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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 20 January 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 11, 24-26, 28-31, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 2017/0357496) in view of Lablans (US 2016/0366109).
In regard to claim 1, Smith disclosed an apparatus comprising:
a signature verification memory to store verification input data; and (Smith Figure 1, memory 128)
processing circuitry to:
read input data from the signature verification memory, (Smith [0083])
perform a Secure Hash Algorithm (SHA) operation to generate output data, and write the output data to the signature verification memory, the reading, performing, and writing being executed substantially in parallel;
compute a message representative of the input data, wherein the message includes a first public key root; and (Smith [0083])
generate a second public key root and return an indicator of a successful signature verification in response to the first public key root matching the second public key root. (Smith [0083])
Smith failed to disclose perform a Secure Hash Algorithm (SHA) operation to generate output data, and write the output data to the signature verification memory, the reading, performing, and writing being executed substantially in parallel.
However, Lablans disclosed perform a Secure Hash Algorithm (SHA) operation to generate output data, and write the output data to the signature verification memory, the reading, performing, and writing being executed substantially in parallel. Lablans disclosed a SHA operation in at least Lablans [0104], [0121], [0145]. Lablans disclosed the reading, performing, and writing being executed substantially in parallel in at least Lablans [0209]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a SHA hash function with Smith to provide enhanced security to the system of Smith. Smith used a hash function in at least Smith [0083]. It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform operations in parallel in order to speed up performance in the Smith system.
In regard to claim 2, Smith disclosed wherein the signature verification memory is configured to store one or more of the input data, the message, public keys, or signatures. Smith Figure 1, item 126
In regard to claim 4, Lablans disclsoed wherein the SHA operation is based on a SHAKE256 hash function. Lablans [0185]
In regard to claim 11, Smith disclosed wherein the processing circuitry comprises one or more of application processing circuitry or graphics processing circuitry. Smith, Figure 1, item 120
Claim 24 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 25 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 2.
Claim 26 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 4.
Claim 28 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 11.
Claim 29 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 30 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 2.
Claim 31 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 4.
Claim 33 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 11.
Claims 8, 27, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Lablans as applied to claims 1, 24 and 29 above, and further in view of Kuo et al. (US 2024/0126928).
In regard to claim 8, Smith in view of Lablans failed to disclose wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to divide the message into message blocks and concatenate the message blocks into a data item such that the SHA operation is performed on the data item to contribute to the output data.
However, Kuo disclosed wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to divide the message into message blocks and concatenate the message blocks into a data item such that the SHA operation is performed on the data item to contribute to the output data. Kuo [0060]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to divide a message in Smith into multiple data blocks as in Kuo when performing a SHA hash operation, in order to verify the signature present in Smith / Lablans.
Claim 27 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 8.
Claim 32 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang CN 110781140 A
Zhang et al. CN 117134918 A
An et al. CN 111628863 B
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey R. Swearingen whose telephone number is (571)272-3921. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Oscar Louie can be reached at 571-270-1684. 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.
Jeffrey R. Swearingen
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2445
/Jeffrey R Swearingen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445