DETAILED ACTION
Examiner's Note: The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed on 09/17/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding claim[s] 1 – 4, 6 – 11 under the various obviousness rejections, applicant’s remarks are not persuasive, therefore, see the examiner’s response to such remarks in the office action below.
The examiner will address all other remarks that do not concern the prior art rejections, if any, in the office action below.
Applicant argues on page[s] 6 - 7 of the remarks as filed: “
The Office Action rejects claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non- statutory subject matter. Applicants traverse these rejections.
A. The Office Action fails to Establish that Claim 1 is directed to an Abstract idea
In rejecting claim 1, the Office Action alleges that claim 1 recites the abstract ideas of (i) certain methods of organizing human activity (commercial/legal interactions; managing relationships/permissions) and (ii) mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind).
Claim 1 does not recite a fundamental economic practice.
The Office Action alleges the clause "obtaining scan data captured by a laser scanner, the laser scanner including a first private key that uniquely corresponds to the laser scanner" belongs in the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping, sub-grouping "fundamental economic principles or practices," on the rationale that it is "reading scan data off the laser scanner for mitigation of risk of the scan data."
However, that sub-grouping is confined to economic and commercial concepts. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II) explains that the phrases "fundamental economic practices" or "fundamental economic principles" describe "concepts relating to the economy and commerce," and that "[f]undamental economic principles or practices include hedging, insurance, and mitigating risks." The "risk" contemplated is economic risk of the kind at issue in Alice and Bilski-the use of a third party to mediate settlement risk, and hedging. Obtaining scan data from a laser scanner has no economic or commercial character whatsoever. It is neither a transaction, an agreement, nor a financial arrangement.
The Office Action's reasoning also rests on an equivocation: it takes "mitigating risks" from the economic sub-grouping and applies it to the technical risk of scan-data corruption. MPEP § 2106.04(a) states that this grouping "is limited to activity that falls within the enumerated sub- groupings and is not to be expanded beyond these enumerated sub-groupings except in rare circumstances." No rare-circumstance justification has been given, and none exists here. Accordingly, the Office Action is incorrect in alleging that claim 1 is directed to "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping, sub-grouping "fundamental economic principles or practices."”
In response the examiner isn’t persuaded, the examiner points out that the recited method claim #1 on its face will be used for secure data exchanges. See drawing Figures # 4 and 5 of the specification as filed.
Claim 1 also does not recite a mental process.
The Office Action alleges four clauses of claim 1 belong in the "mental processes" grouping: obtaining a first digital signature generated based on the scan data and the first private key; validating the first digital signature using a first public key that corresponds to the first private key; generating a report that summarizes results of the validating; and generating a second digital signature by signing hashes corresponding to the aggregated scan data using a second private key corresponding to the scan data aggregator.
A claim does not recite a mental process where it contains limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III) states that "[c]laims do not recite a mental process when they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations." The MPEP identifies, as an express example of a claim that is not a mental process, "a claim to a specific data encryption method for computer communication involving a several-step manipulation of data." See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III) (citing Synopsys, 839 F.3d at 1148).
The clauses identified by the Office Action are asymmetric-cryptographic operations. Claim 1 requires "generating a first digital signature based on the scan data and the first private key," "validating the first digital signature using a first public key that corresponds to the first private key," and "generating a second digital signature by signing hashes corresponding to the aggregated scan data using a second private key." The human mind is not equipped to compute a cryptographic hash over laser scan data, nor to perform a private-key signing or public- key signature verification over that hash. These are not observations, evaluations, or judgments; they are key-dependent mathematical transformations on machine-captured data, exactly the subject matter the MPEP identifies as outside the mental-process grouping.
The Office Action's rationale for these clauses being grouped into the mental-process grouping is that they constitute "information intake that can be done mentally or by consulting a record." However, this ignores what claim 1 actually recites. Consulting a record does not generate a signature from a private key, and no rationale is offered for how the recited signing and key- based validation could be performed mentally.
Accordingly, the Office Action is incorrect in alleging that claim 1 is directed to "mental processes." Since claim 1 is neither directed to a fundamental economic practice or mental process, the Office Action fails to establish that the claims are directed to an abstract idea at Step 2A, Prong 1.”
In response the examiner isn’t persuaded, the examiner points out that a human an observe and then take notes by pencil and paper of a mathematical cryptographic operation of hashing executed over laser scan data, as well as observe and then take notes of a mathematical operation performed using a private-key signing or public- key signature verification over that hash, based on that applicant does not recite multiple laser scanners implementing the steps of claim # 1, for example.
The examiner further points out, the claim language has been intentionally kept broad to the point that the office is not sure who or what device implements, for example, in claim 1, the method steps of [obtaining a first digital signature……; validating the first digital signature……; generating a report…….; generating a second digital signature…….;..etc.].
Applicant argues on page[s] 8 and 9 of the remarks as filed: “
B. Claim 1 is Integrated into a Practical Application
Considered as additional elements, the laser scanner of claim 1, which "includes a first private key that uniquely corresponds to the laser scanner," and the scan data aggregator holding a distinct second private key are not generic recitations. Claim 1 recites specific cryptographic material to specific physical and logical entities at specific points in a data pipeline, so that the report generated by claim 1 summarizes the results of validating a signature traceable to the particular scanner that captured the data. As described in the specification, "[a]ny changes to the scan data collected by the data producer 210 after generating the signed dataset 215 may cause a digital signature generated in relation to the changed scan data to fail to match the signed dataset 215," so that "undetectable changes to the scan data may not be made." As-Filed Specification, paragraph [0024]. That is a concrete technical result: tamper-evidence of scan data across custody transfers, not an abstract aim.
The Office's Prong Two analysis does not address this. Its "no transformation" finding states that claim 1 "does not recite how or what parts of the scanned data are transformed," but claim 1 recites "transforming and aggregating, by a scan data aggregator, the scan data captured by the laser scanner as aggregated scan data," and then signing hashes corresponding to that aggregated scan data with the aggregator's own second private key. The transformation is defined by its inputs, its actor, and its cryptographic output.
Accordingly, claim 1 is integrated into a practical application and therefore claim 1 does not recite an abstract idea.
The dependent claims also add additional detail related to this specific practical application. For example, claims 2-3 recite steps to be taken in response to successful verification of scan data. Claim 4 explicitly recites "wherein successful verification of the aggregated scan data indicates that a digital chain of custody has been preserved and that the scan data has not been tampered with at any step in the data collection, aggregation, or editing processes." Claim 5 recites "generating a second report that indicates a digital chain of custody of each data element included in the edited scan data." Claim 6 recites "generating a digital chain of custody that verifies the integrity of the scan data by hashing and signing the scan data captured by the laser scanner so that any changes to the scan data are detected." These claim elements add details to specific improvements to laser scan data verification. The Office Action fails to address these claim limitations or explain why they are directed to an abstract idea.”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., Claim 1 recites specific cryptographic material to specific physical and logical entities at specific points in a data pipeline, so that the report generated by claim 1 summarizes the results of validating a signature traceable to the particular scanner that captured the data.) are not recited clearly in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues on page[s] 10 of the remarks as filed: “
C. The Step 2B finding is Unsupported.
The entire Step 2B analysis is the assertion that the additional elements "are well- understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) at the time of filing," with a citation to the Berkheimer Memorandum and MPEP § 2106.05(d), (f). No factual support of any kind is provided. MPEP § 2106.07(a) provides that "[e]xaminers should not assert that an additional element (or combination of elements) is well-understood, routine, or conventional unless the examiner finds, and expressly supports the rejection in writing with," one or more of the enumerated forms of support. Those are: (A) a citation to an express statement in the specification or made by the applicant during prosecution; (B) a citation to a court decision discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d), subsection II; (C) a citation to a publication demonstrating the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional elements; or (D) official notice. The Office Action supplies none of them. MPEP § 2106.07(a) further states that "[a] finding that an element is well-understood, routine, or conventional cannot be based only on the fact that the specification is silent with respect to describing such element." Where a court decision is relied upon, the examiner must ensure the claim limitations before the examiner are the same as those found well-understood, routine, and conventional by the courts, recited at the same high level of generality; "it is not enough that the additional elements are similar." No such comparison has been made for the recited laser scanner holding a unique private key, or for the scan data aggregator holding a second private key. The Step 2B rejection is accordingly unsupported and should be withdrawn.”
In response the examiner isn’t persuaded, the examiner points out that the claim language has been intentionally kept broad to the point that the office is not sure who or what device implements, for example, in claim 1, the method steps of [obtaining a first digital signature……; validating the first digital signature……; generating a report…….; generating a second digital signature…….;..etc.]. Therefore, applicant’s argument is moot until the claim language is refined to add more substance as to what device is implementing all steps of claim # 1.
Applicant argues on page[s] 10 - 11 of the remarks as filed: “
The Office Action rejects claims 1-4 and 6-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ossig et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0026991) in view of Macieira et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0044726). These rejections are traversed.
A. Macieira does not disclose a second private key corresponding to the scan data aggregator.
Claim 1 recites "generating a second digital signature corresponding to the aggregated scan data, the second digital signature being generated by signing hashes corresponding to the aggregated scan data using a second private key corresponding to the scan data aggregator." The Office relies on Macieira, FIG. 6, paragraph [0062] for this limitation. That paragraph states that "[t]he aggregator 604A then calculates a hash of the data portion and saves it as a signature of the data entry 610. The hash of the data portion may be signed (e.g., encrypted) using a key held by the aggregator 604A." Macieira, paragraph [0062]. The term "private key" appears nowhere in Macieira. Macieira paragraph [0058] makes the key type expressly optional: "If the key is a symmetric key, then the key may be known by all IoT devices in a neighborhood or domain of the network. If the key is a PKI key, then the public key may be known by all IoT devices in a neighborhood or domain of the network." Macieira, paragraph [0058]. A symmetric key that "may be known by all IoT devices" is not a private key corresponding to the aggregator. Claim 1 establishes an asymmetric-cryptographic frame: the laser scanner includes "a first private key," and the first digital signature is validated "using a first public key that corresponds to the first private key." The second digital signature must likewise be generated using "a second private key corresponding to the scan data aggregator." Macieira's optional, potentially symmetric, network-wide key does not meet this limitation. The Office Action does not rely on Ossig for this claim limitation, and Ossig fails to teach or suggest such aspects of claim 1.”
In response the examiner isn’t persuaded, the examiner points to the prior art of Macieira. Specifically, at Figure # 6, and paragraph: 0062, lines 8 – 15, the aggregator 604A then calculates a hash of the data portion and saves it as a signature of the data entry 610. The hash of the data portion may be signed (e.g., encrypted) using a key held by the aggregator 604A. The aggregated data entry 610 may be used as a portion of a “data” section in a further aggregated data entry (e.g., an aggregated data entry created at aggregator 604C).
One of ordinary skilled in the art of PKI – cryptography would know that signing data inherently includes using a private key to sign the data. Thus, as articulated above of paragraph: 0062, lines 8 – 15, the aggregator 604A, includes a private key [i.e. applicant’s second private key] to sign the data (emphasis added….).
Applicant argues on page[s] 11, 12 of the remarks as filed: “
B. The proposed combination would defeat Ossig's stated purpose and change its principle of operation.
Ossig's stated purpose is to validate that stored data has "not been changed after being stored." Ossig, paragraph [0070]. Macieira's aggregator, by contrast, emits derivative data. Macieira paragraph [0056] explains that "a security policy may specify data transformation functions that obfuscate the data to reduce granularity," and that "[t]he aggregator 502 may apply a blinding factor to data values such as blind_data=XOR (data, blinding_value) where the blind_data is used instead of DATA." Macieira, paragraph [0056]. Macieira paragraph [0077] further describes an aggregation function that "comput[es] a mean, mode, or median of the sensor data." Macieira, paragraph [0077]. Incorporating Macieira's aggregator into Ossig would cause the downstream signature to attest to obfuscated, granularity-reduced, or statistically summarized derivative data rather than to "the scan data captured by the laser scanner" as recited by claim 1. That would defeat Ossig's chain-of-custody objective and change its principle of operation. Additionally, claim 1 requires signing "hashes" (plural) corresponding to the aggregated scan data. Macieira paragraph [0062] calculates only "a hash of the data portion." Macieira, paragraph [0062]. The singular/plural distinction is not a trivial drafting choice; it reflects the claim's requirement that multiple hash values be signed, which Macieira does not teach.”
In response the examiner isn’t persuaded, the examiner points out that applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues on page[s] 12 of the remarks as filed: “
C. The cited reference fail to teach or suggest the "transforming and aggregating" limitation
Claim 1 recites "transforming and aggregating, by a scan data aggregator, the scan data captured by the laser scanner as aggregated scan data." The Office Action alleges this is taught in Ossig, FIG. 2, paragraph [0070], which describes retrieval, decryption, and hash-checking. This is a validation step confirming that stored data has not been changed, not a step that transforms and aggregates scan data into aggregated scan data. Ossig contains no "scan data aggregator" and no "aggregated scan data." The Office Action has failed to identify where the limitation is taught, and therefore fails to establish a prima facie case of unpatentability.”
In response the examiner isn’t persuaded, the examiner points to the prior art of Ossig. Specifically of Ossig, at Figure # 2, and paragraph: 0070, lines 1 – 5, At block 206 of FIG. 2, the data and meta-data are retrieved, for example by viewing software 106 of FIG. 1. If the data and meta-data were encrypted with a public key when they were stored, then at block 206 of FIG. 2, they are decrypted using a corresponding private key.
The examiner points out that given the breath of claim language, Ossig’s disclosed viewing software [i.e. applicant’s scan data aggregator], and the disclosed decrypted data and meta data [i.e. applicant’s aggregated scan data]. What is further of Ossig, at paragraphs: 0061, 0062, the disclosed data and meta-data is obtained from the sensor[s].
Applicant argues on page[s] 12 of the remarks as filed: “
D. The articulated reason to combine is disconnected from the cited support.
The Office states that the combination would "include encrypting the stored scan data of Macieira," which "would allow for the scan data to be protected while at rest," citing Macieira paragraph [0057], lines 3-4. Office Action, page 11. Macieira paragraph [0057] states only: "The message itself may be encrypted, but that is not shown." Macieira, paragraph [0057]. That sentence expressly declines to describe encryption; it supports nothing about protection at rest. The rationale is also redundant: Ossig already encrypts stored content ("the content of the new block may be encrypted using a public key," Ossig, paragraph [0069]). A rationale that supplies a feature the primary reference already has, on the strength of a sentence that disclaims the disclosure, is not a rational underpinning for the combination. The Office Action fails to articulate a sufficient reasoning to combine the cited references.
For at least the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is not sustainable. Withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.”
In response the examiner isn’t persuaded, the examiner points to out applicant acknowledges that prior art of Ossig does disclose storing encrypted data at paragraph: 0070. Respectfully, applicant has failed to consider the entire prior art of Macieira for all it teaches. Macieira at paragraphs: 0061, does disclose that sensor data is used to create a signature in the form of an encrypted hash, where both the sensor and the encrypted hash are stored for later transmission [i.e. the message may be encrypted, but not shown [Macieira, paragraph: 0057, lines 3 - 4]] to the aggregator 604. Also, see paragraph: 0062.
The examiner further notes that while Ossig and Macieira both disclose encrypting data and storing the encrypted data, as pointed out by applicant; however, this fact is not a reason to alleged that the combination of Ossig and Macieira as articulated in the previous office action, is improper. Applicant is remined that the MPEP at 2143.01, in section IV, states…… “..there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the conclusion of obviousness.”(emphasis added). The examiner makes clear to applicant that this section of the MPEP does not state that to support a legal conclusion of obviousness, that Macieira has to modify the prior art of Ossig with a different functionality/teaching that isn’t taught by the prior art of Ossig (emphasis added….). Respectfully, with both the prior arts of Ossig and Macieira teaching the same operation of storing data in encrypted form, thus, modifying the teachings of Ossig with the teachings of Macieira as articulated by the rejection, it is clear that such modification of Ossig by Macieira would not change the principle operation of Ossig. Therefore, the suggestion or motivational statement to combine the teachings of Ossig and Macieira as previously articulated in the obviousness rejection, is proper.
Response to Amendment
Status of the instant application:
Claim[s] 1 – 11 are pending in the instant application.
Drawings
Regarding drawings # 1 and # 2 and components # 102 and components # 210 – 235, applicant’s replacement drawings filed on 09/17/2026 have been inspected, and are in compliance with MPEP 608.02. Therefore, drawing objections are withdrawn.
Double Patenting
Regarding claim[s] 1 under the non – statutory obvious type double patenting rejection over claim[s] 1 of US PAT # 12278908, applicant’s filed e-terminal disclaimer was filed and approved on 09/17/2026; therefore, the rejection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim[s] 1 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas of abstract ideas without significantly more.
Applying the Subject Matter Eligibility Test as outlined in MPEP § 2106 to claims 1 and its corresponding dependent claims:
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes.
Claims 1-11 recite “[a] laser – scanning method that obtains scan data by the laser scanner; obtains a first digital signature of the obtained scanned data that generates a first private key; validating the first digital signature by using a first public key; generating a report that summarizes the validation of the first signature; transforming and aggregating the scan data by a scan data aggregator; generating a second digital signature corresponding to the aggregated scan data, second digital signature signing hashes related to the aggregated scan data using second private key of the scan data aggregator, and is a process.
Thus, the examination turns to Step 2A Prong 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (whether the claim recites a judicial exception): YES
Under MPEP §2106.04(a) and the 2019 PEG, claim 1 recites abstract ideas from two enumerated groupings: (i) certain methods of organizing human activity (commercial/legal interactions; managing relationships/permissions) and (ii) mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind).
Offending clauses and explicit category mapping:
Certain methods of organizing human activity (commercial/legal interactions; managing relationships/permissions)
obtaining scan data captured by a laser scanner, the laser scanner including a first private key that uniquely corresponds to the laser scanner; (Category: fundamental economic principles or practices. Rationale: reading scan data off the laser scanner for mitigation of risk of the scan data. MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).)
Mental processes (observations, evaluations, judgments that can be performed in the human mind)
obtaining a first digital signature corresponding to the obtained scan data, the first digital signature being generated based on the scan data and the first private key; (Category: observation/data gathering. Rationale: obtaining first digital signature is that corresponds to the scan data is information intake that can be done mentally or by consulting a record; MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III).)
validating the first digital signature using a first public key that corresponds to the first private key; (Category: observation/evaluation/identification/judgment. Rationale: under a broad reading, these are cognitive steps that can be done mentally or with pen-and-paper absent a specifically recited technical verification mechanism. MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III); see, e.g., Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350; CyberSource, 654 F.3d 1366; Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d 1314.)
generating a report that summarizes results of the validating of the first digital signature; (Category: conclusion/judgment. Rationale: reaching a conclusion about first digital signature; MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III).)
transforming and aggregating, by a scan data aggregator, the scan data and any other data captured by the laser scanner as aggregated scan data; and (Category: observation/evaluation/identification/judgment. Rationale: under a broad reading, these are cognitive steps that can be done mentally or with pen-and-paper absent a specifically recited technical verification mechanism. MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III); see, e.g., Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350; CyberSource, 654 F.3d 1366; Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d 1314.)
generating a second digital signature corresponding to the aggregated scan data, the second digital signature being generated by signing hashes corresponding to the aggregated scan data using a second private key corresponding to the scan data aggregator. (Category: observation/data gathering. Rationale: generating a second digital signature is that corresponds to the aggregated scan data by signing hashes is information intake that can be done mentally or by consulting a record; MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III).)
Conclusion for Prong 1: Claim 1 recites abstract ideas in the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” groupings. See MPEP §2106.04(d); Versata, 793 F.3d 1306.
Thus, the examination turns to Step 2A Prong 2.
Step 2A, Prong 2 (whether the claim integrates the exception into a practical application): NO
The claim does not integrate the exceptions into a practical application. See MPEP §§2106.04(d), 2106.05(a)–(h).
No improvement to computer functionality or another technology (MPEP §2106.05(a)). The specification asserts that a laser scanner directs one or more beams towards an environment around the scanner [paragraph: 0003]. The steps are results-oriented and do not reflect the kind of computer-centric improvements found eligible in Enfish, McRO, Finjan, or SRI.
No particular machine (MPEP §2106.05(b)). The claim 1 recites a laser scanner that scan data without any particular algorithm recited to scan for the scanned data. The recited laser scanner is generic in nature and is not a “particular machine.”
No transformation (MPEP §2106.05(c)). The steps do recite transforming and aggregating; however, the transforming step is generic in nature, the claims to does not recite how or what parts of the scanned data are transformed; therefore, no article is transformed.
Field-of-use (MPEP §2106.05(h)). Limiting the concept to a “laser scanner” environment merely ties the abstract idea to a technological field without a meaningful limitation. The recited laser scanner and its recited functions are generic in nature.
Dependent claims (2–11) do not either recite the same or different abstract idea and do not add a specific technological mechanism that changes how a computer or technological field is improved.
Accordingly, Step 2A, Prong 2 is not satisfied.
Thus, the examination turns to Step 2B.
Step 2B (whether the claim recites “significantly more” than the exception):
Evaluated as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas. The elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) at the time of filing. See Berkheimer Memorandum; MPEP §2106.05(d), (f).
Appropriate action 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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1 – 4, 6 – 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ossig et al. [US PGPUB # 2021/0026991] in view of Macieira et al. [US PGPUB # 2019/0044726]
As per claim 1. Ossig does teach a laser-scanning method [Figure # 1, and paragraph: 0056, lines 8 – 18, A laser scanner optically scans and measures objects in a volume around the scanner through the acquisition of data points representing object surfaces within the volume. Such data points are obtained by transmitting a beam of light onto the objects and collecting the reflected or scattered light to determine the distance, two-angles (i.e., an azimuth and a zenith angle), and optionally a gray-scale value. This raw scan data is collected, stored and sent to a processor or processors to generate a 3D image representing the scanned area or object. Raw scan data is an example of one kind of a 3D file that can be output by scanner 102.], comprising:
obtaining scan data captured by a laser scanner [Figure # 1, and paragraph: 0056, lines 8 – 18, A laser scanner optically scans and measures objects in a volume around the scanner through the acquisition of data points representing object surfaces within the volume], the laser scanner including a first private key that uniquely corresponds to the laser scanner [paragraph: 0069, lines 1 – 5, In an embodiment, the scan data is signed by a digital signature of the scanner and/or of a user operating the scanner. The digital signature may be implemented using asymmetric cryptography where a machine or user is assigned both a public key and a private key];
obtaining a first digital signature corresponding to the obtained scan data, the first digital signature being generated based on the scan data and the first private key [paragraph: 0069, lines 1 – 5, In an embodiment, the scan data is signed by a digital signature of the scanner and/or of a user operating the scanner. The digital signature may be implemented using asymmetric cryptography where a machine or user is assigned both a public key and a private key];
validating the first digital signature using a first public key that corresponds to the first private key [Figure # 2, and paragraph: 0070, lines 5 – 9, At block 208 of FIG. 2, the contents of the data and meta-data are validated as not being changed after being stored, by applying a public key to the digital signature(s) and checking the hash.];
generating a report that summarizes results of the validating of the first digital signature [paragraph: 0051, lines 12 – 21, In accordance with one or more embodiments of the present invention, notifications that include results of the authentication are logged, and output to the user of the data file or to a third party. A communication to the user can indicate in real time (e.g., prior to the user accessing the digital asset) that all the requested or associated files have been checked and verified, and alerts can indicate any issues with the digital asset(s).];
transforming and aggregating, by a scan data aggregator, the scan data and any other data captured by the laser scanner as aggregated scan data [Figure # 2, and paragraph: 0070, lines 1 – 5, At block 206 of FIG. 2, the data and meta-data are retrieved, for example by viewing software 106 of FIG. 1. If the data and meta-data were encrypted with a public key when they were stored, then at block 206 of FIG. 2, they are decrypted using a corresponding private key.].
While Ossig does not clearly teach the claim limitation of: “and
generating a second digital signature corresponding to the aggregated scan data, the second digital signature being generated by signing hashes corresponding to the aggregated scan data using a second private key corresponding to the scan data aggregator.”
However, Macieira does teach the claim limitation of: “and
generating a second digital signature corresponding to the aggregated scan data, the second digital signature being generated by signing hashes corresponding to the aggregated scan data using a second private key corresponding to the scan data aggregator” [Figure # 6, and paragraph: 0062, lines 8 – 15, the aggregator 604A then calculates a hash of the data portion and saves it as a signature of the data entry 610. The hash of the data portion may be signed (e.g., encrypted) using a key held by the aggregator 604A. The aggregated data entry 610 may be used as a portion of a “data” section in a further aggregated data entry (e.g., an aggregated data entry created at aggregator 604C).].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ossig and Macieira in order for the scanning of and receiving of the scanned data by the laser scanner, where the scanned data is stored securely of Ossig to include encrypting the stored scan data of Macieira. This would allow for the scan data to be protected while at rest. See paragraph: 0057, lines 3 – 4 of Macieira.
As per claim 2. Ossig as modified does teach the laser-scanning method of claim 1, further comprising, responsive to successfully verifying the aggregated scan data [Ossig, Figure # 2, and paragraph: 0070, lines 5 – 9, At block 208 of FIG. 2, the contents of the data and meta-data are validated as not being changed after being stored, by applying a public key to the digital signature(s) and checking the hash.], aggregating the obtained scan data to digitally sign the aggregated scan data using the second private key corresponding to the scan data aggregator [Macieira, Figure # 6, and paragraph: 0062, lines 8 – 15, the aggregator 604A then calculates a hash of the data portion and saves it as a signature of the data entry 610. The hash of the data portion may be signed (e.g., encrypted) using a key held by the aggregator 604A. The aggregated data entry 610 may be used as a portion of a “data” section in a further aggregated data entry (e.g., an aggregated data entry created at aggregator 604C).].
As per claim 3. Ossig as modified does teach the laser-scanning method of claim 1, further comprising, responsive to successfully verifying the aggregated scan data [Ossig, Figure # 2, and paragraph: 0070, lines 5 – 9, At block 208 of FIG. 2, the contents of the data and meta-data are validated as not being changed after being stored, by applying a public key to the digital signature(s) and checking the hash.], making revisions to the obtained scan data to generate edited scan data, and digitally signing the edited scan data using the second private key corresponding to the scan data aggregator [Macieira, Figure # 8, at steps: 806,808, and paragraph: 0077, At 806, an aggregation function is performed on the sensor data to produce aggregate data. In an embodiment, performing the aggregation function includes computing a mean, mode, or median of the sensor data.
Then further of Macieria, at paragraph: 0078, At 808, a hash function is executed on the aggregate data to produce a hash value for the aggregate data.].
As per claim 4. Ossig does teach the laser-scanning method of claim 1, wherein successful verification of the aggregated scan data indicate that a digital chain of custody has been preserved and that the scan data has not been tampered with at any step in the data collection, aggregation, or editing processes [Ossig, Figure # 2, and paragraph: 0070, lines 5 – 9, At block 208 of FIG. 2, the contents of the data and meta-data are validated as not being changed after being stored, by applying a public key to the digital signature(s) and checking the hash.].
As per claim 6. Ossig as modified does teach the laser-scanning method of claim 1, further comprising generating a digital chain of custody that verifies the integrity of the scan data by hashing and signing the scan data captured by the laser scanner so that any changes to the scan data are detected [Macieira, Figure # 6, and paragraph: 0062, lines 8 – 15, the aggregator 604A then calculates a hash of the data portion and saves it as a signature of the data entry 610. The hash of the data portion may be signed (e.g., encrypted) using a key held by the aggregator 604A. The aggregated data entry 610 may be used as a portion of a “data” section in a further aggregated data entry (e.g., an aggregated data entry created at aggregator 604C).].
As per claim 7. Ossig as modified does teach the laser-scanning method of claim 1, further comprising sending the aggregated scan data to a scan data editor, wherein the scan data editor is configured to:
add elements to the aggregated scan data and edit the aggregated scan data based on user input to generate edited scan data [Macieira, Figure # 6, and paragraph: 0062, lines 1 – 12, Data from sensor 602A is stored in entry 608A, and data from sensor 602B is stored in entry 608B. The entries 608A and 608B (collectively referred to as 608) are transmitted to aggregator 604A, which may create its own data entry 610. The data entry 610 created by the aggregator 604A may include the received entries 608, along with additional data. The additional data may include timestamp information, data summary information, or the like.]; and
digitally sign the edited scan data using a third private key that corresponds to a user of the scan data editor [Ossig, paragraph: 0069, lines 1 – 5, In an embodiment, the scan data is signed by a digital signature of the scanner and/or of a user operating the scanner.].
As per claim 8. Ossig does teach the laser-scanning method of claim 1, wherein any changes to the scan data collected after verifying the aggregated scan data cause a digital signature generated in relation to the changed scan data to fail to match [Ossig, paragraph: 0050, lines 21 – 26, Each new hash is also generated based on the hash value of a previous block, hence ensuring the authenticity of the entire blockchain. If someone tampers with information within a block, every computing device with access to the blockchain will be able to identify the tampering.].
As per claim 9. Ossig does teach the laser-scanning method of claim 1, further comprising generating a signed dataset [Ossig, paragraph: 0069, lines 1 – 5, In an embodiment, the scan data is signed by a digital signature of the scanner and/or of a user operating the scanner. The digital signature may be implemented using asymmetric cryptography where a machine or user is assigned both a public key and a private key].
As per claim 10. Ossig does teach the laser-scanning method of claim 9, wherein the signed dataset is a nested file that includes preserved versions of past data object and digital signature revisions made by other users [Ossig, Figure # 6, components: 610, 612, and paragraph: 0086, Turning now to FIG. 6, a flow diagram 600 illustrating a method for tracking data acquired by a coordinate measurement device through a workflow using a secure database is generally shown in accordance with one or more embodiments of the present invention. The processing shown in FIG. 6 can be performed, for example, by user processor 402 of FIG. 4. At block 602, the process starts by accessing the head of the blockchain which includes a pointer to the last block in the chain. At block 604, the data including a data file and/or meta-data in the last block in the chain are accessed [i.e. applicant’s nested file], and at block 606 the data is validated to ensure that it has not been modified since being stored in the blockchain. In accordance with one or more embodiments of the present invention, the validating includes comparing hash values of the data and not the actual data. At block 608, a digital signature in the block is verified to validate the data consistency, for example, the digital signature check makes sure that the user and/or module really did perform the process. At block 610 it is determined whether there are more blocks in the blockchain. If there are no more blocks, processing completes at block 614. If there are more blocks in the blockchain, processing continues at block 612 with moving to the previous block and performing the processing in blocks 604 through 610 for the previous block. If no errors are detected while traversing backwards through the blockchain, the contents of the blockchain represent a trace of the movement of the data file(s) through the workflow and can be presented as evidence of chain of custody.].
As per claim 11. Ossig does teach the laser-scanning method of claim 10, wherein one or more of past data objects and digital signature revisions are accessed from the signed dataset [Ossig, Figure # 6, components: 610, 612, and paragraph: 0086, Turning now to FIG. 6, a flow diagram 600 illustrating a method for tracking data acquired by a coordinate measurement device through a workflow using a secure database is generally shown in accordance with one or more embodiments of the present invention. The processing shown in FIG. 6 can be performed, for example, by user processor 402 of FIG. 4. At block 602, the process starts by accessing the head of the blockchain which includes a pointer to the last block in the chain. At block 604, the data including a data file and/or meta-data in the last block in the chain are accessed, and at block 606 the data is validated to ensure that it has not been modified since being stored in the blockchain. In accordance with one or more embodiments of the present invention, the validating includes comparing hash values of the data and not the actual data. At block 608, a digital signature in the block is verified to validate the data consistency, for example, the digital signature check makes sure that the user and/or module really did perform the process. At block 610 it is determined whether there are more blocks in the blockchain. If there are no more blocks, processing completes at block 614. If there are more blocks in the blockchain, processing continues at block 612 with moving to the previous block and performing the processing in blocks 604 through 610 for the previous block. If no errors are detected while traversing backwards through the blockchain, the contents of the blockchain represent a trace of the movement of the data file(s) through the workflow and can be presented as evidence of chain of custody. In accordance with one or more embodiments, of the present invention, a version of the data at a selected point in time can be recreated based at least in part on contents of the decentralized database.
Then further of paragraph: 0087, The processing shown in FIG. 6 can be requested by an authorized requestor to generate a trace of the data that describes the data as it moves through a workflow process represented by contents of the blockchain. As used herein the term “authorized requestor” refers to a user who has been given access to contents of the entire blockchain and who has been given authority to generate the trace].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim[s] 5 contains allowable subject matter, but as allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Claim[s] 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
**The examiner notes that a reason’s for an allowance can be written in the next subsequent office action once all formal requirements as identified above have been overcome.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bhella et al., who does teach authenticating features for download to an image scanning apparatus has a client computing device generate an image of a symbol that encodes authentication data. The client computing device hashes a communication parameter of its transceiver, digitally signs the hash value with a private key from public-private key pair, and encodes the hash value, digital signature and the unencrypted communication parameter into the symbol. The image scanning apparatus captures an image of the symbol, decodes the symbol, verifies whether the unencrypted communication parameter corresponds to the hash of the communication parameter, and a public key stored in the memory of the barcode reader corresponds with the private key used to sign the hash value. If the communication parameter corresponds with the hash value and the signature corresponds with the public key, the barcode reader enables its transceiver to download the feature from the client computing device.
Khalsa, who does teach voting including vote casting and vote counting. The system provides a paper ballot having a main section and a shreddable section. The main section includes a ballot ID, a ballot public key of a ballot public and private key pair, a set of voting options, and a machine-readable code at an end of the main section. The machine-readable code is configured to instruct a scanner device to stop scanning. The shreddable section includes a ballot private key of the ballot public and private key pair printed thereon. A scanner can read the information on the marked paper ballot, read the private key from the shreddable section, and shred the shreddable section. Scanner digitally signs image data using the ballot private key and scanner private key and applies “publicly solvable puzzle-based encryption” to the same. Scanner can transmit the encrypted image data to a blockchain server.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANT SHAIFER - HARRIMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7910. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 9am to 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, Ali Shayanfar can be reached at 571 – 270- 1050. 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.
/DANT B SHAIFER HARRIMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2434
