DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment / Arguments
Regarding claims rejected under 35 USC 112:
Applicant’s amendment is considered to have overcome the applied rejection. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding claims rejected under 35 USC 103:
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “only the ‘client devices 12’, not the ‘server 10,’ can be ‘any of the numerous computing devices available which allow for communications over a network, for example, a home computer, a lap top computer, a personal digital assistant or a mobile telephone’” in [0029] of Kulakowski. In response, it is noted that Kulakowski explicitly states that “the server 10 can be a general purpose or special purpose computer” and further elaborates on a general purpose or special purpose computer, stating that “a general purpose computer or a special purpose computer including any of the numerous computing devices available which allow for communications over a network, for example, a home computer, a lap top computer, a personal digital assistant or a mobile telephone.” While this is part of the passage describing the client devices 12, it is clear that being “any of the numerous computing devices available which allow for communications over a network” is modifying the “general purpose computer or a special purpose computer” in the sentence. Further, it is overtly well known that general purpose computers include PCs and mobile devices. Likewise, [0029] of Kulakowski states that the client devices “can similarly be a set top box (STB) (typically used for cable and satellite television systems), a general purpose computer or a special purpose computer” where the server “can be a general purpose or special purpose computer.” As per “similarly,” Kulakowski has a single meaning for “a general purpose or special purpose computer” rather than the clients and server each having special definitions for “a general purpose or special purpose computer.”
Additionally, the amended claim now recites “wherein the first apparatus is a first personal computer or a first mobile terminal.” As such, Applicant’s argument that “Kulakowski does not teach the limitation of independent claims 1 and 11 that ‘the first apparatus is... a first mobile terminal’” ignores that the first apparatus may now be a personal computer.
Applicant further argues against the Kulakowski-Schier combination, stating that “Kulakowski relates to Digital Rights Management (DRM)… Schier, in contrast, relates to secure two-way voice communications, such as over cellular or wireless telephones… The application of DRM to broadcast content disclosed in Kulakowski is thus different from the disclosure of Schier, which concerns the implementation of secure two-way voice communication, such as over cellular or wireless telephones, using simple encryption algorithms. As such, the skilled artisan, if looking to modify Kulakowski, would not consider Schier.” In response, it is first noted that Kulakowski already describes a general purpose computer and is merely silent as to send/receive functionality. However, it is extremely well known for network-connected computers to both send and receive data, and Col. 2, Ll. 64-Col. 3, Ll. 10 of Schier provides an example with “a personal digital assistant or other similar personal electronic device” acting as “as either a sending or a receiving device for electronic messages sent through network 12” and “a personal digital assistant or similar device… [or] a personal computer” acting as “either a sending or receiving device to exchange electronic messages through network 12.”
Secondly, it is noted that claim 1 merely recites that “the first apparatus is a first personal computer or a first mobile terminal configured as both a transmitting apparatus and a receiving apparatus” and “the second apparatus is a second personal computer configured as both a transmitting apparatus and a receiving apparatus, or a second mobile terminal configured as both a transmitting apparatus and a receiving apparatus.” This is interpreted as merely requiring that the first and second apparatus have both send and receive functionality. Claim 1 does not specify that the send and receive functionality specifically relates to transmitting and receiving the data package. The claim requires “transmitting a data set using encryption between a first apparatus and a second apparatus” and “transmitting, with the first apparatus, said first decryption program,” but does not otherwise specify any of the other steps as being those of “a transmitting apparatus and a receiving apparatus.” Additionally, the first apparatus can merely be a personal computer without the send and receive aspect as per selection of “the first apparatus is a first personal computer” from “the first apparatus is a first personal computer or a first mobile terminal configured as both a transmitting apparatus and a receiving apparatus.”
Thirdly, in response to Applicant’s argument that “the skilled artisan, if looking to modify Kulakowski, would not consider Schier,” it is noted that both Kulakowski and Schier concern protecting electronic messages sent between devices with selectable encryption schemes. For instance, the abstract of Kulakowski concerns “protecting data being sent between a client and a server; and [0003] of Kulakowski states that it “relates to data security and to systems and methods for encrypting and decrypting data transmitted between devices.” Likewise, Col. 1, Ll. 46-50 of Schier states that its teachings concern “a secure data [being] provided,” while Col. 1, Ll. 11-20 state that “[a]s the use of portable electronic devices and the growth of voice and data networks have become more pervasive… communications take the form of either real time communications in the form of voice communications or in the form of near real time communications in the form of electronic mail messages or other text messaging technologies.” Additionally, the voice communications of Schier can be digital as in Col. 7, Ll. 59-Col. 8, Ll. 14. As such, one of ordinary skill in the would have looked to Schier’s data protection scheme when considering the data protection scheme in Kulakowski.
Finally, Applicant argues that “[e]ven if a skilled artisan were to consider combining Kulkowski and Schier (they would not), the proposed importation of two-way mobile communications using simple encryption algorithms from Schier into Kulakowski would render Kulakowski inoperable, or at least frustrate its intended purpose of preventing theft of digital content in content distribution systems. Thus, a skilled artisan would not combine Kulkowski and Schier as proposed.” In response, it is noted that a DRM system may wish to have the recipient send back information, where using the already-existing encryption scheme would be a simple choice. For example, an acknowledgement of receipt or if sending payment information for chosen content. Additionally, a DRM server may itself receive DRM content from another DRM server (e.g., a content owner sending content to a service provider, or a service provider updating their content store). In this case, the server would be both receiving and transmitting DRM content. As such, the proposed importation of two-way data communications for encrypted data communications would not render a DRM system inoperable nor frustrate its intended purpose. Rather, it would provide for data security in additional situations that exist within digital rights management.
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 1-3 and 5-10 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. Independent claim 1 recites “transmitting, with the first apparatus, said first decryption program” and “obtaining, with the second apparatus, a first decryption program,” which renders it indefinite because it is not clear if the obtained “a first decryption program” is the same as “said first decryption program.” Additionally, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “said first decryption program” in the claim.
The dependent claims do not rectify this issue and are therefore likewise rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11, and 13-15 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kulakowski (US 2008/0288771 A1) in view of Schier (US 6,907,123 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Kulakowski discloses: A method of transmitting a data set using encryption between a first apparatus and a second apparatus (data being sent between a client and a server in at least the abstract of Kulakowski), wherein the data set comprises a first data package (e.g., [0032] of Kulakowski concerning input data such as digital media content), and wherein the method comprises the steps of:
automatically selecting from at least one thousand different encryption techniques (e.g., [0073] and [0110] of Kulakowski with respect to thousands of functions), the at least one thousand different encryption techniques including variants of a block cipher or a stream cipher (e.g, AES in FIG. 4 of Kulakowski), in a library of encryption techniques and/or a series of customized different techniques (the library in Kulakowski), a first encryption technique with an encryption management system, wherein said first encryption technique comprises a first encryption algorithm for encrypting plain data into cipher data, and a first decryption algorithm for, on provision of a specific key with a length of at least 128 bits (e.g., [0044] and [0051] of Kulakowski with respect to 128 bit keys), decrypting cipher data and reproducing plain data;
Refer to at least FIG. 6-8, [0025]-[0027], [0032], [0038], and [0045]-[0049] of Kulakowski with respect to sequencer data for selecting functions and/or algorithms to perform for encrypting and thereafter decrypting input data.
encrypting, with the first apparatus, the first data package comprising plain data, using a first encryption program implementing the first encryption algorithm of said first encryption technique, creating a first encrypted data package comprising cipher data;
Refer to at least FIG. 2, FIG. 5-6, and [0032]-[0044] of Kulakowski with respect to encrypting the input data with the sequencer data-selected functions and/or algorithms.
transmitting, with the first apparatus, said first decryption program and said first encrypted data package to the second apparatus; and
Refer to at least the abstract and FIG. 6 of Kulakowski with respect to sending the encrypted data and algorithm information to a client.
obtaining, with the second apparatus, a first decryption program implementing the first decryption algorithm of said first encryption technique; and
Refer to at least [0030]-[0031] and [0060] of Kulakowski with respect to the client obtaining code for performing the decryption.
providing the specific key for decrypting cipher data separately from the first decryption program,
Refer to at least [0033] of Kulakowski with respect to sending the keys for the decryption separately from the client software.
wherein the first decryption program being such that at the second apparatus, upon provision of the specific key and the first encrypted data package, the first decryption program will decrypt the cipher data in the first encrypted data package and reproduce the plain data of the first data package,
Refer to at least FIG. 3, FIG. 9, and [0057]-[0059] of Kulakowski with respect to the client using the obtained code, sequencer data, and keys to decrypt the encrypted data via the correct functions and/or algorithms (and in the order specified).
wherein the first apparatus is a first personal computer or a first mobile terminal, and the second apparatus is a second personal computer, or a second mobile terminal, and wherein the first apparatus and the second apparatus are distinct devices.
Refer to at least FIG. 1 and [0029] of Kulakowski with respect to example devices (e.g., general purpose computer; special purpose computer such as a laptop or mobile telephone).
Kulakowski does not specify: the first apparatus being configured as both a transmitting apparatus and a receiving apparatus; the second apparatus being configured as both a transmitting apparatus and a receiving apparatus. However, Kulakowski in view of Schier discloses: the first apparatus being configured as both a transmitting apparatus and a receiving apparatus; the second apparatus being configured as both a transmitting apparatus and a receiving apparatus.
Refer to at least FIG. 1 and Col. 2, Ll. 64-Col. 3, Ll. 10 of Schier with respect to devices 14 and 16 each being operable as a sending or receiving device. As per at least Col. 1, Ll. 45-Col. 2, Ll. 14 of Schier, its encryption/decryption likewise comprises selectable schemes.
The teachings of Kulakowski relate to data security and encrypting and decrypting data transmitted between devices (e.g., [0003] of Kulakowski) in either direction (e.g., [0026] of Kulakowski). The teachings of Schier relate to improving electronic communications via encryption and decryption (e.g., Col. 1, Ll. 5-8 and Col. 10, Ll. 24-34 of Schier). Both Kulakowski and Schier concern protecting electronic messages with selectable encryption schemes, and are considered to be within the same field of endeavor and combinable as such.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Kulakowski to further allow both the client and server to function in a sender or receiver role because design incentives or market forces provided a reason to make an adaptation (e.g., allowing a user to edit and send back protected content; encrypted collaboration), and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner (substituting between sender and receiver functionality at a general computing device as per the cited portions of Schier).
Regarding claim 2, Kulakowski-Schier discloses: The method according claim 1, wherein the step of automatically selecting an encryption technique from the at least one thousand different encryption techniques is dependent on a random event and/or a pseudo random event.
Refer to at least [0096] of Kulakowski with respect to activation of code pieces at random times.
Alternatively refer to at least [0050] of Kulakowski with respect to self-modifying sequencer code that depends on the output of selected functions. Since the output of certain encryption functions may function as random output (e.g., AES), this can also be a random / pseudorandom event as claimed.
Regarding claim 3, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1 above (i.e., the sequencer data—e.g., FIG. 7A-7C of Kulakowski).
Regarding claim 5, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1 above (i.e., performing the data protection process multiple times; performing the process for different clients as per FIG. 7A-C of Kulakowski).
Regarding claim 6, Kulakowski-Schier discloses: The method according to claim 1, wherein the first decryption program is compiled into an executable program prior to being transmitted.
Refer to at least [0104]-[0110] and [0137]-[0149] of Kulakowski with respect to designing and building the client software for provision to the clients.
Regarding claim 7, Kulakowski-Schier discloses: The method according to claim 1, wherein the custom encryption technique is generated using an encryption technique generating program.
Refer to at least FIG. 4-5, [0035], and [0051]-[0056] of Kulakowski with respect to decomposing, combining, and recombining encryption functions and/or algorithms.
Regarding claim 8, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 9, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1 above (i.e., citations concerning downloading the client code).
Regarding independent claim 11, itis substantially similar to independent claim 1 above, and is therefore likewise rejected.
Regarding claim 13, it is substantially similar to claim 5 above, and is therefore likewise rejected.
Regarding claim 14, it is substantially similar to claim 8 above, and is therefore likewise rejected.
Regarding claim 15, it is substantially similar to claim 6 above, and is therefore likewise rejected.
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kulakowski-Schier as applied to claims 1-3, 5-9, 11, and 13-15 above, and further in view of Barron (US 2001/0042124 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Kulakowski-Schier does not disclose: wherein the method further comprises transmitting instructions that signals to the second apparatus that the transmission has finished, the instructions being such that at the second apparatus the first decryption program is deleted. However, Kulakowski-Schier in view of Barron discloses: wherein the method further comprises transmitting instructions that signals to the second apparatus that the transmission has finished, the instructions being such that at the second apparatus the first decryption program is deleted.
Refer to at least [0055] of Barron, wherein the applet deletes itself upon completion of data transfer and decryption.
The teachings of Kulakowski-Schier and Barron concern encrypting data for transmission and its subsequent decryption at a receiver. Accordingly, they are considered to be within the same field of endeavor and combinable as such.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Kulakowski-Schier to further include deleting the client code for at least the purpose of increasing security (i.e., preventing abuse in the case of breach) and efficiency (i.e., reducing an amount of data which is required to be permanently stored).
Regarding claim 12, it is substantially similar to claim 10 above, and is therefore likewise rejected.
Conclusion
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 VADIM SAVENKOV whose telephone number is (571)270-5751. The examiner can normally be reached 12PM-8PM.
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, Jeffrey L Nickerson can be reached at (469) 295-9235. 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.
/V.S/Examiner, Art Unit 2432
/SYED A ZAIDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432