values of the value-component of the first key-value entry;
3 The method of claim 2, wherein the first data record proof data comprises a root hash value of a hash tree comprising a first hash value computed on the first key-value entry and a second hash value computed on the second key-value entry.
storing the first root hash in a first leaf element of the hash tree data structure, said first leaf element corresponding to the first transaction data
5 The method of claim 1, wherein the first data record proof data comprises a root hash value computed over a hash tree comprising the transaction data.
receiving a cryptographic proof request concerning the first data element and the first transaction data; and
6 The method of claim 1, wherein the first transaction data is stored in a first key-value entry, the second transaction data is stored in a second key-value entry, and the first cryptographic proof data comprises a hash value computed on the second key-value entry.
in response to the cryptographic proof request, returning responsive cryptographic proof data comprising the first root hash and a second split-value hash value, said second split-value hash value comprising a hash value of the second data element, but not the actual value of the second element, whereby said responsive cryptographic proof data can be used in a computer-implemented process to construct a first cryptographic proof concerning the first data element and the first transaction data without using the actual value of the second data element.
9 The method of claim 1, wherein the data retrieval instruction comprises a request for cryptographic proof data.
10 The method of claim 1, further comprising the step of storing the transaction data in the first data record, comprising:
receiving a data storage instruction comprising instructions to store the first transaction data in the first field and to store the second transaction data in the second field;
storing the first transaction data in the first key-value entry and storing the second transaction data in the second key-value entry;
computing a first hash value computed on the first key-value entry and a second hash value computed on the second key-value entry; and
storing in the cryptographic proof data the root hash tree value of a hash tree comprising the first hash value and the second hash value.
It is clear that all of the elements of the instant application 19/069201 (herein ‘201) claim 19 are to be found in U.S. Patent 12,244,723 (herein ‘723) claims 1, 2-3, 5 – 6,9-10, and 15 (as the instant application ‘201 claim 19 fully encompasses Patent ‘723 claims 1, 2-3, 5 – 6,9-10, and 15 ). The difference between ‘201 claim 19 and ‘723 claims 1, 2-3, 5 – 6,9-10, and 15 lies in the fact that the ‘723 claims includes many more elements and is thus much more specific. Thus the invention of claims 1, 2-3, 5 – 6,9-10, and 15 of the 723 patent is in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of ‘201 claim 19. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species”. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Since the ‘201 claim 19 is anticipated by claims 1, 2-3, 5 – 6,9-10, and 15 of ‘723, it is not patently distinct from ‘723 claims 1, 2-3, 5 – 6,9-10, and 15 .
In regard to claims 20 – 35, which are dependent on claim 1, they are anticipated by claims 1 – 15 of U.S. Patent 12,244,723.
In regard to claim 36:
Application 19/069201
U.S. Patent 12,244,723
36. A computer-hosted database system for generating cryptographic proofs, comprising:
16 A computer-hosted database system providing cryptographic verifiability, comprising:
a computer-hosted database system comprising one or more processors, an immutable key-
value data store, and a hash tree data structure logically coupled with the immutable key-value data store, the hash tree data structure comprising cryptographic proof data concerning transaction data stored in the immutable key-value data store; and
an immutable key-value data store, wherein the computer-hosted database system comprises one or more data records and cryptographic proof data associated with the one or more data records,
17 The computer-hosted database system of claim 16, wherein the cryptographic proof data is stored in a Merkle hash tree.
computer instructions that when executed by the one or more processors cause the computer-hosted database system to perform the following:
16 one or more processors operatively coupled to a non-transitory data store and the immutable key-value data store, wherein the non-transitory data store comprises executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computer-hosted database system to:
store a first transaction comprising first transaction data in the immutable key-value data store, wherein the first transaction data comprises one or more key-value entries, including a first key-value entry, wherein a key-value entry comprises a key-component and a value-component, the value-component comprising a plurality of data elements, and the value-component of the first key-value entry comprises a first data element and a second data element;
16 wherein the data in a data record is stored as one or more key-value entries in the immutable key-value data store, and the logical structure of a data record is defined by a rich data model and comprises two or more data fields, including a first field and a second field,
wherein the computer-hosted database system comprises a first data record comprising transaction data, including first transaction data stored in the first field and second transaction data stored in the second field, and cryptographic proof data associated with the first data record (first data record proof data); and
split the value-component of the first key-value entry into n split-values, where n>1, each split-value comprising a data element and a unique label, wherein the n split-values comprise a first split-value, the first split-value comprising the first data element and a first unique label, and a second split-value comprising the second data element and a second unique label;
15 wherein the first transaction data and the second transaction data are stored in a first key-value entry in the immutable key-value data store, and returning the first cryptographic proof data comprises splitting the value component of the first key-value entry into 2 or more elements and computing a hash tree over the two more elements of the value component of the first key-value entry.
compute a first root hash of a first key-value hash tree computed over the n split-values of the value-component of the first key-value entry;
3 wherein the first data record proof data comprises a root hash value of a hash tree comprising a first hash value computed on the first key-value entry and a second hash value computed on the second key-value entry
store the first root hash in a first leaf element of the hash tree data structure, said first leaf element corresponding to the first transaction data;
5 , wherein the first data record proof data comprises a root hash value computed over a hash tree comprising the transaction data.
receive a cryptographic proof request concerning the first data element and the first transaction data; and
6 wherein the first transaction data is stored in a first key-value entry, the second transaction data is stored in a second key-value entry, and the first cryptographic proof data comprises a hash value computed on the second key-value entry.
in response to the cryptographic proof request, return responsive cryptographic proof data comprising the first root hash and a second split-value hash value, said second split-value hash value comprising a hash value of the second data element, but not the actual value of the second element, whereby said responsive cryptographic proof data can be used in a computer-implemented process to construct a first cryptographic proof concerning the first
data element and the first transaction data without using the actual value of the second data element.
16 receive a data retrieval instruction requesting retrieval of data stored in the first field but not data stored in the second field, wherein the data retrieval instruction requests retrieval at the column or attribute level supported by the rich data model; and
return, in response to the data retrieval instruction, the first transaction data stored in the first field and first cryptographic proof data sufficient to prove data originality of the first transaction data without knowledge of the second transaction data stored in the second field,
wherein returning first cryptographic proof data comprises returning first cryptographic proof data at the column or attribute level supported by the rich data model.
It is clear that all of the elements of the instant application 19/069201 (herein ‘201) claim 36 are to be found in U.S. Patent 12,244,723 (herein ‘723) claims 3, 5 – 6, and 15 - 17 (as the instant application ‘201 claim 36 fully encompasses Patent ‘723 claims 3, 5 – 6, and 15 - 17 ). The difference between ‘201 claim 36 and ‘723 claims 3, 5 – 6, and 15 - 17 lies in the fact that the ‘723 claims includes many more elements and is thus much more specific. Thus the invention of claims 3, 5 – 6, and 15 - 17 of the 723 patent is in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of ‘201 claim 36. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species”. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Since the ‘201 claim 36 is anticipated by claims 3, 5 – 6, and 15 - 17 of ‘723, it is not patently distinct from ‘723 claims 3, 5 – 6, and 15 - 17 .
Claim Analysis - 35 USC § 101 (Judicial Exception)
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 19 – 36 are directed to statutory subject matter and no 35 USC 101 rejection is applied for the judicial exception. The claims are directed to non-abstract improvements in computer related technology. The claimed subject matter is integrated into a practical application under Prong 2 of the Step 2A analysis described in MPEP 2016.04(d). A claim is non-statutory when it is directed to a judicial exception (e.g. either one of mathematical concepts, mental processes, or certain methods of organizing human activity) without significantly more. The claimed invention is not directed to a judicial exception. Instead, the claimed invention is directed to a technological improvement for generating cryptographic proofs by hosting a database system that keeps records in an immutable key-value store but still lets users query data in a richer format such as tables or documents. The system is designed so that a user can ask for only part of a record, like one column from a row, and still receive proof that the returned data is authentic. It does this by splitting the record’s stored value into labeled pieces and hashing those pieces into a tree structure. A proof can then be generated from the hashes, rather than requiring the full original record. The approach is meant to work with relational databases, document databases, and even graph-style data models, and avoids having to retrieve the entire record just to verify a partial query result. The claimed invention supports inclusion and consistency proofs so a client can verify both that data was present and that the database state has not changed unexpectedly. The claimed invention adds cryptographic verifiability to partial database query results without requiring full-record disclosure. The ordered combination if the limitations and elements recited in the claimed invention bounds the claimed invention to specific improvements for generating cryptographic proofs when a query returns only some columns or attributes and not the whole record. The claimed invention solves the problem as known in the art by storing each transaction in an immutable key-value database and computes hashes over split, labeled sub-values instead of hashing the whole row/document as one blob. By hashing the labeled pieces into a row-level hash tree, the database can return only selected data plus hash values for non-selected fields, enabling proof of authenticity for partial query results. The returned proof data is enough to reconstruct the relevant root hash and link it to the transaction-level hash tree. This lets the client verify a partial result without seeing the omitted field values. Therein, the claims are statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19 – 36 are objected to, but would be allowable if the double patenting rejections were addressed by the applicant through the filing of terminal disclaimer disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent 12,244,723.
The closest prior art of record Ganesan et al. (U.S. 2016/0379013 A1; herein referred to as Ganesan) in view of Irazabal (U.S. 2021/0279205 A1; herein referred to as In Irazabal) in further view of Yuen et al. (U.S. 2018/0294952 A1; herein referred to as Yuen) in further view of Kawahara (U.S. 2021/0243009 A1; herein referred to as Kawahara) in further view of Anton et al. (U.S. 2019/0318103 A1; herein referred to as Anton) does not teach separately or in combination, embodiments described by the claimed invention.
Claim Glossary: Claims reviewed under - 35 USC § 103
A search and consideration was performed on the following claims:
In regard to claim 19, A computer-implemented method of generating cryptographic proofs, comprising: hosting a computer-hosted database system comprising computer instructions that when
executed by one or more processors cause the computer-hosted database system to generate cryptographic proof data, an immutable key-value data store, and a hash tree data structure logically coupled with the immutable key-value data store, the hash tree data structure comprising cryptographic proof data concerning transaction data stored in the immutable key-value data store; storing a first transaction comprising first transaction data in the immutable key-value data
store, wherein the first transaction data comprises one or more key-value entries, including a first key-value entry, wherein a key-value entry comprises a key-component and a value-component, the value-component comprising a plurality of data elements, and the value-component of the first key-value entry comprises a first data element and a second data element;
splitting the value-component of the first key-value entry into n split-values, where n>1, each split-value comprising a data element and a unique label, wherein then split-values comprise a first split-value, the first split-value comprising the first data element and a first unique label, and a second split-value comprising the second data element and a second unique label;
computing a first root hash of a first key-value hash tree computed over then split-values of the value-component of the first key-value entry;
storing the first root hash in a first leaf element of the hash tree data structure, said first leaf element corresponding to the first transaction data;
receiving a cryptographic proof request concerning the first data element and the first transaction data; and
in response to the cryptographic proof request, returning responsive cryptographic proof data comprising the first root hash and a second split-value hash value, said second split-value hash value comprising a hash value of the second data element, but not the actual value of the second element, whereby said responsive cryptographic proof data can be used in a computer-implemented process to construct a first cryptographic proof concerning the first data element and the first transaction data without using the actual value of the second data element
In regard to claim 20, wherein the first cryptographic proof comprises an inclusion proof or a consistency proof.
In regard to claim 21, wherein the cryptographic proof request comprises a request for cryptographic data confirming inclusion of the first data element in the first transaction data.
In regard to claim 22, wherein the second split-value hash value further comprises a hash value of the second unique label
In regard to claim 23, wherein the hash tree data structure or the first key-value hash tree comprises a Merkle hash tree.
In regard to claim 24, whereby the first cryptographic proof concerning the first data element and the first transaction data can be constructed without using the actual value of any data element in the first key-value entry other than the first data element.
In regard to claim 25, wherein the hash tree data structure comprises a leaf element corresponding to each transaction stored in the immutable key-value data store.
In regard to claim 26, wherein the logical structure of the first transaction data is defined by a rich data model comprising a relational data model, a document data model, or a graph data model.
In regard to claim 27, wherein the logical structure of the first transaction data is defined by a relational data model and comprises one or more tables comprising rows and columns.
In regard to claim 28, wherein the first key-value entry corresponds to a first row in a first table and each unique label corresponds to a column identifier, wherein the first unique label comprises the column identifier for a first column in the first table and the first data element comprises the actual value in the first column in the first row in the first table and the second unique label comprises the column identifier for a second column in the first table and the second data element comprises the actual value in the second column in the first row in the first table.
In regard to claim 29, wherein the cryptographic proof request concerns a specified column entry in a specified row in the first transaction data, whereby the first cryptographic proof can be constructed without using the actual values of all column entries in the specified row.
In regard to claim 30, wherein the cryptographic proof request comprises a request for an inclusion proof for the value of the first column in the first transaction, and the responsive cryptographic data comprises the actual value of the first column in the first row, hash-values corresponding to the values in the other columns in the first row, the root hash value of a hash tree comprising actual values of all columns in the first row, and the other hash tree node values required to construct the inclusion proof.
In regard to claim 31, wherein the logical structure of the first transaction data is defined by a document data model and comprises one or more documents comprising one or more attributes.
In regard to claim 32, wherein the first key-value entry corresponds to a first document, each unique label corresponds to an attribute, and each data element corresponds to an attribute value, wherein the first unique label corresponds to a first attribute and the first data element corresponds to the value of the first attribute in the first document
In regard to claim 33, thereby avoiding significant computational performance penalties that would be incurred by having to retrieve the entire contents of a transaction to respond to the cryptographic proof request.
In regard to claim 34, wherein the computer-hosted database system is operationally coupled to one or more communications channels, and the cryptographic proof request is received over one of the one or more communications channels and the responsive cryptographic proof data is returned over one of the one or more communications channels.
In regard to claim 35, wherein the second split-value hash value is computed after receipt of the cryptographic proof request
In regard to claim 36, A computer-hosted database system for generating cryptographic proofs, comprising: a computer-hosted database system comprising one or more processors, an immutable key-
value data store, and a hash tree data structure logically coupled with the immutable key-value data store, the hash tree data structure comprising cryptographic proof data concerning transaction data stored in the immutable key-value data store; and
computer instructions that when executed by the one or more processors cause the computer-hosted database system to perform the following:
store a first transaction comprising first transaction data in the immutable key-value data store, wherein the first transaction data comprises one or more key-value entries, including a first key-value entry, wherein a key-value entry comprises a key-component and a value-component, the value-component comprising a plurality of data elements, and the value-component of the first key-value entry comprises a first data element and a second data element;
split the value-component of the first key-value entry into n split-values, where n>1, each split-value comprising a data element and a unique label, wherein the n split-values comprise a first split-value, the first split-value comprising the first data element and a first unique label, and a second split-value comprising the second data element and a second unique label;
compute a first root hash of a first key-value hash tree computed over the n split-values of the value-component of the first key-value entry;
store the first root hash in a first leaf element of the hash tree data structure, said first leaf element corresponding to the first transaction data;
receive a cryptographic proof request concerning the first data element and the first transaction data; and
in response to the cryptographic proof request, return responsive cryptographic proof data comprising the first root hash and a second split-value hash value, said second split-value hash value comprising a hash value of the second data element, but not the actual value of the second element, whereby said responsive cryptographic proof data can be used in a computer-implemented process to construct a first cryptographic proof concerning the first data element and the first transaction data without using the actual value of the second data element.
Conclusion
There are prior art made of record which are not relied upon but are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. They are listed on the PTO-892 accompanying this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES N FIORILLO whose telephone number is (571)272-9909. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 - 5 PM Mon - Fri..
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, John A. Follansbee can be reached on 571-272-3964. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES N FIORILLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights