DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the application filed on 04/30/2025.
Claims 1-14 are pending.
Claims 1-14 have been examined.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14 are directed to a method, a system, or product which are one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: Yes).
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-14 are directed to an abstract idea, Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide generic computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 1 and 8 are grouped together. Claim 1, for instance, recites, A secret key cryptosystem in which at least one secret key is shared between electronic signature devices, comprising: a first electronic signature device comprising at least one processor and at least one storage; and a second electronic signature device comprising at least one processor and at least one storage; wherein: the at least one processor of the first electronic signature device is configured to store, in the at least one storage of the first electronic signature device, at least one shared secret key in association with a first authority that identifies specific processing types the first electronic signature device is authorized to execute out of processing types using the at least one shared secret key, the at least one processor of the second electronic signature device is configured to store, in the at least one storage of the second electronic signature device, the at least one shared secret key in association with a second authority that identifies specific processing types the second electronic signature device is authorized to execute out of the processing types using the at least one shared secret key, wherein the second authority is not identical to the first authority, the at least one processor of the first electronic signature device is further configured to use the at least one shared secret key only for processing corresponding to the first authority out of the processing types using the at least one shared secret key, and the at least one processor of the second electronic signature device is further configured to use the at least one shared secret key only for processing corresponding to the second authority out of the processing types using the at least one shared secret key. These limitations are directed to currency management – business relations (commercial interactions). Hence, it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the examiner considers whether claims 1-20 recites any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 1, 11 and 20 recite: a first electronic signature device, at least one processor and at least one storage. The additional elements, do not, either individually or in combination, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements are computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., apply it), and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components. Specifically, these elements are generic computer components defined in the specification as “any processor-based system”. The claimed electronic signature devices are defined generically in the specification as “any processing type”. [Specification,0084]. Therefore, the additional elements recited in the independent claims are recited at such a high level of generality that they represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception.
Under Step 2B Prong Two, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure the claim amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea. Claims 1-14 do not include additional elements such as electronic signature devices, at least one processor, devices that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are merely performing the abstract idea on a generic device i.e., abstract idea and apply it. There is no improvement to computer technology or computer functionality MPEP 2106.05(a) nor a particular machine MPEP 2106.05(b) nor a particular transformation MPEP 2106.05(c). Given the above reasons, a generic processing device helps to manage a currency system via an electronic device is not an Inventive Concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two-part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The dependent claims 2 and 9 has been given the full two-part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite using shared key to perform transactions and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements (such as an electronic device, one or more processors) of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims 3 and 10 has been given the full two-part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite first and second devices and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements (such as an electronic device, one or more processors) of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims 4 and 11 has been given the full two-part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite using a table format to store transactional data and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements (such as an electronic device, one or more processors) of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 5 and 12 has been given the full two-part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite data format and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements (such as an electronic device, one or more processors) of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 6 and 13 have been given the full two-part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite creating data transaction and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements (such as an electronic device, one or more processors) of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 7 and 14 have been given the full two-part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite using shared key to perform transaction and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements ((such as an electronic device, one or more processors) of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Therefore, Claims 1-14 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adibi, (US 2021/0135856 A1), in view of Tran et al. (US 2018/0117446 A1).
Claims 1 and 8 are combined together. Adibi teaches: A secret key cryptosystem in which at least one secret key is shared between electronic signature devices, comprising: a first electronic signature device comprising at least one processor and at least one storage (Adibi, par. [0052]) cited portion discloses processor and a blockchain network; and a second electronic signature device comprising at least one processor and at least one storage; (Adibi, see at least par. [0052] “. . . The blockchain provider system(s) 304 may be communicatively coupled to the data processing computer(s) 308 (e.g., via network 306). In at least some embodiments, the blockchain provider system(s) 304 may additionally be communicatively coupled to the user device(s) 302 (e.g., via the network 306) . . .” & par. [0067]) Interpretation: either the public key or private key corresponds to cryptographic key, wherein
the at least one processor of the first electronic signature device is configured to store, in the at least one storage of the first electronic signature device, at least one shared secret key in association with a first authority that identifies specific processing types the first electronic signature device is authorized to execute out of processing types using the at least one shared secret key (see at least par. [0056] “. . . In at least one embodiment, the data processing computer(s) 308 may be configured to generate and store public and/or private keys for at least one of the user device(s) 302. The data processing computer(s) 308 may utilize the stored public key associated with a user device to verify messages (e.g., a transfer channel request/response message, a data transfer request/response message) from the user device in order to validate a message initiated by the user device . . .” & par. [0067] “In most instances, asymmetric “public-key” cryptography is considerably better suited to the functions associated with blockchain than symmetric key cryptography, the primary difference being that asymmetric cryptography allows information to be encoded and decoded through a pair of keys (e.g., one public key and one private key) where only one key needs to be shared with another party for secure communications in a single direction (and a separate single pair of keys for communications in the other direction), whereas symmetric key cryptography uses only a single key for communications in both direction that is less robust and cannot be so easily shared. Accordingly, rather than using a single key for encryption and decryption—as is the case with symmetric key cryptography—separate keys (generally termed a public key and a private key) are used.”) The first key corresponds to private key,
the at least one processor of the second electronic signature device is configured to store, in the at least one storage of the second electronic signature device, the at least one shared secret key in association with a second authority that identifies specific processing types the second electronic signature device is authorized to execute out of the processing types using the at least one shared secret key, wherein the second authority is not identical to the first authority, (see at least par. [0079] “. . . Conversely, the first key may be a private key for the consumer that the consumer has shared with the contact center (in order to create the electronic signature as to the consumer) and the second key may be a public key for the consumer such that the record is thereby digitally signed by the consumer (although created by the contact center on the consumer's behalf) and the consumer's signature can later be verified by the consumer's public key. . . “) Interpretation: the second key corresponds to a public key which does not share with the first key.
the at least one processor of the first electronic signature device is further configured to use the at least one shared secret key only for processing corresponding to the first authority out of the processing types using the at least one shared secret key (see at least par. [0079] “. . . Conversely, the first key may be a private key for the consumer that the consumer has shared with the contact center (in order to create the electronic signature as to the consumer) and the second key may be a public key for the consumer such that the record is thereby digitally signed by the consumer (although created by the contact center on the consumer's behalf) and the consumer's signature can later be verified by the consumer's public key. Similarly, the first key may be a private key shared by contact center and the consumer and the second key may be a public key also shared by the contact center and the consumer such that the record is thereby digitally signed by both the contact center and the consumer where the shared signature can later be verified by the shared public key..) Interpretation: both the creation and verification are executed by the shared public key
Adibi does not disclose the following; however, Tran teaches:
and the at least one processor of the second electronic signature device is further configured to use the at least one shared secret key only for processing corresponding to the second authority out of the processing types using the at least one shared secret key. (Tran, see at least par. [0225] “. . . ion 310 (e.g., a market order type to indicate whether the transaction is to buy or sell a Blockchain token 329). The transaction 323 is digitally signed by the sender's private key to create a digital signature 332 for verifying the sender's identity to the network nodes. The network nodes decrypt the digital signature 332, via the sender's previously exchanged public key, and compare the unencrypted information to the transaction 323. If they match, the sender's authenticity is verified and, after a proper chain of ownership is verified via the ledgers (as explained above), the receiver is recorded in the ledgers as the new Blockchain token 329 owner . . .”) Interpretation: the private key is used to create digital signature and only previously shared public key, or shared key, is used to verify digital signature, and
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the features of using at least one shared key as taught by Tran with the invention disclosed by Adibi to better facilitate secure operation (abstract). Therefore, the combination is obvious.
Claims 2 and 10 are grouped together. Claim 2, for instance, is disclosed: The secret key cryptosystem according to claim 1. Furthermore, Adibi teaches: The secret key cryptosystem according to wherein the at least one shared secret key comprises a plurality of shared secret keys (Adibi, US 2021/0135856 A1, see at least par. [0052] “. . . The blockchain provider system(s) 304 may be communicatively coupled to the data processing computer(s) 308 (e.g., via network 306). In at least some embodiments, the blockchain provider system(s) 304 may additionally be communicatively coupled to the user device(s) 302 (e.g., via the network 306) . . .” & par. [0067]) Interpretation: either the public key or private key corresponds to cryptographic key, and wherein the first authority associated with a first shared secret key of the plurality of shared secret keys in the at least one storage of the first electronic signature device is not identical to the second authority associated with the same first shared secret key in the at least one storage of the second electronic signature device, and wherein the first authority associated with a second shared secret key of the plurality of shared secret keys in the at least one storage of the first electronic signature device is not identical to the second authority associated with the same second shared secret key in the at least one storage of the second electronic signature device (see at least par. [0056] “. . . In at least one embodiment, the data processing computer(s) 308 may be configured to generate and store public and/or private keys for at least one of the user device(s) 302. The data processing computer(s) 308 may utilize the stored public key associated with a user device to verify messages (e.g., a transfer channel request/response message, a data transfer request/response message) from the user device in order to validate a message initiated by the user device . . .” & par. [0067] “In most instances, asymmetric “public-key” cryptography is considerably better suited to the functions associated with blockchain than symmetric key cryptography, the primary difference being that asymmetric cryptography allows information to be encoded and decoded through a pair of keys (e.g., one public key and one private key) where only one key needs to be shared with another party for secure communications in a single direction (and a separate single pair of keys for communications in the other direction), whereas symmetric key cryptography uses only a single key for communications in both direction that is less robust and cannot be so easily shared. Accordingly, rather than using a single key for encryption and decryption—as is the case with symmetric key cryptography—separate keys (generally termed a public key and a private key) are used.”) The first key corresponds to private key.
Claims 3 and 10 are grouped together. The secret key cryptosystem according to Claim 2. Furthermore, Adibi teaches: The secret key cryptosystem according to wherein the first shared secret key is a secret key of a first device, and the second shared secret key is a secret key of a second device different from the first device (Adibi, see par. [0073] “Additionally, because private keys are linked to individual users, digital signatures using private keys cannot be later repudiated. This means that if something is digitally signed by a user, it can be legally binding on that individual, although this is entirely dependent on the private key that signed the data not being otherwise compromised.”) the private keys are different and linked to individual users.
Claims 4 and 11 are grouped together. The secret key cryptosystem according to Claim 3. Furthermore, Adibi teaches: The secret key cryptosystem according to wherein the at least one processor of the first electronic signature device is configured to store the at least one shared secret key in association with the first authority in a table format in the at least one storage of the first electronic signature device, and wherein the at least one processor of the second electronic signature device is configured to store the at least one shared secret key in association with the second authority in a table format in the at least one storage of the second electronic signature device (Adibi, par. [0044] “. . . data quality is maintained by massive database replication and computational trust where no centralized “official” copy exists and no user is “trusted” more than any other. Transactions are broadcast to the network, and messages are delivered on a best-efforts basis. Completed blocks are broadcast to other nodes, and various time-stamping schemes are used to serialize changes to the blockchain. Over time, however, computer resources required to process the larger and larger amounts of data in the blockchain become less efficient and more expensive.”).
Claims 6 and 13 are grouped together. The secret key cryptosystem according to claim 1. Furthermore, Adibi teaches: The secret key cryptosystem according to wherein the processing types using the at least one shared secret key includes at least one of: creation of an electronic signature, verification of the electronic signature, and encryption of data (Adibi, par. [0042] “by using several concepts from cryptography such as digital signatures and hash functions. To create a blockchain block, a checksum is calculated over a defined block of data using special hash functions that are designed to return a value of a defined length (the hash value or “message digest”) which is not dependent on the length of the input (i.e., the defined block of data) but which does provide the same output when provided with the same input. In addition to the hash values, the blockchain block will also typically include a timestamp, a payload (i.e., the defined data block), and a digital signature for detecting any changes made to the data after the digital signature is created. When added to the blockchain, the newly created blockchain block will also contain the hash value of the immediately previous block in the blockchain, thereby creating an up-chain link to that previous block.”).
Claims 7 and 14 are grouped together. The secret key cryptosystem according to claim 1. Furthermore, Adibi teaches: The secret key cryptosystem according to wherein the first authority is defined as character strings representing authorized processing types, and wherein the second authority is defined as character strings representing authorized processing types (Adibi, par. [0048] “Blockchain may also utilize additional security methods such public-key cryptography where a public key, appearing as a long string of seemingly-random numbers, is in fact an address for a block on the blockchain, and where a private key acts as a password giving its owner access to the digital assets of that particular block or the means to otherwise interact with the various capabilities that blockchains now support with regard to that particular block (e.g., value tokens being recorded as belonging to the block having said address).”).
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adibi, (US 2021/0135856 A1), in view of Tran et al. (US 2018/0117446 A1) in further view of Watanabe et al. (US 2018/0270058 A1).
Claims 5 and 12 are grouped together. Adibi in view of Tran in further view of Wantanabe teaches: The secret key cryptosystem according to claim 4. Furthermore, Watanabe teaches: The secret key cryptosystem according to wherein the table format includes rows and columns, with each row associating one shared secret key with one authority (Watanabe et al. (US 2018/0270058 A1), par. [0219] “FIG. 28 illustrates an example of the cell array including the word lines 503 and the bit lines 902. There are identification cells 977 on the cross points of the word lines 503 and the bit lines 902. In this example, the number of rows (word lines) is N and the number of columns (bit lines) is M. However, it may be able to exchange the rows and the columns.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the features of using a table format as taught by Watanabe with the invention disclosed by Adibi in view of Tran in further to better store the data transaction. Therefore, the combination is obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOAN DUC BUI whose telephone number is (571)272-0833. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00 PM.
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, Mike W. Anderson can be reached at (571) 270-0508. 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.
/TOAN DUC BUI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3693
/ERIC T WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights