CTNF 19/085,798 CTNF 92357 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 03/20/2025 has been considered by the Examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Claim status Claims 1-14 are presented for examination and remain pending in the application. Examiner Note The Examiner has interpreted the term “processing unit” as it is disclosed in Applicant’s disclosure Para. [0107] and Fig. 6 “one or more central processing units ("CPUs") 604 operate in conjunction with a chipset 606”. However, the Examiner suggests the Applicant to amend the claim by changing the term “processing units” into “one or more processors”. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. 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. 08-34 AIA Claim s 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1- 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 267,437 B2, (hereinafter Patent ‘437) . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the Patent ‘437 claims 1-4 recite all of the limitations of instant application claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 13. Therefore, patent ‘437 claims 1-4 are in essence a “species” of the generic invention of instance application claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 13. It has been held that a generic invention is “anticipated” by a “species” within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993) . See the table below which shows the comparison between the instant application limitations of claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 13 and the Patent ‘437 limitations of claims 1-4. Instant Application 19/085798 Patent Application 12,267,437 B2 Claim 1. A computing system comprising: one or more processing units; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processing units, cause the one or more processing units to: Claim 1. A computing system comprising: one or more processing units; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processing units, cause the one or more processing units to: record a Merkle tree state used to generate a one-time signature pair and an issued hash-based signature ("HBS") in an immutably ordered log; and record a Merkle tree state used to generate a one-time signature (“OTS”) key pair and record an issued hash-based signature (“HBS”) in an immutably ordered log; and receive an external state query from a client computing system based on a Merkle tree state of a query HBS. Claim 2. wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processing units to receive an internal state query including an internally queried Merkle state. Claim 4. The computing system of claim 3, wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processing units to perform a lookup of the extracted Merkle tree state in the immutably ordered log. Claim 3. The computing system of claim 2, wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processing units to look up the internally queried state in the immutably ordered log, returning if either no HBS or only one HBS is associated with the internally queried state . Claim 5. The computing system of claim 4, wherein the immutably ordered log returns exactly one logged HBS in response to the lookup. Claim 3. The computing system of claim 2, wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processing units to look up the internally queried state in the immutably ordered log, returning if either no HBS or only one HBS is associated with the internally queried state. Claim 6. The computing system of claim 5, wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processing units to generate, using a cryptographic salt, a salted hash of the logged HBS returned from the lookup. Partial limitation from claim 3. wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processing units to look up the internally queried state in the immutably ordered log, returning if either no HBS and further partial limitation from claim 4. The computing system of claim 3, wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processing units to compare the internally queried HBS with the returned HBS. Regarding claim 8. Similarly, the above potential non-statutory double patenting ground of rejection analysis of independent claim 1 apples to independent claim 8. Regarding claim 10. Similarly, the above potential non-statutory double patenting ground of rejection analysis of independent claim 4 apples to independent claim 10. Regarding claim 12. Similarly, the above potential non-statutory double patenting ground of rejection analysis of independent claim 5 apples to independent claim 12. Regarding claim 13. Similarly, the above potential non-statutory double patenting ground of rejection analysis of independent claim 6 apples to independent claim 13. Claims 2 and 9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims Patent ‘437 in view of Neel et al . U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0102401 A1, ( hereinafter Neel ). Regarding claim 2. Patent ‘437 teaches the computing system of claim 1. Patent ‘437 does not explicitly teach “wherein the external state query comprises the query HBS.” However, Neel “wherein the external state query comprises the query HBS” (Neel teaches in Para. [0040] queries with external operation and further, Neel teaches in Para. [0063] the state signature may be a hash-based signature of one or more session template identifiers, individual attribute values or representations thereof). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of invention, to include a system of using external queries operation and using a state signature by using HBS of Neel’s invention into Patent ‘437 invention in order to the efficiency and re-playability of replay driver is improved by automatically identifying safe points beyond end requests to release and restart the replay. The client computer system significantly improves its performance by increasing storage efficiency and saving any compute resources for maintaining the purged replay context. Regarding claim 9. Similarly, the above potential non-statutory double patenting ground of rejection analysis of dependent claim 2 apples to dependent claim 9. Claims 3 and 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims Patent ‘437 in view of Shrivasava et al . U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0417008 A1, ( hereinafter Shrivasava ). Regarding claim 3. Patent ‘437 teaches the computing system of claim 1. Patent ‘437 does not explicitly teach “wherein the external state query comprises an extracted Merkle tree state extracted from the query HBS.” However, Shrivasava teaches “wherein the external state query comprises an extracted Merkle tree state extracted from the query HBS” (Shrivasava teaches in Fig. 8 and Para. [0176]-[0177] about the extracted and computed data Merkle roots match and verification for signature based on a hash public key). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of invention, to include a system of using extracted signature in a Merkle root matching to verify and authorize a public key invention into Patent ‘437 invention in order to the lightweight nodes use a simplified payment verification (SPV) technique, in which they download block headers and the transaction from full nodes for verifying a transaction efficiently. Regarding claim 10. Similarly, the above potential non-statutory double patenting ground of rejection analysis of dependent claim 3 apples to dependent claim 10. Claims 7 and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims Patent ‘437 in view of Mathew et al . U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0319804A1, ( hereinafter Mathew ). Regarding claim 7. Patent ‘437 teaches the computing system of claim 6. Patent ‘437 does not explicitly teach “wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processing units to return the salted hash of the HBS and the cryptographic salt to the client computing system.” However, Mathew teaches “wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processing units to return the salted hash of the HBS and the cryptographic salt to the client computing system.” (Mathew teaches in Fig. 5B and Para. [0084] where the compressed message after two rounds of hashing is then sent to an RSA engine having another hash engine 515, where the message undergoes message expansion followed by modular addition with a padded message consisting of the same salt value and further, Mathew teaches in Para. [0031] hash-based signatures (HBS) since these schemes have been around for a long while and possess the necessary basic ingredients, such as relying on symmetric cryptography building blocks (e.g., hash functions). HBS schemes are regarded as fast signature algorithms working with fast platform secured-boot, which is regarded as the most resistant to quantum attacks). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of invention, to include a system of using a system of using hash-based signatures (HBS) and a sault value to classify the cryptography hashing invention into Patent ‘437 invention in order to the medium enables utilizing an unified hardware accelerator (UHA) that is facilitated by an unified acceleration mechanism so as to perform pertinent operations to function as a UHA that allows for efficient security against classical and post-quantum computer attacks. The medium enables performing Winternitz one time signature (WOTS) and L-Tree operations so as to process a significant portion of an Extended Merkel signature scheme (XMSS) sign/verify latency for defining the overall performance of the authentication system. Regarding claim 14. Similarly, the above potential non-statutory double patenting ground of rejection analysis of dependent claim 7 apples to dependent claim 14 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 5. 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. 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Utilizing the process described in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG), Claims 1 and 14 satisfy the step 1 because the claims are a machine and a process. Independent claims 1 and 14 . In Step 2A prong 1 , the claim 1 recites “record a Merkle tree state used to generate a one-time signature pair and an issued hash-based signature ("HBS") in an immutably ordered log” and “receive an external state query from a client computing system based on a Merkle tree state of a query HBS.” which, under the broadest reasonable claims interpretation, are steps that are a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. For example, the claim merely require recording of a Merkle tree state with an intended purpose of it being used to generate a key pair. Since the claim merely require recording information such as a Merkle tree state and further the recording Merkle tree information and further receiving the recording results of the Merkle tree is mere gathering the information in the mind. A human can also record or read or memorize information which is recorded to be received by a client computing system. If a claims limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then they fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. In Step 2A prong 2 , the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the computing system comprising: one or more processing units; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processing units, cause the one or more processing units to record and receive a Merle tree state of a query HBS (Hash-Based Signature) of claim 1 is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. However, these steps are insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g., mere data gathering or sending/receiving and displaying data in conjunction with the abstract idea. These steps are performed to gather data so that the recorded Merkle tree data can be analyzed by an abstract mental process and the result of the mental process can be displayed and/or received by the other client system. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is not enough to qualify as “significantly more”. The additional elements or steps do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. In Step 2B , the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “one or more processing units”; and “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processing units” are general purpose computer components, which are well-understood, routine and conventional (see Buldas et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0052886 A1) in Para. [0098] various components of the system which includes both volatile and non-volatile storage components to perform memory and more static storage functions at least one processor (i.e., one or more processing unit) and both volatile and non-volatile storage for performing the different routines of the functions of the different components may thereby be implemented as processor-executable code configured to carry out those operations), perfuming the steps recited in the claims and are not sufficient to transform a judicial exception into a patentable invention. Therefore, the elements recited in claim 1 when considered individually or in an ordered combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim 1 is not eligible. Regarding claim 8. Claim 8 is substantially similar to claim 1 and thus, the same rationale applies. Regarding claim 2, which recites additional element “wherein the external state query comprises the query HBS.” This is conventional as evidenced by Buldas. Buldas teaches in Claim 1, receiving at a signing server a query (i.e., external state query) for a signature of a message said request…; returning to the signing entity parameters of a first hash chain corresponding to a path through the hash tree from a hash of the query. Therefore, Brock is analogues art he is in the same field of endeavor as he is directed to immutable using cryptographic techniques to log order. Regarding claim 9. Claim 9 is substantially similar to claim 2 and thus, the same rationale applies. Regarding claim 3, which recites additional element, “wherein the external state query comprises an extracted Merkle tree state extracted from the query HBS.” This is conventional as evidenced by Barouch et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0320219 A1, (hereinafter Barouch). Barouch teaches in Para. [0049] the key generation system 200 may then generate one or more encryptions keys 130 based on the ID key 206, a Merkle tree structure, such as a Merkle signature scheme…, hash-based encryption for the encrypted device information 138 and the encrypted user information 140…, one or more one-time signatures thereof and further teaches in Para. [0058] data entries may then be extracted from the session and may be encrypted and stored using encryption keys 128, 130 according to a separate branch of the Merkle tree or other hash tree arrangement). Therefore, Barouch is analogues art he is in the same field of endeavor as he is directed to extracting a Merkle tree from the hash-based signature. Regarding claim 10. Claim 10 is substantially similar to claim 3 and thus, the same rationale applies. Regarding claim 4, which recites additional element, “wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processing units to perform a lookup of the extracted Merkle tree state in the immutably ordered log.” This is conventional as evidenced by Buldas. Buldas teaches in Para. [0049] about the published hashes may be made immutable using cryptographic techniques and be widely distributed and Barouch also teaches in Para. [0058] data entries may then be extracted from the session and may be encrypted and stored using encryption keys 128, 130 according to a separate branch of the Merkle tree or other hash tree arrangement. Therefore, Buldas is analogues art he is in the same field of endeavor as he is directed to lookup an extracted Merkle tree. Regarding claim 11. Claim 11 is substantially similar to claim 4 and thus, the same rationale applies. Regarding claim 5, which recites additional element, “wherein the immutably ordered log returns exactly one logged HBS in response to the lookup.” This is conventional as evidenced by Buldas. Buldas teaches in Para. [0012] an important contribution by Merkle was the concept of a hash tree, which enables a large number of public keys to be represented by a single hash value…, hash tree…, a drawback of the above prior art hash tree constructs is that the whole tree has to be built at once,..., to authenticate the lower nodes of the tree, a complete chain of one-time signatures (as opposed to a chain of only sibling hash values) is needed. Therefore, Buldas is analogues art he is in the same field of endeavor as he is directed to generating OTS (i.e., one time signature) to log in to HBS. Regarding claim 12. Claim 12 is substantially similar to claim 5 and thus, the same rationale applies. Regarding claim 6, which recites additional element, “wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processing units to generate, using a cryptographic salt, a salted hash of the logged HBS returned from the lookup.” This is conventional as evidenced by Campagna et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0183774 A1, (hereinafter Campagna). Campagna teaches in Para. [0058] a set of one-time-use cryptographic keys that are generated from a tree of seed values…The tree structure may be generated by a signature entity or other entity that is responsible for generating a collection of one-time-use cryptographic keys. Each of the subordinate nodes of the master seed 1002 is generated by applying a one-way function or cryptographic hash to the value of the parent node, an optional salt value and an index. For example, two child seed values are generated from the master seed 1002. Using a published cryptographic hash function, an optional salt value further teaches in Para. [0060] one-time-use cryptographic keys. The signature authority hashes the secret keys to produce a complementary set of public keys which are arranged in a Merkle tree. Therefore, Campagna is analogues art he is in the same field of endeavor as he is directed to generating a collection of one-time-use cryptographic keys and optional salt value of cryptographic keys. Regarding claim 13. Claim 13 is substantially similar to claim 6 and thus, the same rationale applies. Regarding claim 7, which recites additional element, “wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processing units to return the salted hash of the HBS and the cryptographic salt to the client computing system.” This is conventional as evidenced by Campagna. Campagna teaches in Para. [0058] using a published cryptographic hash function, an optional salt value and further teaches in Para. [0081] key delegation service 1412 returns the requested one-time-use cryptographic keys to the delegate computer system 1404…). Therefore, Campagna is analogues art he is in the same field of endeavor as he is directed to generating a collection of one-time-use cryptographic keys and optional salt value of cryptographic keys. Regarding claim 14. Claim 14 is substantially similar to claim 7 and thus, the same rationale applies. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 2, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buldas et al . U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0052886 A1, ( hereinafter Buldas ) in view of Neel et al . U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0102401 A1, ( hereinafter Neel ) . Regarding claim 1. Buldas teaches a computing system comprising: one or more processing units (Buldas teaches in Para. [0098] various components of the system which includes at least one processor (i.e., one or more processing unit)); and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that (Buldas teaches in Para. [0098] various components of the system which includes both volatile and non-volatile storage components to perform memory and more static storage functions), when executed by the one or more processing units, cause the one or more processing units (Buldas teaches in Para. [0098] various components of the system which includes which includes at least one processor (i.e., one or more processing unit) and both volatile and non-volatile storage for performing the different routines of the functions of the different components may thereby be implemented as processor-executable code configured to carry out those operations), to : record a Merkle tree state used to generate a one-time signature pair and an issued hash-based signature ("HBS") in an immutably ordered log (Buldas teaches in Para. [0013] Merkle proposed a certification tree (i.e., record) that allows just the root node of the tree to be populated initially and the rest of the tree to be grown gradually as needed and to authenticate the lower nodes of the tree, a complete chain of one-time signatures (as opposed to a chain of only sibling hash values) is needed (i.e., the OTS is generated) and the size and the signature key compatible with the best-known hash-based signature schemes (HBS) as narrated in Para. [0028] and further Buldas teaches in Para. [0049] about the published hashes may be made immutable using cryptographic techniques and be widely distributed…( Note that the using the immutable cryptographic technique indicates an immutably ordered log )); and while Buldas teaches the limitations of receiving the query and a client computing system based on a Merkle tree state of a query HBS (Buldas teaches in claim 1. “receiving at a signing server a query for a signature of a message said request comprising a randomizing function of the message and…; returning to the signing entity parameters of a first hash chain corresponding to a path through the hash tree from a hash of the query and a current counter value up to the root value of the hash tree for the round during which the request is received”, and in Para. [0014], [0016] and [0028]-[0029] about a version of the Merkle signature scheme with improved efficiency compared to previous ones and hash-based signature schemes. Our new signature solution is stateful, and the maximum number of signatures it creates using a set of keys may be determined at key-generation time). Buldas does not use the “ external state query” and does not explicitly teach an external state query . However, Neel teaches an external state query (Neel teaches in Para. [0040] queries with an external operation). Therefore, Buldas and Neel are analogues arts and they are in the same field of endeavor as they both are directed to increase the storage efficiency. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of using an external state query in a Merkle tree state of a query HBS (Hash-Based Signature) ([0040]) as taught, by Neel into the teachings of Buldas invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to the efficiency and re-playability of replay driver is improved by automatically identifying safe points beyond end requests to release and restart the replay. The client computer system significantly improves its performance by increasing storage efficiency and saving any compute resources for maintaining the purged replay context. Regarding claim 2. Buldas in view of Neel teaches wherein the external state query comprises the query HBS (Buldas teaches in Claim 1, Para. [0014], [0016] and [0028]-[0029] about the system of receiving at a signing server a query for a signature and HBS or Hash based signature schemes and Merkle and further Neel teaches in Para. [0040] about the external query operation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of using an external state query in a Merkle tree state of a query HBS (Hash-Based Signature) ([0040]) as taught, by Neel into the teachings of using the system of receiving at a signing server a query for a signature and HBS or Hash based signature schemes and Merkle (Claim 1, [0014], [0016] and [0028]-[0029]) as taught, by Buldas. One would have been motivated to do so in order to the method enables setting number of trusted components to be less including minimization of trusted storage and computation so as to avoid forgery as soon as possible at signing time, thus creating a signature and requiring a verifier to detect the forgery. Regarding claim 8. Claim 8 incorporates substantively all the limitation of claim 1 in a method form and is rejected under the same rationale. Regarding claim 9. Claim 9 incorporates substantively all the limitation of claim 2 in a method form and is rejected under the same rationale . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 3-5 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buldas in view of Neel further in view of Shrivasava et al . U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0417008 A1, ( hereinafter Shrivasava ) . Regarding claim 3. Buldas in view of Neel teaches the computing system of claim 1. Buldas in view of Neel does not explicitly teach wherein the external state query comprises an extracted Merkle tree state extracted from the query HBS . However, Shrivasava teaches wherein the external state query comprises an extracted Merkle tree state extracted from the query HBS (Shrivasava teaches in Fig. 8 and Para. [0176]-[0177] about the extracted and computed data Merkle roots match and verification for signature based on a hash public key). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of using an extracted Merkle tree ([0176]-[0177]) as taught, by Shrivasava into the teachings of Buldas in view of Neel invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to the lightweight nodes use a simplified payment verification (SPV) technique, in which they download block headers and the transaction from full nodes for verifying a transaction efficiently. Regarding claim 4. Buldas in view of Neel further in view of Shrivasava teaches wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processing units to perform a lookup of the extracted Merkle tree state in the immutably ordered log (Buldas teaches in Para. [0049] about the published hashes may be made immutable using cryptographic techniques and be widely distributed…( Note that the using the immutable cryptographic technique indicates an immutably ordered log ). Neel teaches in Para. [0040] queries with an external operation and further, Shrivasava teaches in Fig. 8 and Para. [0176]-[0177] about the extracted and computed data Merkle roots match and verification for signature based on a hash public key). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of using an extracted Merkle tree ([0176]-[0177]) as taught, by Shrivasava into the teachings of Buldas in view of Neel invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to the lightweight nodes use a simplified payment verification (SPV) technique, in which they download block headers and the transaction from full nodes for verifying a transaction efficiently. Regarding claim 5. Buldas further teaches wherein the immutably ordered log returns exactly one logged HBS in response to the lookup (Buldas teaches in Para. [0012] an important contribution by Merkle was the concept of a hash tree, which enables a large number of public keys to be represented by a single hash value…, hash tree…, a drawback of the above prior art hash tree constructs is that the whole tree has to be built at once,..., to authenticate the lower nodes of the tree, a complete chain of one-time signatures (as opposed to a chain of only sibling hash values) is needed. Regarding claim 10. Claim 10 incorporates substantively all the limitation of claim 3 in a method form and is rejected under the same rationale. Regarding claim 11. Claim 11 incorporates substantively all the limitation of claim 4 in a method form and is rejected under the same rationale. Regarding claim 12. Claim 12 incorporates substantively all the limitation of claim 5 in a method form and is rejected under the same rationale . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buldas in view of Neel further in view of Shrivasava and further in view of Campagna et al . U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0183774 A1, ( hereinafter Campagna ) . Regarding claim 6. Buldas in view of Neel further in view of Shrivasava teaches the computing system of claim 5. Buldas in view of Neel further in view of Shrivasava does not explicitly teach wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processing units to generate, using a cryptographic salt, a salted hash of the logged HBS returned from the lookup . However, Campagna teaches wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processing units to generate, using a cryptographic salt, a salted hash of the logged HBS returned from the lookup (Campagna teaches in Para. [0058] a set of one-time-use cryptographic keys that are generated from a tree of seed values…The tree structure may be generated by a signature entity or other entity that is responsible for generating a collection of one-time-use cryptographic keys. Each of the subordinate nodes of the master seed 1002 is generated by applying a one-way function or cryptographic hash to the value of the parent node, an optional salt value and an index. For example, two child seed values are generated from the master seed 1002. Using a published cryptographic hash function, an optional salt value further teaches in Para. [0060] one-time-use cryptographic keys. The signature authority hashes the secret keys to produce a complementary set of public keys which are arranged in a Merkle tree. Therefore, Campagna is analogues art he is in the same field of endeavor as he is directed to generating a collection of one-time-use cryptographic keys and optional salt value of cryptographic keys. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of using an optional salt value and using a one-time-use cryptographic keys ([0058] & [0060]) as taught, by Campagna into the teachings of Buldas in view of Neel further in view of Shrivasava invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to the method enables effectively estimating number of digital signatures based on signature generation over a period of time or based on number of pending messages to be signed. The method enables utilizing a key to encrypt a data object, where a private key of a public/private key pair is maintained securely by the system to which the data object is to be provided, thus enabling the system to decrypt the data object using the private key of the key pair. Regarding claim 7. Buldas in view of Neel further in view of Shrivasava does not explicitly teach wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processing units to return the salted hash of the HBS and the cryptographic salt to the client computing system . However, Campagna teaches wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processing units to return the salted hash of the HBS and the cryptographic salt to the client computing system (Campagna teaches in Para. [0058] using a published cryptographic hash function, an optional salt value and further teaches in Para. [0081] key delegation service 1412 returns the requested one-time-use cryptographic keys to the delegate computer system 1404…). Therefore, Campagna is analogues art he is in the same field of endeavor as he is directed to generating a collection of one-time-use cryptographic keys and optional salt value of cryptographic keys). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of using an optional salt value and using a one-time-use cryptographic keys ([0058] & [0060]) as taught, by Campagna into the teachings of Buldas in view of Neel further in view of Shrivasava invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to the method enables effectively estimating number of digital signatures based on signature generation over a period of time or based on number of pending messages to be signed. The method enables utilizing a key to encrypt a data object, where a private key of a public/private key pair is maintained securely by the system to which the data object is to be provided, thus enabling the system to decrypt the data object using the private key of the key pair. Regarding claim 13. Claim 13 incorporates substantively all the limitation of claim 6 in a method form and is rejected under the same rationale. Regarding claim 14. Claim 14 incorporates substantively all the limitation of claim 7 in a method form and is rejected under the same rationale. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERHANU SHITAYEWOLDETSADIK whose telephone number is (571)270-7142. The examiner can normally be reached M-F. 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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at 5712723865. 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. /BERHANU SHITAYEWOLDETSADIK/Examiner, Art Unit 2455 Application/Control Number: 19/085,798 Page 2 Art Unit: 2455 Application/Control Number: 19/085,798 Page 3 Art Unit: 2455 Application/Control Number: 19/085,798 Page 4 Art Unit: 2455 Application/Control Number: 19/085,798 Page 5 Art Unit: 2455 Application/Control Number: 19/085,798 Page 6 Art Unit: 2455 Application/Control Number: 19/085,798 Page 7 Art Unit: 2455 Application/Control Number: 19/085,798 Page 8 Art Unit: 2455 Application/Control Number: 19/085,798 Page 9 Art Unit: 2455 Application/Control Number: 19/085,798 Page 10 Art Unit: 2455 Application/Control Number: 19/085,798 Page 12 Art Unit: 2455 Application/Control Number: 19/085,798 Page 13 Art Unit: 2455 Application/Control Number: 19/085,798 Page 14 Art Unit: 2455 Application/Control Number: 19/085,798 Page 15 Art Unit: 2455 Application/Control Number: 19/085,798 Page 16 Art Unit: 2455 Application/Control Number: 19/085,798 Page 17 Art Unit: 2455 Application/Control Number: 19/085,798 Page 18 Art Unit: 2455 Application/Control Number: 19/085,798 Page 19 Art Unit: 2455 Application/Control Number: 19/085,798 Page 20 Art Unit: 2455 Application/Control Number: 19/085,798 Page 21 Art Unit: 2455 Application/Control Number: 19/085,798 Page 23 Art Unit: 2455 Application/Control Number: 19/085,798 Page 24 Art Unit: 2455 Application/Control Number: 19/085,798 Page 25 Art Unit: 2455
Prosecution Insights