DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
NO restrictions warranted at applicant’s time of filing for CONtinuation.
Priority
Applicant claim[s] domestic priority under 35 USC 120 to continuing application # 17/821091, filed on 08/19/2022, now US PAT # 12,278,908.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant filed NO information disclosure statements (IDS) at time of filing for CONtinuation.
Drawings
The drawings of Figure # 1 and 2 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show title labels for figure # 1 elements: # 1: 102 - 124 and for figure # 2 elements: 210 - 235 as described in the specification.
Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application.
Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures
appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being
amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as "amended." If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet" or "New Sheet" pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Appropriate action required.
Specification
Applicant’s specification filed on 04/03/2025 has been inspected and is in compliance with MPEP 608.02.
Claim Objections
NO claim objections warranted at applicant’s time of filing for CONtinuation.
Claim Interpretation – 35 USC 112th f
It is in the examiner’s opinion that claim[s] 1 – 11 do not invoke means for or step plus functional claim language under the meaning of the statute.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
NO rejections warranted at applicant’s time of filing for CONtinuation.
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.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 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 non-statutory 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 e-Terminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An e-Terminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about e-Terminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim[s] 1 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim[s] 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12278908.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of the pending application and the reference patent recite the same or similar claim limitations and are distinct in the following manner:
“A laser-scanning method may include obtaining scan data captured by a laser scanner in which the laser scanner includes a first private key that uniquely corresponds to the laser scanner. The laser-scanning method may include obtaining a first digital signature corresponding to the obtained scan data that is generated based on the scan data and the first private key. The laser-scanning method may include validating the first digital signature using a first public key that corresponds to the first private key and generating a report that summarizes results of the validating. The laser-scanning method may include transforming and aggregating, by a scan data aggregator, the scan data as aggregated scan data and generating a second digital signature corresponding to the aggregated scan data. The second digital signature may be generated by signing hashes corresponding to the aggregated scan data using a second private key corresponding to the scan data aggregator.”
See the table below for a claim – by – claim comparison.
Pending US Application # 19/169853
(reference) US Patent No. 12278908
1. A laser-scanning method, comprising:
obtaining scan data captured by a laser scanner, the laser scanner including a first private key that uniquely corresponds to the laser scanner;
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;
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 of the first digital signature;
transforming and aggregating, by a scan data aggregator, the scan data and captured by the laser scanner as aggregated scan data; 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.
1.(Previously Presented) A laser-scanning method, comprising:
obtaining scan data captured by a laser scanner, the laser scanner including a first private key that uniquely corresponds to the laser scanner;
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;
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 of the first digital signature;
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
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;
wherein the first private key corresponding to the laser scanner is located in an off-system
data storage and is not stored locally on the laser scanner; and
the first digital signature is generated by and received from a computer system associated with the off-system data storage that digitally signs hashes provided by the laser scanner using the
first private key.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
NO rejections warranted at applicant’s time of filing for CONtinuation.
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 Ossign 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 digitally sign 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 may indicate that the 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 may be 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 may 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 may be 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.
Ebrahimi, who does teach a login request to an entity through a federation server that generates a session identifier. A QR code is sent to the federation server to receive the session identifier. A secure envelope including user personal information is sent to the federation server to verify user registration with the federation server. A login token generated by the federation server is received and is associated with a smart contract generated by the federation server and stored on a blockchain. The login token is signed using user private key and sent to the blockchain for inclusion in the smart contract. A transaction identifier is received from the blockchain, and is sent to the federation server that generates a session record based on the login token. The federation server sends user verification to the entity to authorize a communication session between the user device and the entity.
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
Prosecution Insights