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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is responsive to amendment filed on September 23, 2025 where Applicant amended the claims. Claims 32-43 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 9/23/25, with respect to the claims have been fully considered.
Previous 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant argues that Hars does not teach “subsequent security transaction”
In reply, Applicant is reminded that the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation. In this case, the claimed security transaction is a broad term and encompasses any type of action which involves or is related to network and communication security. Hars satisfies this broad limitation since Hars teaches encrypting subsequent segments of a message and transmitting the encrypted message. The claims fails to give functional details that would distinguish the claim from the prior art.
Applicant argues that Hars does not teach “where input states are received and combined with stored output states from previous packet processing operations”
In reply, Firstly, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the above-mentioned quote) are not recited in the rejected claims. The claims seem to be missing elements and features which would explicitly perform the quoted function. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Secondly, Hars teaches combining subsequent cipher blocks with previous cipher blocks, which satisfies the broadly worder claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 32,35,36,39,40,43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hars (US Publication 20170104581).
In reference to claim 32, Hars teaches a method, comprising:
generating, by a computing device, output states based on permutations of input states relating to a message; (see at least ¶ 32, which teaches a mode of attack resistant encryption based on permutation of inputs to generate outputs)
generating ciphertext data blocks based on packets associated with the message; (see at least ¶s 34-38, which teach generating ciphertext based on data associated with a message) and
communicating the ciphertext data blocks and receiving a next input state associated with a subsequent security transaction (see at least ¶ 34, which teaches obtaining and storing ciphertext, and receiving an incremented input for subsequent segments).
In reference to claim 35, this is taught by Hars, see at least ¶s 44,46,48, which teaches processing circuitry coupled to memory.
Claims 36,39,40,43 are slight variations of the rejected claims 32,35 above, and are therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
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.
Claims 33,34,37,38,41,42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hars (US Publication 20170104581) in view of Saarinen et al (US Publication 20220138349).
In reference to claim 33, this is taught by Hars, see at least ¶s 21,22,34, which teach generating the ciphertext from plaintext segment of the message, and implementing the encryption with a nonce value. Hars fails to explicitly teach the subsequent security transaction includes generating a next value/nonce and a next permutation output state. However, Saarinen teaches implementing cryptographic permutations in an attack-resistant environment, and discloses subsequent operations including generated register data value, and outputting updated permutation state (see Saarinen, at least Abstract and ¶s 40-41). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hars based on the teachings of Saarinen for the purpose of improving encryption operations to be resistant to side channel attacks.
In reference to claim 34, this is taught by Saarinen, see at least ¶ 46 and ¶ 88 lines 1-6&17-22, which teach the cryptographic permutation operations are based on authenticated encryption. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Hars in view of Saarinen based on the motivation given in claim 33 above.
Claims 37,38,41,42 are slight variations of the rejected claims 33-34 above, and are therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
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.
For any subsequent response that contains new/amended claims, Applicant is required to cite its corresponding support in the specification. (See MPEP chapter 2163.03 section (I.) and chapter 2163.04 section (I.) and chapter 2163.06) Applicant may not introduce any new matter to the claims or to the specification.
In formulating a response/amendment, Applicant is encouraged to take into consideration the prior art made of record but not relied upon, as it is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See previous Forms 892.
Contact & Status
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMY M OSMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4008. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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.
/Ramy M Osman/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
October 6, 2025
Prosecution Insights