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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 09 June 2026 cancels claim 8. Applicant’s amendment has been fully considered and entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on page 5 of the response, “Applicant respectfully disagrees, but in the interest of expediting prosecution, claim 8 has been cancelled…Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) be withdrawn.” This argument has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the previous §112(b) rejection of claim 8 has been withdrawn.
Applicant argues on page 7 of the response, “In claim 1, the electronic device’s secret key, used in the signing operation, is defined as being based on the first mathematical problem, and the public key being signed is defined as being based on the second mathematical problem, with the two being different types.” In response, claim 1 is directed to the structure and functional requirements of the electronic device. The claim requires that the electronic device store a public/private key pair generated based on a first mathematical problem. Edwards discloses this limitation by specifying that the certificate authority generates a public/private key pair ([0038: first entity corresponds with the certificate authority in paragraph [0052] since the first entity is generating the certificate) and that this key generation can be implemented using conventional elliptic curve cryptosystems or lattice-based cryptosystems (i.e. Dilithum) ([0020]). The elliptic curve cryptosystems use mathematical properties of elliptic curves to produce public key cryptosystems while the lattice-based cryptosystems are configured to preserve robustness of its security model in the presence of quantum computers ([0020]), Therefore, for the purposes of rejected claim 1, either could read on the claimed first mathematical problem.
Claim 1 additionally requires the claimed electronic device to “obtain” a public key from a separate device claimed as the “other electronic device”, and for the claimed electronic device to generate an electronic signature for the obtained public key of the other electronic device. Therefore, the functional requirements of the claimed electronic device include the obtaining of this public key, and the generation of a signature for the obtained public key. The claims do not require the claimed electronic device to generate this public key in any manner. Edwards discloses these limitations by disclosing that the certificate authority receives a certificate request from a second device that includes the public key of the second device ([0038] & [0052]: second device reads on the claimed other electronic device) and that the certificate authority digital signs the public key of the second device using the private key of the certificate authority ([0038] & [0052]).
Claim 1 specifies in the obtaining step that the obtained public key is “generated based on a second mathematical problem”, however, the claim does not require the generation of this public key by the claimed “electronic device”. Therefore, how this public key is generated is not a functional requirement of the claimed “electronic device”. Patentable weight is given to claim limitations that define structure and claim limitations that require functional steps to be performed (See MPEP 2111.04-2111.05).
Despite this, Examiner proposed in the rejection that the certificate authority of Edwards (corresponding to the claimed electronic device) and the second device of Edwards (corresponding to the claimed other electronic device) could be implementing different cryptosystems and would therefore generate their respective key pairs using those different cryptosystems. As such, the public key received by the certificate authority in Edwards would have been generated utilizing a different cryptosystem than the cryptosystem implemented by the certificate authority to generate its’ own key pair.
Applicant argues on page 7 of the response, “Read in this way, claim 1 describes a cross-cryptosystem signing architecture in which the mathematical problem bases of the certifying entity and the certified entity are structurally different by design, not merely selected from a pool of interchangeable options.” In response, as stated above, the limitations do not include any functional steps specific to the second mathematical problem. In other words, while the claim specifies that the public key “generated based on a second mathematical problem” is obtained by the claimed electronic device, the claim never require the electronic device to actually generated the public key based on the second mathematical problem. Therefore, the public key obtained by the electronic device could have been generated in any manner since the manner of generation has no bearing on the reception of that key.
Applicant argues on page 7 of the response, “However, the paragraph does not provide any teaching that the certificate authority…and the second device…each adopt different cryptosystems within the same certification relationship.” In response, the claims do not currently require such features to be present in Edwards. As detailed above, the only limitation specific to the claimed “second mathematical problem” is that that the public key obtained by the electronic device was “generated based on the second mathematical problem”. However, the claim does include any functional steps requiring the actual generation of this key. The claim simply requires that this key is “obtained” and that an electronic signature for this key is “generated”.
Applicant argues on page 8 of the response, “This is a single-entity dual-signing scheme, not a scheme in which two different entities each operate under a different mathematical problem base…contain no indication that different cryptosystems are used by different entities.” In response, Applicant has failed address the proposed modification as presented in the Non-Final dated 09 March 2026 (“Non-Final”). Specifically, page 7 of the Non-Final suggests that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the certificate authority and the second device of Edwards to have implemented different cryptosystems because such an embodiment represents one of a finite number of possible embodiments that could have been implemented by one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success.
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 1-8, 10, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards, U.S. Publication No. 2022/0385481. Referring to claim 1, Edwards discloses a certificate authority ([0052]: certificate authority reads on the claimed electronic device) that includes a network interface (Figure 6, 630), memory (Figure 6, 624 or 628), and a processor (Figure 6, 622), which meets the limitation of an electronic device comprising a communication device configured to communicate data, a memory configured to store, and a processor configured to control the electronic device to perform operations by executing the program. The certificate authority generates a public/private key pair ([0038: first entity corresponds with the certificate authority in paragraph [0052] since the first entity is generating the certificate), which meets the limitation of memory configured to store a public key and a secret key generated [based on a first mathematical problem]. The certificate authority receives a certificate request from a second device that includes the public key of the second device ([0038] & [0052]: second device reads on the claimed other electronic device), which meets the limitation of obtaining a public key for cryptographic operations of the other electronic device, the public key of the other electronic device generated [based on a second mathematical problem]. The certificate authority digital signs the public key of the second device using the private key of the certificate authority ([0038] & [0052]), which meets the limitation of generating an electronic signature for the public key of the other electronic device by encryption operation using the secret key of the electronic device [based on the first mathematical problem]. The certificate authority generates a digital signature that includes the public key of the second device and the generated digital signature ([0038] & [0052]), which meets the limitation of generating a public key certificate for verifying the validity of the public key of the other electronic device, which includes the public key of the other electronic device and the generated electronic signature for the public key of the other electronic device.
Edwards discloses that the system can implement both convention elliptic curve cryptosystems and lattice-based cryptosystems (i.e. Dilithum) ([0020]), which meets the limitation of memory configured to store programs including a cryptographic program performing cryptographic operations using stored secret key and public key, based on a first mathematical problem, based on a second mathematical problem. The elliptic curve cryptosystems use mathematical properties of elliptic curves to produce public key cryptosystems while the lattice-based cryptosystems are configured to preserve robustness of its security model in the presence of quantum computers ([0020]), which meets the limitation of wherein the first mathematical problem and the second mathematical problem are different types of mathematical problems. While Edwards suggests that both cryptosystems can be used ([0020]), Edwards does not explicitly disclose that the certificate authority and the second device utilize different cryptosystems. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the certificate authority and the second device of Edwards to have implemented different cryptosystems because such an embodiment represents one of a finite number of possible embodiments that could have been implemented by one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to claim 2, Edwards discloses that the system can implement both convention elliptic curve cryptosystems and lattice-based cryptosystems (i.e. Dilithum) ([0020]), which meets the limitation of wherein the first mathematical problem has a difficulty safe against an attack based on a quantum computer and the second mathematical problem has a difficulty not safe against an attack based on a quantum computer.
Referring to claim 3, Edwards discloses that the system can implement both a Dilithum cryptosystem and a hybrid elliptic curve plus Dilithum cryptosystem ([0020]), which meets the limitation of wherein the first mathematical problem has a difficulty safe against an attack based on a quantum computer and the second mathematical problem has a difficulty safe against an attack based on a quantum computer.
Referring to claim 4, Edwards discloses that the system can implement lattice-based cryptosystems (i.e. Dilithum) ([0020]), which meets the limitation of wherein the first mathematical problem includes a lattice-based problem.
Referring to claim 5, Edwards discloses a second device that generates a public/private key pair ([0038]: the second device generates the key pair such that the public key is extracted from the generated key pair and transmits the public key to a certificate authority shows that the second device stores the key pair), which meets the limitation of a lower subject device, wherein the lower subject device is configured to store a public key generated [based on a second mathematical problem]. A certificate authority generates a public/private key pair ([0038: first entity corresponds with the certificate authority in paragraph [0052] since the first entity is generating the certificate; certificate authority reads on the claimed upper subject device), which meets the limitation of a upper subject device, wherein the upper subject device configured to store a public key and a secret key generated [based on a first mathematical problem]. The certificate authority receives a certificate request from a second device that includes the public key of the second device ([0038] & [0052]: second device reads on the claimed other electronic device), which meets the limitation of obtain the public key for the lower subject device. The certificate authority digital signs the public key of the second device using the private key of the certificate authority ([0038] & [0052]), which meets the limitation of generate an electronic signature for the public key of the lower subject device by encryption operation using the secret key of the upper subject device [based on the first mathematical problem]. The certificate authority generates a digital signature that includes the public key of the second device and the generated digital signature ([0038] & [0052]), which meets the limitation of generate a public key certificate for verifying the validity of the public key of the lower subject device, which includes the public key of the lower subject device and the generated electronic signature for the public key of the lower subject device.
Edwards discloses that the system can implement both convention elliptic curve cryptosystems and lattice-based cryptosystems (i.e. Dilithum) ([0020]), which meets the limitation of store a cryptographic program performing cryptographic operations using stored secret key and public key, based on a first mathematical problem, based on a second mathematical problem. The elliptic curve cryptosystems use mathematical properties of elliptic curves to produce public key cryptosystems while the lattice-based cryptosystems are configured to preserve robustness of its security model in the presence of quantum computers ([0020]), which meets the limitation of wherein the first mathematical problem and the second mathematical problem are different types of mathematical problems. While Edwards suggests that both cryptosystems can be used ([0020]), Edwards does not explicitly disclose that the certificate authority and the second device utilize different cryptosystems. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the certificate authority and the second device of Edwards to have implemented different cryptosystems because such an embodiment represents one of a finite number of possible embodiments that could have been implemented by one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to claim 6, Edwards discloses that the system can implement both convention elliptic curve cryptosystems and lattice-based cryptosystems (i.e. Dilithum) ([0020]), which meets the limitation of wherein the first mathematical problem has a difficulty safe against an attack based on a quantum computer and the second mathematical problem has a difficulty not safe against an attack based on a quantum computer.
Referring to claim 7, Edwards discloses that the system can implement both a Dilithum cryptosystem and a hybrid elliptic curve plus Dilithum cryptosystem ([0020]), which meets the limitation of wherein the first mathematical problem has a difficulty safe against an attack based on a quantum computer and the second mathematical problem has a difficulty safe against an attack based on a quantum computer.
Referring to claim 8, Edwards discloses that the system can implement both convention elliptic curve cryptosystems and lattice-based cryptosystems (i.e. Dilithum) ([0020]), which meets the limitation of wherein the lower subject cryptographic program of the lower subject device is a program included in the third group.
Referring to claim 10, Edwards discloses that the system can implement both a Dilithum cryptosystem and a hybrid elliptic curve plus Dilithum cryptosystem where Dilithum is a lattice-based cryptosystem ([0020]), which meets the limitation of wherein each of the first and second mathematical problems include a lattice-based problem.
Referring to claim 11, Edwards discloses that the system can implement both a Dilithum cryptosystem and a hybrid elliptic curve plus Dilithum cryptosystem where Dilithum is a lattice-based cryptosystem ([0020]), which meets the limitation of wherein each of the first and second mathematical problems include a lattice-based problem.
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 BENJAMIN E LANIER whose telephone number is (571)272-3805. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 5:30-4:00.
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, Alexander Lagor can be reached at 5712705143. 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.
/BENJAMIN E LANIER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2437
Prosecution Insights