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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following limitations:
Outputs the data encrypted by the information processing apparatus through a communication network.
Transmits the data encrypted by the information processing apparatus to another information processing apparatus through a communication network
The information processing apparatus receives the encrypted data and decrypts the received encrypted data using the obfuscated cryptographic key
The information processing apparatus receives the encrypted data from another information processing apparatus and decrypts the received encrypted data using the obfuscated cryptographic key
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Wherein the information processing apparatus encrypts data or decrypts encrypted data, using the obfuscated cryptographic key
Outputs the data encrypted by the information processing apparatus through a communication network.
Transmits the data encrypted by the information processing apparatus to another information processing apparatus through a communication network
The information processing apparatus receives the encrypted data and decrypts the received encrypted data using the obfuscated cryptographic key
The information processing apparatus receives the encrypted data from another information processing apparatus and decrypts the received encrypted data using the obfuscated cryptographic key
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.
Claim 5 is 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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. The claim recites “wherein the information processing apparatus encrypts data or decrypts encrypted data, using the obfuscated cryptographic key”. This limitation is unclear because it merely states a function without providing any indication about how the function is performed. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, i.e., the processor, so it is also unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the system in a certain manner.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites the limitation of “Outputs the data encrypted by the information processing apparatus through a communication network”. This limitation is not disclosed in the disclosure of the application. In view of the specification, paragraphs 4 and 12, does not disclose outputting encrypted data through a communication network.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites the limitation of “Transmits the data encrypted by the information processing apparatus to another information processing apparatus through a communication network”. This limitation is not disclosed in the disclosure of the application. In view of the specification, paragraphs 4 and 12, does not disclose transmitting encrypted data through a communication network to another information processing apparatus.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites the limitation of “The information processing apparatus receives the encrypted data and decrypts the received encrypted data using the obfuscated cryptographic key”. This limitation is not disclosed in the disclosure of the application. In view of the specification, paragraphs 4 and 12, does not disclose receiving the encrypted data and decrypting the received encrypted data.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites the limitation of “The information processing apparatus receives the encrypted data from another information processing apparatus and decrypts the received encrypted data using the obfuscated cryptographic key”. This limitation is not disclosed in the disclosure of the application. In view of the specification, paragraphs 4 and 12, does not disclose receiving the encrypted data from another information processing apparatus and decrypting the received encrypted data.
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.
Claims 1, and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under the Alice Framework Step 1, Claims 1, and 3-4 recite a method and, therefore, is a process. Claim 5 recites a apparatus and, therefore, is a machine. Claim 6 recites a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium and, therefore, is an article of manufacture.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 5 recites
An information processing apparatus comprising a processor configured to calculate a reciprocal in multiplication on a residue field modulo a power of 2 to obfuscate a cryptographic key,
wherein, when a value b is a reciprocal of a value a, and the value a and the value b are odd numbers, the calculating of the reciprocal includes:
multiplying the value a by 2 to update the value a; and
selecting whether the updated value a is added, wherein the value b is a bit sequence, a bit of the bit sequence being set to 1 when the updated value a is added and being set to 0 when the updated value a is not added,
wherein the information processing apparatus encrypts data or decrypts encrypted data, using the obfuscated cryptographic key
The above underlined limitations are related to calculating a reciprocal for multiplication within a modulo of a power of 2 to be used as a cryptographic key which amount to mathematical calculations and relationships that falls within the “mathematical groupings” of abstract ideas (see paragraphs 4, 21-26, 28-38, and 40-46). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, the claim recites the following additional element: “a processor” and “wherein the information processing apparatus encrypts data or decrypts encrypted data, using the obfuscated cryptographic key“. However, the additional element of “a processor” and “the information processing apparatus encrypts data or decrypts encrypted data” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for calculating data; and as merely applying the key for encryption) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. “encrypts data or decrypts encrypted data, using the obfuscated cryptographic key” is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activities. The additional elements do not, individually or in combination, integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim is not integrated into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that individually or in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “a processor” and “the information processing apparatus encrypts data or decrypts encrypted data” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for calculating data; and as merely applying the key for encryption) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. “encrypts data or decrypts encrypted data, using the obfuscated cryptographic key” is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activities. Further, the insignificant extra-solution activity of “encrypts data or decrypts encrypted data, using the obfuscated cryptographic key” is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See Wyseur (NPL: “White-Box Cryptography: hiding keys in software”), see at least Section 3 on page 6, discloses that white-box techniques uses a secret key that is protected for encryption/decryption operations. See Gu et al. (NPL: “White-Box Cryptography: Practical Protection on Hostile Hosts”), see at least section 2.2, discloses the use of an obfuscated dynamic key as part of the encryption/decryption operations. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 1 and 6 are directed to claim 5. A mere change in statutory class is obvious. As such, claims 1 and 6 are rejected for the reasons given in claim 5.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, Claims 3 and 4 recite further steps and details calculating a reciprocal for multiplication within a modulo of a power of 2 to be used as a cryptographic key which amount to mathematical calculations and relationships that falls within the “mathematical Concepts” and/or “mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
For claim 3, is directed to calculating the reciprocal using a plurality of arrays for each of the values. In particular claim 3 does not include additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
For claim 4, is directed to calculating the reciprocal in an standard of a white-box cryptography. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, claim 4 recites the following additional element: “an advanced encryption standard (AES) of the white-box Cryptography”. However, the additional element of “an advanced encryption standard (AES) of the white-box Cryptography” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for processing data under a standard) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. The additional elements do not, individually or in combination, integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim are not integrated into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2B, claim 4 does not include additional elements that individually or in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “an advanced encryption standard (AES) of the white-box Cryptography” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for processing data under a standard) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks page 5, filed 03/31/2026, with respect to 35 USC 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendment. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of 35 USC 112(b), 35 USC 112(a) and 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Kenny K. Bui whose telephone number is (571)270-0604. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am to 3:00 pm on Monday, 8:00 am to 4:00 pm on Tuesday to Friday 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, Andrew T Caldwell can be reached at (571)272-3702. 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.
/KENNY K. BUI/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2182 (571)270-0604
/ANDREW CALDWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2182
Prosecution Insights