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 .
Status of Claims
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to applicant’s remarks filed on 10/20/2025. Claims 13-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on May 30, 2023 and October 11, 2023. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 19 is 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.
Claim 19 recites “wherein the first value of the one byte corresponds to a round key in an operation for substituting words in an Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) algorithm”.
In MPEP 2161.01, "computer-implemented functional claim language must still be evaluated for sufficient disclosure under the written description". And MPEP 2161.01(I) "generic claim language in the original disclosure does not satisfy the written description requirement if it fails to support the scope of the genus claimed." For computer-implemented inventions, the determination of the sufficiency of disclosure will require an inquiry into the sufficiency of both the disclosed hardware and the disclosed software due to the interrelationship and interdependence of computer hardware and software. The critical inquiry is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.
The non-provisional specification fails to provide written description support for the claim limitation of “substituting words”. Given that the limitation of claim 19 the specification describes error detection during byte substation in AES, but does not describe or support an operation for substituting words in AES (i.e., the AES data-processing circuitry 810 includes the encoding circuitry 813, which is arranged operably to realize steps S310 for substituting bytes, S320 for shifting rows, S330 for mixing columns and S340 for adding round key in the AES algorithm as shown in FIG. 3, see paragraph [0047]), Accordingly, the specification does not reasonably convey possession of the subject matter in claim 19.
Note though that a claim will not be found inadequate on section 112(a) ground simply because the embodiments of the specification do not contain examples explicitly covering the full scope of the claim language. That is because the patent specification is written for a person of ordinary skill in the art, and such a person comes to the patent disclosure with the knowledge of what has come before. While a claim will not usually be limited to a particular species described in the specification, it is clear from the non-provisional specification in this application that the disclosed.
The level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351, 94 USPQ2d at 1172; Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357-58, 76 USPQ2d 1078, 1083-84 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Computer-implemented inventions are often disclosed and claimed in terms of their functionality. For computer-implemented inventions, the determination of the sufficiency of disclosure will require an inquiry into the sufficiency of both the disclosed hardware and the disclosed software due to the interrelationship and interdependence of computer hardware and software. The critical inquiry is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date. Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 682. 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356 (citing Ariad Pharm., Inc. V. Eli Lilly & Co, 598 F.3d 1336, 1351, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2010) in the context of determining possession of a claimed means of accessing disparate databases).
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.
Claims 13-20 are 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 13 is rejected as being indefinite for ambiguity. Claim 13 recites “wherein a total amount of the formulae is K minus 8;”, the claim language is ambiguous because it is unclear whether “K minus 8” represents a calculated result or a well know fixed property of a particular Hamming parity scheme. Therefore, the scope of the claim is uncertain and it’s unclear as to “K minus 8” is part of the method and needs to be computed or not.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “following 6 check formulae”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, while claim 13 generally recites “check formulae”, claims 16 does not clearly establish that the recited “following 6 check formulae” are the same check formulae previously introduced. It is unclear whether the “following 6 check formulae” is a newly introduced set of formulae or not. The examiner suggests to clarify the difference between “the gathered telemetry data” to rectify the issue.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “following 6 check formulae”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, while claim 13 generally recites “check formulae”, claim 17 does not clearly establish that the recited “following 6 check formulae” are the same check formulae previously introduced. It is unclear whether the “following 6 check formulae” is a newly introduced set of formulae or not. The examiner suggests to clarify the difference between “the gathered telemetry data” to rectify the issue.
Dependent claims 14-20 are similarly rejected due to inherited dependencies.
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.
Claim 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed subject matter is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as required by the USPTO 2019 Guidance (PEG). Claim 13 (Step 1) The claim is directed to a process (a method), which is a statutory class of invention under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Analysis
Step 1 (Statutory Categories) — 2019 PEG pq. 53
Claims 13-20 are directed to the statutory category of a process.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Do the claims recite an abstract idea?) — 2019 PEG pq. 54
Claim 13 recites the following types of subject matter that are judicial exceptions: mathematical concept and data manipulation/analysis: “detecting errors during data encryption, comprising: converting a first value of one byte into a second value of a K-bit according to an 8-to-K lookup table, wherein K is an integer ranging from 10 to 15 and the second value comprises (K minus 8) bits of a Hamming parity; determining whether an error is occurred during a conversion of the first value of the one byte into the second value of the K-bit by employing check formulae corresponding to the 8-to- K lookup table, wherein a total amount of the formulae is K minus 8; and outputting an error signal when finding the error.” (presenting information).
Claim 13 is directed to a mathematical concept, specifically mathematical relationships, calculations, and formula, concepts that fall within the judicial exceptions of “mental processes” and “mathematical concepts” (see PEG Step 2A, Examples and categories of abstract ideas).
Transformation of numerical values using a lookup table, generation of parity bites based on mathematical relationships and evaluation of check formula to detect errors. Such steps amount to pure mathematical operations for error detection, i, e., abstract manipulation of numbers and application of parity equations, which fall within the category of mathematical relationships and calculations.
Claim 13 does not integrate mathematical concepts into a practical application in a manner that converts it into patent eligible subject matter.
Although the claim is nominally directed to “data encryption”, the recited steps do not improve the functioning of a computer or a cryptographic algorithm. Rather, the claim associates those calculations with an encryption context without specifying how the calculations are tied to a particular improved encryption or cryptographic process.
Instead, the encryption context merely constitutes an intended use of the mathematical calculations, which is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
For dependent claim 14, the claim recites a mathematical concept of: enabling one or more restrictions by the user. The steps of: “the method of claim 13, wherein most-significant 8 bits of each cell in the 8-to-K lookup table is established by a formula as follows:
SB i=Affine((i)−1)
SBi represents an output result of a value i, Affine( ) represents an Affine transformation function, and i is an integer ranging from 0 to 127.” grouping of mathematical concept.
An affine transformation, a mathematical inversion operation,applied to an integer domain (i+ 0 to 127)” this is a mathematical relationship, falling within mathematical formulas. Therefore, claim 14 is directed to a mathematical concept, specifically mathematical relationships, calculations, and formulas.
For dependent claim 16, the claim recites a mathematical concept of: enabling one or more restrictions by the user. The steps of: “using following 6 check formulae to analyze 6 bits of the Hamming parity according to a most- significant byte of the second value:
Hm 5 ==S′ (out) 7 +S′ (out) 6 +S′ (out) 5 +S′ (out) 4 +S′ (out) 3 +S′ (out) 2 +S′ (out) 1 +S′ (out) 0
Hm 4 ==S′ (out) 7 +S′ (out) 4 +S′ (out) 0
Hm 3 ==S′ (out) 6 +S′ (out) 5 +S′ (out) 1 +S′ (out) 0
Hm 2 ==S′ (out) 4 +S′ (out) 2 +S′ (out) 1
Hm 1 ==S′ (out) 5 +S′ (out) 3 +S′ (out) 2
Hm 0 ==S′ (out) 7 +S′ (out) 6 +S′ (out) 3
Hm5 to Hm0 represent a 5th bit to a 0th bit of the Hamming parity, respectively, and S′(out) 7 to S′(out) 0 represent a 7th bit to a 0th bit of the most-significant byte of the second value, respectively; and
outputting the error signal when any one or more of the 6 check formulae are invalid.”. grouping of mathematical concepts.
Hamming parity checks, fixing K=14 is a parameter choice, not an inventive concept. this is a mathematical relationship, falling within mathematical formulas. Therefore, claim 16 is directed to a mathematical concept, specifically mathematical relationships, calculations, and formulas.
For dependent claim 17, the claim recites a mathematical concept of: enabling one or more restrictions by the user. The steps of: the method of claim 15, comprising:
using following 6 check formulae to analyze 6 bits of the Hamming parity according to a most- significant byte of the second value:
Hm 5 ==S′ (out) 7 +S′ (out) 6 +S′ (out) 5 +S′ (out) 4 +S′ (out) 3 +S′ (out) 2 +S′ (out) 1 +S′ (out) 0
Hm 4 ==S′ (out) 7 +S′ (out) 4 +S′ (out) 0
Hm 3 ==S′ (out) 6 +S′ (out) 5 +S′ (out) 1 +S′ (out) 0
Hm 2 ==S′ (out) 4 +S′ (out) 2 +S′ (out) 1
Hm 1 ==S′ (out) 5 +S′ (out) 3 +S′ (out) 2
Hm 0 ==S′ (out) 7 +S′ (out) 6 +S′ (out) 3
Hm5 to Hm0 represent a 5th bit to a 0th bit of the Hamming parity, respectively, and S′(out) 7 to S′(out) 0 represent a 7th bit to a 0th bit of the most-significant byte of the second value, respectively; and
outputting the error signal when any one or more of the 6 check formulae are invalid. grouping of mathematical concepts.
Hamming parity checks, fixing K=14 is a parameter choice, not an inventive concept. this is a mathematical relationship, falling within mathematical formulas. Therefore, claim 17 is directed to a mathematical concept, specifically mathematical relationships, calculations, and formulas.
For dependent claim 18, the claim recites a mathematical concept of: enabling one or more restrictions by the user. The steps of: “wherein the first value of the one byte corresponds to a plaintext or an intermediate encryption result in an operation for substituting bytes in an Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) algorithm.”. grouping of mathematical concepts.
substituting bytes in an Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) algorithm this is a mathematical relationship, falling within mathematical formulas. Therefore, claim 18 is directed to a mathematical concept, specifically mathematical relationships, calculations, and formulas.
For dependent claim 19, the claim recites a mathematical concept of: enabling one or more restrictions by the user. The steps of: “wherein the first value of the one byte corresponds to a round key in an operation for substituting words in an Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) algorithm.”. grouping of mathematical concepts.
substituting bytes in an Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) algorithm this is a mathematical relationship, falling within mathematical formulas. Therefore, claim 19 is directed to a mathematical concept, specifically mathematical relationships, calculations, and formulas.
For dependent claim 20, the claim recites a mathematical concept of: enabling one or more restrictions by the user. The steps of: “wherein the method is performed in an Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) encoder of a flash controller”. grouping of mathematical concepts.
AES encode, and a flash controller this is a mathematical operations. Therefore, claim 20 is directed to a mathematical concept, specifically mathematical relationships, calculations, and formulas.
Step 2A — Prong Two: Integration Into a Practical Application
Claim 13 does not integrated the mathematical concept into a practical application. Although the claim is nominally directed to “data encryption”, the recited steps do not improve the functioning of a computer, or cryptographic algorithm itself.
The claim applies mathematical parity checks to values, and associates those calculations with an encryption context. The steps can be performed mentally or be a general-purpose processor executing routine calculations, and therefore amount to conventional activities when considered individually and in combination.
Therefore, the claim is directed to mathematical concepts and is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A.
In addition, the dependent claims 14-20 do not integrated the mathematical concept into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the mathematical concepts into a practical application, the additional elements of the dependent claims of: “Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) algorithm, Affine transformation, generic lookup tables, Hamming parity checking.” to perform the claimed limitations, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Similar to the independent claims, mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Also, for the same reasoning as the independent claims, the additional elements of the limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, together do not offer significantly more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone and the dependent claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For these reasons, dependent claims 14-20 also are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Step 2B — Lack of inventive concept
Claim 13 does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim is drafted at a high level of generality and recites: generic data conversion, generic lookup tables, generic parity checking, and generic output of an error signal.
The steps can be performed mentally or by a general-purpose processor executing routine calculations.
Therefore, claim 13 lacks an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract mathematical concept into patent-eligible subject matter.
In addition, the dependent claims 14-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the mathematical concepts into a practical application, the additional elements of the dependent claims of: “Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) algorithm, Affine transformation, generic lookup tables, Hamming parity checking.” to perform the claimed limitations, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Similar to the independent claims, mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Also, for the same reasoning as the independent claims, the additional elements of the limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, together do not offer significantly more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone and the dependent claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, under Step 2B of the PEG, the claim is not patent eligible.
For these reasons, dependent claims 14-20 also are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
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 13, 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VIGILANT et al . (US 2018/0123778 A1), hereinafter Vigilant in view of Solomon et al. (US 6,374,382 B1), hereinafter Solomon.
Regarding claim 13, Vigilant discloses a method for detecting errors during data encryption, comprising:
converting a first value of one byte into a second value of a K-bit according to an 8-to-K lookup table (Vigilant, Para. 0046, FIG. 7 is a lookup table for the redundancy portion R_x of a C[16,8,5] code corresponding to the 8-bit systematic portion x. Thus indexes are bytes. Thus, there are 256 entries. The outputs are also 8-bit words. The high 8-bits of the codeword X is simply the systematic portion x and therefore does not need to be part of the table output), wherein K is an integer ranging from 10 to 15 and the second value comprises (K minus 8) bits of a Hamming parity (Vigilant, Para. 0071, for each byte bi (i=0 to 15) in the 16 byte AES state b0 . . . b15, each bi (loop i from 0 to 15) is transformed into si by applying the table T1 608);
determining whether an error is occurred during a conversion of the first value of the one byte into the second value of the K-bit by employing check formulae corresponding to the 8-to- K lookup table (Vigilant, Para. 0058, which is the same table as table 602) to determine the expected value of R_f(x). Thus the verification 611 may look up the expected value for R_f(x), call it R_f(x)′ 613 from the table 602′. The value R_f(x)′ may then be compared to R_f(x), Step 615. In other words, given a codeword X, it may be verified as belonging to the code C using the parity matrix H or it may be verified by determining if the systematic portion and the redundancy portion match as expecte), and
outputting an error signal when finding the error (Vigilant, Para. 0059, the attack-thwarting action may include terminating the process, alerting the user of the cryptographic device that a fault has been detected, transmitting a warning message to an authorized entity, disabling device, etc).
Vigilant does not explicit;y disclose wherein a total amount of the formulae is K minus 8;
however, Solomon teaches wherein a total amount of the formulae is K minus 8 (Solomon, Col.3, lines 12-65, an inner encoder 108 for encoding the input Signal to generate a short block inner code, as described more fully below. Transmitter 102 is arranged to form the inner and outer code as a concatenated Signal which is transmitted via a modulator 110 to a satellite receiver link 112. A receiver 114 includes a demodulator 116 for receiving the transmitted Signal, an inner code decoder 118 for decod ing the received inner code as described more fully below, and an RS decoder 120 for decoding the RS outer code. The decoded signal is then Supplied to output terminal 122. In accordance with the present invention, encoder 108 is arranged to generate the inner code as a (nk) short block code having a message length kxi, where i is a Small integer, Such as 1, 2, or 3, Selected to eliminate or obviate any need for interleaving between the inner and outer codes without degrading performance. The short block inner code of the present invention preferably provides 12 codeword bits for every 8 bit information signal, i.e., a rate of 2/3 to generate a inner code of (12.8).it is noted that K=12 corresponds to the total bits, and 8 corresponds to data bites and the Parity bite is 12-8=4).
Vigilant and Solomon are both considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of detecting errors during data encryption. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Vigilant to incorporate the teachings of Solomon to include wherein a total amount of the formulae is K minus 8 (Solomon, Col.3, lines 12-65). Doing so would aid to improve performance of a concatenated coding scheme using an RS outer code and a convolutional inner code, interleaving causes undesirably large processing delays for systems which use small packets either due to large minimum uplink burst size, or complex link protocols to pump or flush the interleaved data (Solomon, Col.1, lines 40-45).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of VIGILANT in view of Solomon teaches the method of claim 13, wherein K is 14 (Solomon, Col.3, lines 12-65, an inner encoder 108 for encoding the input Signal to generate a short block inner code, as described more fully below. Transmitter 102 is arranged to form the inner and outer code as a concatenated Signal which is transmitted via a modulator 110 to a satellite receiver link 112. A receiver 114 includes a demodulator 116 for receiving the transmitted Signal, an inner code decoder 118 for decod ing the received inner code as described more fully below, and an RS decoder 120 for decoding the RS outer code. The decoded signal is then Supplied to output terminal 122. In accordance with the present invention, encoder 108 is arranged to generate the inner code as a (nk) short block code having a message length kxi, where i is a Small integer, Such as 1, 2, or 3, Selected to eliminate or obviate any need for interleaving between the inner and outer codes without degrading performance. The short block inner code of the present invention preferably provides 12 codeword bits for every 8 bit information signal, i.e., a rate of 2/3 to generate a inner code of (12.8).it is noted that K=12 corresponds to the total bits, and 8 corresponds to data bites and the Parity bite is 12-8=4. Please note that “K=12” is an obvious modification and it’s not patentability distinct). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Vigilant to incorporate the teachings of Solomon to include the method of claim 13, wherein K is 14 (Solomon, Col.3, lines 12-65). Doing so would aid to improve performance of a concatenated coding scheme using an RS outer code and a convolutional inner code, interleaving causes undesirably large processing delays for systems which use small packets either due to large minimum uplink burst size, or complex link protocols to pump or flush the interleaved data (Solomon, Col.1, lines 40-45).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of VIGILANT in view of Solomon teaches the method of claim 15, comprising:
using following 6 check formulae to analyze 6 bits of the Hamming parity according to a most- significant byte of the second value:
Hm 5 ==S′ (out) 7 +S′ (out) 6 +S′ (out) 5 +S′ (out) 4 +S′ (out) 3 +S′ (out) 2 +S′ (out) 1 +S′ (out) 0
Hm 4 ==S′ (out) 7 +S′ (out) 4 +S′ (out) 0
Hm 3 ==S′ (out) 6 +S′ (out) 5 +S′ (out) 1 +S′ (out) 0
Hm 2 ==S′ (out) 4 +S′ (out) 2 +S′ (out) 1
Hm 1 ==S′ (out) 5 +S′ (out) 3 +S′ (out) 2
Hm 0 ==S′ (out) 7 +S′ (out) 6 +S′ (out) 3
Hm5 to Hm0 represent a 5th bit to a 0th bit of the Hamming parity, respectively, and S′(out) 7 to S′(out) 0 represent a 7th bit to a 0th bit of the most-significant byte of the second value, respectively (Solomon, Fig. 3, Col.3, lines 35-65); and
outputting the error signal when any one or more of the 6 check formulae are invalid (Solomon, Fig. 3, Col.3, lines 35-65, Hamming codes are single-error correcting BCH codes with the following parameters: code length n=2m−1; no. of information bits k=2m−m−1; no. of parity bits n−k=m. As denoted at block 300, the process begins with m=4 to produce a (15,11) Hamming code. As described below, a (12,8) inner code is formed at block 302 by selectively deleting certain columns of the corresponding parity check matrix H) (Solomon, Fig. 4, Col.3, lines 1-20, AS denoted at block 304, formulation of the inner code Word is then expressed as the Sequence a 7, as, as, a1, as, a2, ao, Ps, P, P, Po, where: P=a XOR as XOR as XOR a XOR as XOR as XOR a. P=ao XOR a XOR as XOR as XOR az; P=ao XOR as XOR as XOR as XOR az;). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Vigilant to incorporate the teachings of Solomon to include Hm5 to Hm0 represent a 5th bit to a 0th bit of the Hamming parity, respectively, and S′(out) 7 to S′(out) 0 represent a 7th bit to a 0th bit of the most-significant byte of the second value, respectively (Solomon, Fig. 3, Col.3, lines 35-65); and outputting the error signal when any one or more of the 6 check formulae are invalid (Solomon, Fig. 3, Col.3, lines 35-65). Doing so would aid to improve performance of a concatenated coding scheme using an RS outer code and a convolutional inner code, interleaving causes undesirably large processing delays for systems which use small packets either due to large minimum uplink burst size, or complex link protocols to pump or flush the interleaved data (Solomon, Col.1, lines 40-45).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of VIGILANT in view of Solomon teaches the method of claim 15, comprising:
using following 6 check formulae to analyze 6 bits of the Hamming parity according to a most- significant byte of the second value:
Hm 5 ==S′ (out) 7 +S′ (out) 6 +S′ (out) 5 +S′ (out) 4 +S′ (out) 3 +S′ (out) 2 +S′ (out) 1 +S′ (out) 0
Hm 4 ==S′ (out) 7 +S′ (out) 4 +S′ (out) 0
Hm 3 ==S′ (out) 6 +S′ (out) 5 +S′ (out) 1 +S′ (out) 0
Hm 2 ==S′ (out) 4 +S′ (out) 2 +S′ (out) 1
Hm 1 ==S′ (out) 5 +S′ (out) 3 +S′ (out) 2
Hm 0 ==S′ (out) 7 +S′ (out) 6 +S′ (out) 3
Hm5 to Hm0 represent a 5th bit to a 0th bit of the Hamming parity, respectively, and S′(out) 7 to S′(out) 0 represent a 7th bit to a 0th bit of the most-significant byte of the second value, respectively (Solomon, Fig. 3, Col.3, lines 35-65); and
outputting the error signal when any one or more of the 6 check formulae are invalid (Solomon, Fig. 3, Col.3, lines 35-65, Hamming codes are single-error correcting BCH codes with the following parameters: code length n=2m−1; no. of information bits k=2m−m−1; no. of parity bits n−k=m. As denoted at block 300, the process begins with m=4 to produce a (15,11) Hamming code. As described below, a (12,8) inner code is formed at block 302 by selectively deleting certain columns of the corresponding parity check matrix H) (Solomon, Fig. 4, Col.3, lines 1-20, AS denoted at block 304, formulation of the inner code Word is then expressed as the Sequence a 7, as, as, a1, as, a2, ao, Ps, P, P, Po, where: P=a XOR as XOR as XOR a XOR as XOR as XOR a. P=ao XOR a XOR as XOR as XOR az; P=ao XOR as XOR as XOR as XOR az;). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Vigilant to incorporate the teachings of Solomon to include Hm5 to Hm0 represent a 5th bit to a 0th bit of the Hamming parity, respectively, and S′(out) 7 to S′(out) 0 represent a 7th bit to a 0th bit of the most-significant byte of the second value, respectively (Solomon, Fig. 3, Col.3, lines 35-65); and outputting the error signal when any one or more of the 6 check formulae are invalid (Solomon, Fig. 3, Col.3, lines 35-65). Doing so would aid to improve performance of a concatenated coding scheme using an RS outer code and a convolutional inner code, interleaving causes undesirably large processing delays for systems which use small packets either due to large minimum uplink burst size, or complex link protocols to pump or flush the interleaved data (Solomon, Col.1, lines 40-45).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of VIGILANT in view of Solomon teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the first value of the one byte corresponds to a plaintext or an intermediate encryption result in an operation for substituting bytes in an Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) algorithm (Vigilant, Para. 0047, Step 601, may be applied to every state byte to transform the state byte to a codeword in order to detect faults introduced into the state byte (or the corresponding redundancy portion) and (Vigilant, Para. 0004, Step 601, the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES), which serves as an example herein, involves encrypting (or decrypting) a message by performing a sequence of cycles called rounds. Each round operates on a matrix of bytes called a state. Each of the rounds (except for the first round) includes a non-linear operation called SubBytes in which an input byte from the state is substituted with an output byte based on a substitution box (SBox)).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of VIGILANT in view of Solomon teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the first value of the one byte corresponds to a round key in an operation for substituting words in an Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) algorithm (Vigilant, Para. 0004, Step 601, the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES), which serves as an example herein, involves encrypting (or decrypting) a message by performing a sequence of cycles called rounds. Each round operates on a matrix of bytes called a state. Each of the rounds (except for the first round) includes a non-linear operation called SubBytes in which an input byte from the state is substituted with an output byte based on a substitution box (SBox)).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of VIGILANT in view of Solomon teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the method is performed in an Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) encoder of a flash controller (Vigilant, Para. 0027, smart cards are used herein as examples of portable security devices that may be used in implementations of the technology described herein. Other examples of portable security devices include smart memory cards, flash memory, etc. In a preferred embodiment, the portable security device has a processor, a memory for storing programs and data, and some security features to make the device relatively tamper-proof. Smart cards are used herein as examples of such devices).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VIGILANT et al . (US 2018/0123778 A1), hereinafter Vigilant in view of Solomon et al. (US 6,374,382 B1), hereinafter Solomon and further in view of Stein et al. (US 2003/0133568A1), hereinafter stein.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of VIGILANT in view of Solomon does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 13, wherein most-significant 8 bits of each cell in the 8-to-K lookup table is established by a formula as follows:
SB i=Affine((i)−1)
SBi represents an output result of a value i, Affine( ) represents an Affine transformation function, and i is an integer ranging from 0 to 127.
However, Stein teaches the method of claim 13, wherein most-significant 8 bits of each cell in the 8-to-K lookup table is established by a formula as follows (Stein, Para. 0057, for example, if memory 318 holds eight look-up tables of 64 bytes each, the starting points for those look-up tables which coincide with the columns 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42, 44 will be 0, 64, 128, 192, 256, 320, 384, and 448):
SB i=Affine((i)−1)
SBi represents an output result of a value i, Affine( ) represents an Affine transformation function, and i is an integer ranging from 0 to 127 (Stein, Para. 0012, the key generator circuit may include a fourth parallel look-up table for executing a multiplicative inverse in GF −1(28) and applying affine over GF(2) transformation to obtain the round keys). Vigilant, Solomon and Stein are all considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of detecting errors during data encryption. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Vigilant and Solomon to incorporate the teachings of Stein to include the method of claim 13, wherein most-significant 8 bits of each cell in the 8-to-K lookup table is established by a formula as follows (Stein, Para. 0057):
SB i=Affine((i)−1)
SBi represents an output result of a value i, Affine( ) represents an Affine transformation function, and i is an integer ranging from 0 to 127 (Stein, Para. 0012). Doing so would aid to improve programmable data encryption engine for performing the cipher function of an advanced encryption standard (AES) using the Rijndael algorithm(Stein, Para. 0007).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GITA FARAMARZI whose telephone number is (571)272-0248. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00 am- 6:00 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, Jorge L. Ortiz-Criado can be reached at (571)272-7624. 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.
/GITA FARAMARZI/Examiner, Art Unit 2496
/JORGE L ORTIZ CRIADO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2496