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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
The instant application is a continuation of PCT/CN2023/131626 filed on 14 November 2023 and claims foreign priority to CN202310479511.5 filed on 27 April 2023. The priority claims comply with all applicable rules and regulations. Therefore, the effective filing date of the claims is 27 April 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 20 May 2025 and 27 April 2026 comply with all applicable rules and regulations. Therefore, the information referred to therein has been considered.
Oath/Declaration
The examiner notes the Pre-exam Notices sent to applicant on 05 June 2025 and 14 July 2025 regarding the requirement to file a properly executed inventor’s oath/declaration. However, a proper oath/declaration was filed along with the assignment documents on 20 May 2025.
Drawings
No issues have been found with the drawings filed on 20 May 2025.
Specification
No issues have been found with the specification filed on 20 May 2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 4-15, 17, 18, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, line 6—“succeeds” should be amended to state --succeeding-- in order to use the correct form of the word in context with the limitation.
Regarding claim 2, line 2—“object access data information” appears to be referring to “object access data information” of claim 1, lines 4-5. This objection may be overcome by amending line 2 to state --the object access data information--.
Regarding claim 4, lines 5 and 9—“object access data information” appears to be referring to “object access data information” of claim 1, lines 4-5. This objection may be overcome by amending lines 5 and 9 to state --the object access data information--.
Regarding claim 4, lines 5-6—“a registration service database” appears to be referring to “a registration service database” of claim 2, lines 2-3. This objection may be overcome by amending lines 5-6 to state --the registration service database--.
Regarding claim 5, line 1—“remote attestation”, lines 1-2—“a key custody client”, line 2—“a service object”, line 3—“object access data information”, line 3—“a first communication key”, line 4—“key exchange processing”, line 5—“encryption processing”, line 6—“object data encryption information”, line 7—“object access data information”, line 13—“remote attestation”, line 18—“a first communication key”, line 19—“key exchange processing”, line 20—“encryption processing” all appear to be referring to the same terms in claim 1. This objection may be overcome by amending all of the terms to be preceded by --the--.
Regarding claim 5, line 5—“succeeds” should be amended to state --succeeding-- in order to use the correct form of the word in context with the limitation.
Regarding claim 6, line 4—“encryption processing”, line 5—“object data encryption information”, line 6—“encryption processing” all appear to be referring to the same terms in claim 1. This objection may be overcome by amending all of the terms to be preceded by --the--.
Regarding claim 7, line 2—“a remote attestation result” appears to be referring to “a remote attestation result” of claim 5, line 14. This objection may be overcome by amending line 2 to state --the remote attestation result--.
Regarding claim 7, line 5—“the first random number” lacks sufficient antecedent basis for the claim. This objection may be overcome by amending line 5 to state --a first random number--.
Regarding claim 7, lines 5-6—“the first communication key pair” lacks sufficient antecedent basis for the claim. This objection may be overcome by amending lines 5-6 to state --a first communication key pair--.
Regarding claim 7, line 17—“an custody environment attestation report” should be amended to state --a custody environment attestation report-- in order to use the correct form of the word.
Regarding claim 8, line 8—“a first key fragment”, line 10—“local signing processing”, line 11—“service local signature information”, line 23—“local signing processing” all appear to be referring to the same terms in claim 1. This objection may be overcome by amending all of the terms to be preceded by --the--.
Regarding claim 9, lines 1-2—“a first accumulated signature quantity”, lines 3-4—“an accumulated signature threshold”, lines 4-5—“a signed service”, line 5—“blockchain”, line 5—“a blockchain node”, line 13—“a signed service”, line 18—“a blockchain” all appear to be referring to the same terms in claim 1. This objection may be overcome by amending all of the terms to be preceded by --the--.
Regarding claim 10, line 21—“remote signing processing” appears to be referring to “remote signing processing” of claim 1, lines 14-15. This objection may be overcome by amending line 21 to state --the remote signing processing--.
Regarding claim 11, line 3—“the local platform attestation signature component” lacks sufficient antecedent basis for the claim. This objection may be overcome by amending line 3 to state --a local platform attestation signature component--.
Regarding claim 11, line 5—“the remote attestation server” lacks sufficient antecedent basis for the claim. This objection may be overcome by amending line 5 to state --a remote attestation server--.
Regarding claim 11, line 10—“a remote log review attestation report”, line 10—“a plurality of review institutions”, lines 10-11—“task review” all appear to be referring to the same terms in claim 10. This objection may be overcome by amending all of the terms to be preceded by --the--.
Regarding claim 12, line 8—“a to-be-signed service”, line 2—“a signed service”, line 23—“a blockchain node” all appear to be referring to the same terms in claim 10. This objection may be overcome by amending all of the terms to be preceded by --the--.
Regarding claim 13, lines 3-4—“the log recording client” lacks sufficient antecedent basis for the claim. This objection may be overcome by amending lines 3-4 to state --a log recording client--.
Regarding claim 13, line 4—“the log signature key” lacks sufficient antecedent basis for the claim. This objection may be overcome by amending line 4 to state --a log signature key--.
Regarding claim 13, line 9—“the trusted log memory” lacks sufficient antecedent basis for the claim. This objection may be overcome by amending line 9 to state --a trusted log memory--.
Regarding claim 13, line 15—“remote signing processing” appears to be referring to “remote signing processing” of claim 1, lines 14-15. This objection may be overcome by amending line 15 to state --the remote signing processing--.
Regarding claim 14, line 4—“the registration service database” lacks sufficient antecedent basis for the claim. This objection may be overcome by amending line 4 to state --a registration service database--.
Regarding claim 14, line 5—“remote attestation”, line 14—“key exchange processing”, all appear to be referring to the same terms in claim 1. This objection may be overcome by amending all of the terms to be preceded by --the--.
Regarding claim 14, lines 18-19—“the access password information” lacks sufficient antecedent basis for the claim. This objection may be overcome by amending lines 18-19 to state --an access password information--.
Regarding claim 15, line 3—“preform” should be amended to state --perform-- in order to correct the misspelling.
Regarding claim 17, line 7—“succeeds” should be amended to state --succeeding-- in order to use the correct form of the word in context with the limitation.
Regarding claim 18, line 3—“object access data information” appears to be referring to “object access data information” of claim 17, line 5. This objection may be overcome by amending line 3 to state --the object access data information--.
Regarding claim 20, line 6—“object access data information”, lines 6-7—“a registration service database”, lines 7-8—“object registration data information”, line 8—“a data information search result”, line 10—“object access data information” all appear to be referring to the same terms in parent claims 17 and 18. This objection may be overcome by amending all of the terms to be preceded by --the--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, lines 11-16—“so that the key custody client decrypts…performs…performs”, and lines 25-26—“wherein the signed service is written into the blockchain by the blockchain node into the blockchain”, there is not a clear-cut indication of scope of the subject matter covered by the claim since one of ordinary skill in the art would not know from the claim terms what structure is encompassed by the claim.
The issue here is that the claim is directed to a “data processing method…wherein the method is performed by a resource management client, and the method comprises:”. The claim scope is not clear with regard to the steps performed by the key custody client and the step performed by the blockchain node.
For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted to be directed to the “data processing method” with each of the steps not indicated above being performed by the “resource management client”, the indicated steps performed by the key custody client, and the indicated step performed by the blockchain node. In order to overcome this rejection, the claim may be amended to so that each step clearly indicates the associated client or blockchain node and deleting the “wherein the method is performed by a resource management client” from the preamble.
Dependent claims 2-14 are also required to be amended so that each step indicates the associated client, blockchain node, terminal, or device.
See MPEP 2173.05(g): “Examiners should consider the following factors when examining claims that contain functional language to determine whether the language is ambiguous: (1) whether there is a clear cut indication of the scope of the subject matter covered by the claim; (2) whether the language sets forth well-defined boundaries of the invention or only states a problem solved or a result obtained; and (3) whether one of ordinary skill in the art would know from the claim terms what structure or steps are encompassed by the claim.”
Regarding claim 15, lines 1-4—“ A computer device, comprising a memory and a processor, the memory being connected to the processor, the memory being configured to store a computer program, and the processor being configured to invoke the computer program to preform the method according to claim 1”, there is not a clear-cut indication of scope of the subject matter covered by the claim since one of ordinary skill in the art would not know from the claim terms what structure is encompassed by the claim.
The issue here is that the claim is directed to a “computer device” that performs the method of claim 1. The claim scope is not clear with regard to the steps performed by the key custody client and the step performed by the blockchain node.
For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted to be directed to a system that comprises: a first computer device, comprising a first memory and a first processor, the first memory being connected to the first processor, the first memory being configured to store a first computer program, and the first processor being configured to invoke the first computer program to perform the steps of indicated as being performed by the resource management client; and a second computer device, comprising a second memory and a second processor, the second memory being connected to the second processor, the second memory being configured to store a second computer program, and the second processor being configured to invoke the second computer program to perform the steps of indicated as being performed by the key custody client; and a blockchain node that performs the indicated step performed by the blockchain node.
In order to overcome this rejection, claim 15 should be amended to be an independent claim and be directed to a system as indicated above and in accordance with the original disclosure.
See MPEP 2173.05(g): “Examiners should consider the following factors when examining claims that contain functional language to determine whether the language is ambiguous: (1) whether there is a clear cut indication of the scope of the subject matter covered by the claim; (2) whether the language sets forth well-defined boundaries of the invention or only states a problem solved or a result obtained; and (3) whether one of ordinary skill in the art would know from the claim terms what structure or steps are encompassed by the claim.”
Regarding claim 16, lines 6-11—“the object data encryption information being obtained after the resource management client performs…the first communication key being obtained by the resource management client by performing key exchange processing with the key custody client when the resource management client performs…the object access data information being entered by a service object when accessing the resource management client”, and lines 25-26—“so that the resource management client obtains…performs local signing processing on the to-be-signed service by using the first key fragment, to obtain service local signature information of the to-be-signed service; and when the resource management client determines…uses…, and transmits…”, there is not a clear-cut indication of scope of the subject matter covered by the claim since one of ordinary skill in the art would not know from the claim terms what structure is encompassed by the claim.
The issue here is that the claim is directed to a “data processing method…wherein the method is performed by a key custody client…the method comprises:”. The claim scope is not clear with regard to the steps performed by the resource management client.
For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted to be directed to the “data processing method” with each of the steps not indicated above being performed by the “key custody client” and the indicated steps performed by the resource management client. In order to overcome this rejection, the claim may be amended to so that each step clearly indicates the associated client and deleting the “wherein the method is performed by a key custody client” from the preamble.
See MPEP 2173.05(g): “Examiners should consider the following factors when examining claims that contain functional language to determine whether the language is ambiguous: (1) whether there is a clear cut indication of the scope of the subject matter covered by the claim; (2) whether the language sets forth well-defined boundaries of the invention or only states a problem solved or a result obtained; and (3) whether one of ordinary skill in the art would know from the claim terms what structure or steps are encompassed by the claim.”
Regarding claim 17, lines 12-17—“so that the key custody client decrypts…performs identity verification on the service object based on the object access data information, and when the identity verification succeeds, performs…”, and lines 26-27—“wherein the signed service is written into the blockchain by the blockchain node into the blockchain”, there is not a clear-cut indication of scope of the subject matter covered by the claim since one of ordinary skill in the art would not know from the claim terms what structure is encompassed by the claim.
The issue here is that the claim is directed to a “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program, and the computer program being adapted to be loaded and executed by a processor of a resource management client, causing the processor to perform:” the steps of claim 17. The claim scope is not clear with regard to the steps performed by the key custody client and the step performed by the blockchain node.
For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted to be directed to a system that comprises: a first non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the first computer-readable storage medium storing a first computer program, and the first computer program being adapted to be loaded and executed by a first processor of a resource management client, causing the first processor to perform the steps of indicated as being performed by the resource management client; and a second non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the second computer-readable storage medium storing a second computer program, and the second computer program being adapted to be loaded and executed by a second processor of a key custody client, causing the second processor to perform the steps of indicated as being performed by the key custody client; and a blockchain node that performs the indicated step performed by the blockchain node.
In order to overcome this rejection, claim 17 should be amended to be directed to a system as indicated above and in accordance with the original disclosure.
Dependent claims 18-20 are also required to be amended so that each step indicates the associated client, blockchain node, terminal, or device.
See MPEP 2173.05(g): “Examiners should consider the following factors when examining claims that contain functional language to determine whether the language is ambiguous: (1) whether there is a clear cut indication of the scope of the subject matter covered by the claim; (2) whether the language sets forth well-defined boundaries of the invention or only states a problem solved or a result obtained; and (3) whether one of ordinary skill in the art would know from the claim terms what structure or steps are encompassed by the claim.”
Allowable Subject Matter
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).
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record fails to disclose the combination of features as claimed and arranged by applicant when read in light of the specification. In this case, the allowance is based on the combination of the limitations in each independent claim and not on any single limitation.
Relevant prior art:
Ferguson et al. (US 2024/0089091 A1)—Ferguson discloses the system may cause generation of multiple key shares of a private key from which a blockchain address on a blockchain is derived. The system may generate, based on the candidate hash matching the hash of the feature vector representing the physical item, a signed message using a partial signature of the second user and another partial signature derived from the third key share (Abstract).
Berengoltz et al. (US 2021/0224797 A1)—Berengoltz discloses a system and method for securing crypto-asset transactions. The method includes sharding a wallet private key such that each shard of the wallet private key is distributed to a different secure module; generating signatures by each of the different secure modules based on a respective shard of the sharded wallet private key and obtained trading platform credentials; and verifying the crypto-asset transaction when a predetermined threshold of the generated signatures are determined to match each other (Abstract).
Fletcher et al. (US 2021/0152371 A1)—Fletcher discloses the method comprises receiving a first blockchain transaction (4) from a first participant (6) by each of a plurality of second participants (8), (10). The first participant (6) has a first private key of a first private-public key pair of a cryptography system, and each participant (6), (8), (10) has a respective first share of a second private key of a second private-public key pair of the cryptography system, and the first blockchain transaction is signed with the first private key. Signature of the first blockchain transaction with the first private key is verified by each second participant (8), (10). A respective first share is applied to the first blockchain transaction to generate a respective second share of a second blockchain transaction signed with the second private key. Signature with the second private key is possible by means of a first threshold number of second shares and is inaccessible to less than the first threshold number of second shares. The first threshold number of second shares is combined from the first participant (6) and a plurality of the second participants (8), (10) generate the signature (Abstract).
Sneider et al. (US 2023/0275751 A1)—Sneider discloses a method and system for decentralized cryptography and encryption on a network of decentralized nodes. The invention further relates to creation of private network key shares by multiple nodes on the network and receiving requests from the network to use the private network key shares. The invention further relates to performing operations with the private network key shares, wherein the operation produces a result that is provided to the network (Abstract.
Chang et al. (US 2024/0405980 A1)—Chang discloses the individual “seal” is implemented by a pair of crypto key “shares” each consisting of private and public components. The components of all linked seals jointly produce the public key for a single wallet account, whereas the private key shares remain physically distributed over multiple devices without ever needing to be joined for producing the private key. Those private keys or key components are therefore never exposed simultaneously and used only for producing “signature shares,” which are pieced together at the end of signing rounds to create the transaction signatures for the wallet. Otherwise, the private keys in a Counterseal Wallet are nowhere to be retrieved or stolen and signatures are rendered without the need to explicitly reproduce the private keys (Para. 256).
Trevethan (US 2020/0145231 A1)—Trevethan discloses the TEE 250 may enable remote attestation which may be used by a node 102 (FIG. 1) to prove to other nodes 102 that a TEE 250 is authentic and is running approved computer executable instructions for a protocol that is implemented by a group 110. Remote attestation may be provided by the TEE 250 by running a particular piece of code and sending a hash of the code, internal to the enclave, signed by an internal attestation key for the enclave. Effectively, remote attestation allows an enclave of a TEE 250 to prove to any remote system that the enclave is executing computer-executable instructions that hash to a particular value (Para. 54).
Antonino et al. (US 2024/0265381 A1)—Antonino discloses a process of performing a cryptocurrency transaction with device-based user authentication (Fig. 7; Para. 183).
Regarding claims 1, 16, and 17, the above-cited relevant prior art do not alone or in an obvious combination teach the respective combination of limitations of each independent claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY DUFFIELD whose telephone number is (571)270-1643. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 AM - 3:00 PM (ET).
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, Yin-Chen Shaw can be reached at (571) 272-8878. 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.
24 September 2026
/Jeremy S Duffield/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2498
Prosecution Insights