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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 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, and 5-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Autry et al (20230045486) in views of Doherty et al (2022/0255732), Zhou et al (2022/0078138) and Osmond et al (2021/0263768).
For claim 1, Autry teaches a method for sending a secure encrypted message from a first computing device to a second computing device (abstract), the method comprising: obtaining, by the first computing device, an asymmetric public key of a public key/private key pair associated with a message recipient (the examiner notes that the first device includes private-public key pairs that is used in the process of establishing an encrypted communication link of delivering messages to the second device as Autry discloses in para.43, also see par.38, and par.42); encrypting, by the first computing device, the encryption (the system share an encryption key such that encrypting and decrypting the messages, as appropriate, using an encryption key which is shared by two of the assets as Autry discloses in par.155) using the public key of the message recipient in an encryption operation using NTRU (the examiner notes that the first device which includes a public key (asymmetric key), the public key is a lattice based asymmetric public key, specifically an NTRU key as Autry discloses in par.195 and 196) (nth degree truncated polynomial ring) encryption protocol (par.43 and par.195); sending, by the first computing device, the encrypted payload data and the encrypted symmetric encryption key to the second device (the examiner notes that the first device sends the encryption data using symmetric encryption key the first-and-second-device-specific key before sending the data to the second device for establishing the encrypted communication link as Autry discloses in par.41 and par.42); receiving, by the second computing device, the encrypted payload data and the encrypted symmetric key (the examiner notes the second device receives the encryption payload messages data that the first device has sent it using a key which is specific to the communication only between those devices as Autry discloses in par.38); decrypting, by the second computing device, the encrypted symmetric key (second device may use the second-device private/public key in decrypting first-device-authentication-information which the encryption data using symmetric encryption key) using a private key of the public key/private key pair associated with the message (the decryption messages which is includes public key/private key pair) recipient to recover the symmetric encryption key (as Autry discloses par.38 and par.43) and wherein the first computing device is a client device and the second computing device is a server device (as Autry discloses that the first device and/or the second device and/or third device may be any electronic devices, they may be wireless devices, they may be routers and/or servers, so one of the device can be client device and the other the device can be server as Autry discloses in par.49).
Autry fails to teach encrypting unencrypting data and a symmetric encryption key using a hybrid encryption process utilizing combined symmetric and asymmetric operations encrypting, by the first computing device, the unencrypted data to generate encrypted data using the symmetric encryption key in a symmetric encryption operation, encrypting, by the first computing device, the symmetric encryption using the asymmetric public key of the message recipient in an asymmetric encryption operation and decrypting, by the second computing device, the encrypted data using the symmetric key to recover the unencrypted data, the client device is configured to execute libraries for relieving memory storage on the server device.
Doherty teaches, similar encryption messages, encrypting unencrypting data and a symmetric encryption key using a hybrid encryption process utilizing combined symmetric and asymmetric operations (examiner notes that Doherty using to encrypt the unencrypting data and a symmetric encryption key with both symmetric and asymmetric process as Doherty teaches in par.73), encrypting, by the first computing device, the unencrypted data to generate encrypted data using the symmetric encryption key in a symmetric encryption operation (the examiner notes that encryption process functionally receives some plaintext unencrypted data as input which transform into encryption algorithm and outputs encrypted data and the symmetric encryption algorithms rely on key to both encrypt and decrypt data as Doherty teaches in par.61, par.73 and par.84), encrypting, by the first computing device, the symmetric encryption using the asymmetric public key of the message recipient in an asymmetric encryption operation (Doherty teaches that the ECM systems and methods of the present disclosure can support and utilize other symmetric encryption algorithms as the final symmetric key is derived from asymmetric keys external to the system, i.e., by a client on client hardware such that the ECM systems and methods can support and utilize other symmetric encryption algorithms as the final symmetric key is derived from asymmetric keys external to the system, i.e., by a client on client hardware as Doherty teaches in par.59) and decrypting, by the second device, the encrypted data using the symmetric key to recover the unencrypted data (the system can decrypt the messeges to recover the unencrypted data that is communicated back to the application module for output/display by the application module) (par.64 and 80). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before effective filling date to modify Autry to include unencrypted data to generate encrypted data as taught and suggest by Doherty for purpose of enabling external processes to encrypt data and allow future recovery of the encrypted data by some entity or entities in a secure manner and to protect the integrity of the data encryption processes utilized (Doherty, par.58).
Zhou teaches, similar system, encrypting, by the first computing device, the symmetric encryption using the asymmetric public key of the message recipient in an asymmetric encryption operation (Zhou teaches that to generate a symmetric encryption key for use in encrypting and decrypting the one or more subsequent remote access request frames, to encrypt the symmetric encryption key using the public encryption key in the asymmetric ciphering scheme as Zhou teaches in par.9 and 45). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before effective filling date to modify Autry to include encrypting, by the first computing device, the symmetric encryption using the asymmetric public key as taught and suggest by Zhou for purpose of authenticating the host device using an asymmetric ciphering scheme and to decrypt one or more subsequent remote access request frames using a symmetric ciphering scheme (Zhou, par.9).
Osmond teaches, similar system, the client device is configured to execute libraries for relieving memory storage on the server device (Osmond teaches that web browser instance on a client device obtains data from a server, and executes first library routines to store the data in local storage at the client device, meaning that the client device will relieve data storage on the server by obtaining data from the server as Osmand teaches in abstract, [0017]). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before effective filling date to modify Autry to include execute libraries for relieving memory storage on the server device as taught and suggest by Osmond for purpose of managing the frequency of database calls (data throttling), and queuing data for processing, among others and to run entirely in a runtime processing environment of the web browser (Osmond, par.17).
For claim 5, Autry, as modified by Doherty, Zhou and Osmond, fails to teach capturing user input on the first computing device and using the user input as the unencrypted data.
Doherty further teaches capturing user input on the first computing device and using the user input as the unencrypted data (Doherty teaches in par..58 and par.73). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before effective filling date to modify Autry to include unencrypted data as taught and suggest by Doherty for purpose of enabling external processes to encrypt data and allow future recovery of the encrypted data by some entity or entities in a secure manner and to protect the integrity of the data encryption processes utilized (Doherty, par.58).
For claim 6, Autry, as modified by Doherty, Zhou and Osmond, further teaches generating the private key-public key pair for the second computing device (Autry teaches in par.43).
For claim 7, Autry, as modified by Doherty, Zhou and Osmond, fails to teach wherein the symmetric encryption operation utilizes AES256-GCM encryption protocol.
Doherty further teaches wherein the symmetric encryption operation utilizes AES256-GCM encryption protocol (Doherty teaches in par..60). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before effective filling date to modify Autry to include symmetric encryption operation utilizes AES256-GCM encryption protocol as taught and suggest by Doherty for purpose of performing over sequential blocks because each block depends on a predecessor IV, resulting in the need to store the first IV together with the control vector for decryption operations to succeed (Doherty, par.60).
For claim 8, Autry, as modified by Doherty, Zhou and Osmond, fails to teach encrypting at least a portion of the unencrypted data using a public key of the public key/private key pair associated with the message recipient to generate an electronic signature of the encrypted data for authentication.
Doherty further teaches encrypting at least a portion of the unencrypted payload data using a public key of the public key/private key pair associated with the message recipient to generate an electronic signature of the encrypted payload data for authentication (Doherty teaches in par..58 and par.73). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before effective filling date to modify Autry to include unencrypted data as taught and suggest by Doherty for purpose of enabling external processes to encrypt data and allow future recovery of the encrypted data by some entity or entities in a secure manner and to protect the integrity of the data encryption processes utilized (Doherty, par.58).
For claim 9, Autry, as modified by Doherty, Zhou and Osmond, fails to teach wherein encrypting, by the first device, the symmetric encryption key using the public key of the message recipient in an asymmetric encryption operation further comprises encrypting an initiation vector (IV) used in connection with the symmetric encryption key.
Doherty further teaches wherein encrypting, by the first device, the symmetric encryption key using the public key of the message recipient in an asymmetric encryption operation further comprises encrypting an initiation vector (IV) used in connection with the symmetric encryption key (Doherty teaches in par..60 and par.73). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before effective filling date to modify Autry to include an initiation vector (IV) as taught and suggest by Doherty for purpose of performing over sequential blocks because each block depends on a predecessor IV, resulting in the need to store the first IV together with the control vector for decryption operations to succeed (Doherty, par.60).
For claim 10, Autry, as modified by Doherty, Zhou and Osmond, further teaches wherein the encrypted payload data and the encrypted symmetric encryption key are sent to the second computing device separately (Autry teaches in par.38 and 43).
For claim 11, Autry, as modified by Doherty, Zhou and Osmond, further teaches repeating the encrypting and decrypting multiple sets of payload data, and combining, by the second computing device, the multiple sets of payload data after decryption into a single message (Autry teaches in par.38, and par.43 and par.200).
For claim 12, Autry, as modified by Doherty, Zhou and Osmond, fails to teach wherein the symmetric encryption operation and asymmetric encryption operation are calls to a JavaScript library.
Doherty further teaches wherein the symmetric encryption operation and asymmetric encryption operation are calls to a JavaScript library (Doherty teaches in par..122). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before effective filling date to modify Autry to include JavaScript library as taught and suggest by Doherty for purpose of performing to execute one or more particular functions embodied in computer programs (Doherty, par.120).
Claim(s) 2-4 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Autry et al (20230045486) in views of Doherty et al (2022/0255732), Zhou et al (2022/0078138) and Osmond et al (2021/0263768) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Nonaka et al (2011/0033046).
For claim 2, Autry, as modified by Doherty, Zhou and Osmond, teaches all the limitation as previously set forth except for wherein the NTRU encryption protocol is modified to add a random constant number to all generated random bytes.
Nonaka teaches, similar encryption, for wherein the NTRU encryption protocol is modified to add a random constant number to all generated random bytes (Nonaka teaches in par.79 and par.82). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before effective filling date to modify Autry, as modified by Doherty, Zhou and Osmond, to include constant number to all generated random bytes as taught and suggest by Nonaka for purpose of preventing plaintext data from leaking even if accumulated data is analyzed, while preventing the size of encrypted data from increasing (Nonaka, abstract).
For claim 3, Autry, as modified by Doherty, Zhou and Osmond, teaches all the limitation as previously set forth except for wherein the NTRU encryption protocol is modified to have a different key size from the default size.
Nonaka further teaches for wherein the NTRU encryption protocol is modified to have a different key size from the default size (Nonaka teaches in par.80). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before effective filling date to modify Autry, as modified by Doherty, Zhou and Osmond, to include a different key size as taught and suggest by Nonaka for purpose of preventing plaintext data from leaking even if accumulated data is analyzed, while preventing the size of encrypted data from increasing (Nonaka, abstract).
For claim 4, Autry, as modified by Doherty, Zhou and Osmond, teaches all the limitation as previously set forth except for wherein the NTRU encryption protocol is implemented with an EES743EP1 parameter set for key size.
Nonaka further teaches wherein the NTRU encryption protocol is implemented with an EES743EP1 parameter set for key size (Nonaka teaches in par.80). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before effective filling date to modify Autry, as modified by Doherty, Zhou and Osmond, to include a different key size as taught and suggest by Nonaka for purpose of preventing plaintext data from leaking even if accumulated data is analyzed, while preventing the size of encrypted data from increasing (Nonaka, abstract).
For claim 13, Autry, as modified by Doherty, Zhou and Osmond, teaches all the limitation as previously set forth except for the NTRU (nth degree truncated polynomial ring) encryption protocol modified by adding a random constant to all generated random bytes, where the random constant is generated with each invocation of a random bytes generator.
Nonaka teaches, similar encryption, the NTRU (nth degree truncated polynomial ring) encryption protocol modified by adding a random constant to all generated random bytes, where the random constant is generated with each invocation of a random bytes generator (Nonaka teaches in par.79 and par.82). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before effective filling date to modify Autry, as modified by Doherty, Zhou and Osmond, to include constant number to all generated random bytes as taught and suggest by Nonaka for purpose of preventing plaintext data from leaking even if accumulated data is analyzed, while preventing the size of encrypted data from increasing (Nonaka, abstract).
For claim 14, Autry, as modified by Doherty, Zhou and Osmond, teaches all the limitation as previously set forth except for wherein the asymmetric encryption operation utilizes the NTRU (nth degree truncated polynomial ring) encryption protocol modified by increasing the sizes of the public key and private key.
Nonaka further teaches wherein the asymmetric encryption operation utilizes the NTRU (nth degree truncated polynomial ring) encryption protocol modified by increasing the sizes of the public key and private key (Nonaka teaches in par.36, 68 and 72). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before effective filling date to modify Autry, as modified by Doherty, Zhou and Osmond, to include increasing the sizes as taught and suggest by Doherty for purpose of preventing plaintext data from leaking even if accumulated data is analyzed (Nonaka, abstract).
Claim(s) 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Autry et al (20230045486) in views of Doherty et al (2022/0255732), Zhou et al (2022/0078138) and Osmond et al (2021/0263768) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Hooda et al (2020/0177629).
For claim 15, Autry, as modified by Doherty, Zhou and Osmond, teaches all the limitation as previously set forth except for wherein the JavaScript library is packaged in a docker container.
Hooda teaches, similar encryption, wherein the JavaScript library is packaged in a docker container (Hooda teaches in par.98 and par.101). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before effective filling date to modify Autry, as modified by Doherty, Zhou and Osmond, to include JavaScript library is packaged in a docker container as taught and suggest by Hooda for purpose of centralizing the intelligence of the network and provide for more network automation, operations simplification, and centralized provisioning, monitoring, and troubleshooting (Hooda, par.5).
For claim 16, Autry, as modified by Doherty, Zhou and Osmond, teaches all the limitation as previously set forth except for wherein instructions within the docker container instruct the first computing device to install Linux in a virtual environment and compile source code of the asymmetric encryption operation into JavaScript.
Hooda further teaches wherein instructions within the docker container instruct the first computing device to install Linux in a virtual environment and compile source code of the asymmetric encryption operation into JavaScript (Hooda par.98 to par.101). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before effective filling date to modify Autry, as modified by Doherty, Zhou and Osmond, to include JavaScript library is packaged in a docker container as taught and suggest by Hooda for purpose of centralizing the intelligence of the network and provide for more network automation, operations simplification, and centralized provisioning, monitoring, and troubleshooting (Hooda, par.5).
For claim 17, Autry, as modified by Doherty, Zhou and Osmond, teaches all the limitation as previously set forth except for wherein the JavaScript library is stored into a shared file directory that is shared between the docker container and the host system of the first computing device.
Hooda further teaches wherein the JavaScript library is stored into a shared file directory that is shared between the docker container and the host system of the first computing device (Hooda par.98 to par.101). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before effective filling date to modify Autry, as modified by Doherty, Zhou and Osmond, to include JavaScript library is packaged in a docker container as taught and suggest by Hooda for purpose of centralizing the intelligence of the network and provide for more network automation, operations simplification, and centralized provisioning, monitoring, and troubleshooting (Hooda, par.5).
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claim limitations of claim(s) 1-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection and does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
With respect to the rest of applicant’s arguments:
Applicant's arguments on pages 1 and 2 of the remarks that the claimed features “encrypting unencrypted payload data and a symmetric encryption key using a hybrid encryption process utilizing combined symmetric and asymmetric operations including: encrypting, by the first computing device, the unencrypted payload data to generate encrypted payload data using the symmetric encryption key in a symmetric encryption operation; and encrypting, by the first computing device, the symmetric encryption key using the asymmetric public key of the message recipient in an asymmetric encryption operation using NTRU (nth degree truncated polynomial ring) encryption protocol “ combination of Autry and Doherty fails to teach or suggest at least these features as claimed and Zhou does not add further teaching that makes up for the deficiencies. However, examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant because Autry teaches that the devices which may include one or more further devices of the communication system that may share an encryption key—e.g., a symmetric AES key—which they may use to encrypt some or all of the data communications between the devices such that a first-and-second-device-specific key (which may be a symmetric key, such as an AES key). However, Autry fails to teach encrypting, by the first computing device, the symmetric encryption key using the asymmetric public key of the message recipient in an asymmetric encryption operation. So, the secondary reference, Doherty, teaches that an asymmetric key pair for a user, including a user private key and a user public key that includes generating, with the client module, a symmetric encryption key for the user, the symmetric encryption key being generated based on unique information known to the user by The encryption process functionally receives some plaintext which is unencrypted data, as input, applies a transform (encryption algorithm), and outputs ciphertext (encrypted) data using a content symmetric key in order to ensure secure data encryption across all three states of data. The Zhou reference teaches that generating a symmetric encryption key for use in encrypting and decrypting the one or more subsequent remote access request frames, encrypting the symmetric encryption key using the public encryption key in the asymmetric ciphering scheme. Therefore, the combination of Autry with Doherty and Zhou meets the claim limitation.
Applicant argues in page 3 of remarks that Zhou is not teaching or suggesting here the claimed "encrypting, by the first computing device, the symmetric encryption key using the asymmetric public key of the message recipient in an asymmetric encryption operation using NTRU (nth degree truncated polynomial ring) encryption protocol." That is, Zhou is using the host device key, not the asymmetric public key of the message recipient to encrypt. Moreover, cited paragraph [0045] fails to teach or suggest this claimed feature. However, examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant because Zhou teaches that remote management circuitry is configured to extract a public encryption key of the host device from the remote access request frame, to generate a symmetric encryption key for use in encrypting and decrypting the one or more subsequent remote access request frames, to encrypt the symmetric encryption key using the public encryption key in the asymmetric ciphering scheme, meaning that Zhou’s system using encrypting the symmetric encryption key using asymmetric of the public encryption key in the asymmetric ciphering scheme or operation. Therefore, Zhou’s system meets the claim limitation.
The applicant’s arguments regarding the amendment limitation in claim 1 has been considered but is moot, because the examiner applied new art, Osmond et al (2021/0263768), that covers claimed limitation.
Regarding dependent claims arguments, said arguments are moot because the applied references are not considered to have alleged differences, and therefore are considered to properly show that for which they were cited.
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 AYUB A MAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-5037. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, SHEWAYE GELAGAY can be reached at 571-272-4219. 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.
/AYUB A MAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2436 /SHEWAYE GELAGAY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2436
Prosecution Insights