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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/19/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to prior art rejection of the pending claims are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection.
With regards to Double Patenting rejection of the claims, Applicant states “Applicant intends to file a terminal disclaimer when all independent claims are indicated as containing allowable subject matter, if appropriate at that time” . Therefore, the Double patenting rejection of the pending claims is maintained.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 11783089. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 21 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 13-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11783089. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 29 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11783089. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 37 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims18-21 of U.S. Patent No. 11783089. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
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 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plotkin, Serge et al. US 20040153642 (hereinafter Plotkin) in view of Edward Scarlett Haeger et al. US 20140122866 (hereinafter Haeger) and further in view of Ramprasad; Satish et al. US 20120314864 (hereinafter Ramprasad).
As per claim 21, Plotkin teaches: A system comprising: at least one processor, ASIC, or field-programmable gate array configured to:
receive first data from a first source (device placed in a network to communicate (e.g., receive data) form client machines. Plotkin: para. 6-8);
select a first key set [from the plurality of key sets] based at least in part on the first data being received from the first source ("The device can use a plurality of keys to encrypt and decrypt data, and a methodology to select the key based on user identification [data], data location on the storage device, file name, permission structure and other factors. Multiple such devices can share some or all keys and key use methodology between them, such that some or all of the data encrypted by one such device can be decrypted by another such device." Plotkin: para. 9);
encrypt the first data with the first key set to produce encrypted first data (Plotkin: para. 9);
Plotkin does not explicitly teach; however, Haeger discloses: store the encrypted first data on a common data storage system (Haeger in Crypto Proxy for Cloud Storage Services discloses a common storage communicatively coupled to plurality of user's computers that receives the user's encrypted data encrypted by the user's computers or a proxy. Haeger: paragraphs 2 and 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Plotkin and incorporate Haeger to
store encrypted data. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make
such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention
and could be applied to enhance management encrypted data.
The combination of Plotkin and Haeger does not explicitly teach; however, Ramprasad discloses: receive a plurality of key sets (Ramprasad: para. 43);
select a first key set from the plurality of key sets (“Once a need for a required change in the internally stored account parameters within the select group of wireless devices 10 is determined, an encryption key associated with the select group of wireless devices 10 is obtained in operation 304, such as by retrieving the corresponding encryption key from one of the user databases 216a, 216b associated with the select group of wireless devices 10. An encrypted account update message is then generated in operation 306 using the encryption key, wherein the contents of the encrypted account update message include instructions and/or information related to the internally stored account parameter(s) to be updated or changed in the select group of wireless devices 10. In one or more embodiments, the encrypted account update message is an encrypted Short Message Service (SMS) message.” Ramprasad: para. 43);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Plotkin and
Haeger with the teaching of Ramprasad to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to further secure the communication between devices.
As per claim 22, the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated herein. Plotkin
teaches: receive second data from a second source ("the device receives data from every client (e.g., a second client) to be encrypted with the client's associated key (The device can use a plurality of keys to encrypt and decrypt data, and a methodology to select the key based on user identification, data location on the storage device (e.g.,
received data), file name, permission structure and other factors (e.g., received
data) Plotkin: para. 9);
select a second key set that is different from the first key set based at least in
part on the second data being received from the second source (Plotkin: para. 9);
encrypt the second data with the second key set to produce encrypted second
data (Plotkin: para. 9);
Plotkin does not explicitly teach; however, Haeger discloses: store the encrypted
second data on a common data storage system (Haeger in Crypto Proxy for Cloud
Storage Services discloses a common storage communicatively coupled to plurality of
user's computers that receives the user's encrypted data encrypted by the user's
computers or a proxy. Haeger: para. 2 and 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Plotkin and incorporate Haeger to
store encrypted data. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make
such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention
and could be applied to enhance management encrypted data.
As per claim 23, the rejection of claim 22 is incorporated herein. Plotkin teaches: the first source corresponds to a first entity and the second source corresponds to a second entity (Plotkin: Para. 9, each machine is associated with a different client. Plotkin: para.7-9).
the first entity is not authorized to access data of the second entity and the
second entity is not authorized to access data of the first entity (Plotkin: para. 9-10).
As per claim 24, the rejection of claim 22 is incorporated herein. Plotkin teaches:
the first data comprises an identification of the first source (Plotkin: para. 9); and
the second data comprises an identification of the second source (Plotkin: para. 9);
Claims 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Plotkin in view of Haeger in view of Ramprasad and further in view of Zahid N. Ahmed US 20100198730 (hereinafter Ahmed).
As per claim 25, the rejection of claim 22 is incorporated herein. The
combination of Plotkin, Haeger and Ramprasad does not teach; however, Ahmed discloses: the first source and the second source are located at different physical locations (the system allows services to plurality of customers located in different geographical locations. Ahmed: paragraph 44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Plotkin,
Haeger and Ramprasad with the teaching of Anmed to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied in order to cover a larger geographical area.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plotkin
in view of Haeger in view of Ramprasad and further in view of Brunet; Jeffrey US 20080226082 (hereinafter Brunet).
As per claim 26, the rejection of claim 22 is incorporated herein. The combination of Plotkin, Haeger and Ramprasad does not teach; however, Brunet discloses: retrieve
the first key set from an external key manager based at least in part on the first source;
and retrieve the second key set from the external key manager based at least in part on
the second source (Brunet: para.9 and 42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Plotkin, Haeger and Ramprasad with the teaching of Brunet to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied in order to enhance security of data.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plotkin
in view of Haeger in view of Ramprasad in view of Brunet and further in view of Chui, Charles K. US 20030076959 (hereinafter Chui).
As per claim 27, the rejection of claim 26 is incorporated herein. The
combination of Plotkin, Haeger and Brunet does not teach; however, Chui discloses:
cache the first key set in a first cache; retrieve the first key set from the first cache to
encrypt further data received from the first source; cache the second key set in a
second cache; and retrieve the second key set from the second cache to encrypt further
data received from the second source ("To ensure that the identity of the lock used to
encrypt a particular code sentence is not lost, the corresponding key (or the identity of
the key) of the lock-key pair is stored in cache memory, for later retrieval. Then, using
an encryption algorithm that converts, for example, a four-integer lock into a 4. times.4
matrix, each integer of an encoded block is matrix-multiplied against the lock matrix,
thereby encrypting the encoded blocks of the secret key." Chui: para. 65)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Plotkin, Haeger, Ramprasad and Brunet with the teaching of Chui to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied in order to enhance the speed of operation.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plotkin
in view of Haeger in view of Brunet and further in view of Koseki; Akira et al. US
20070189517 (hereinafter Koseki).
As per claim 28, the rejection of claim 26 is incorporated herein. The
combination of Plotkin, Haeger, Ramprasad and Brunet does not teach; however, Koseki discloses: receive a request from the first source to read the first data (Koseki: para. 29);
retrieve the encrypted first data from the common data storage system (Koseki:
para.29);
select the first key set based at least in part on the request being received from
the first source (Koseki: para. 29);
decrypt the encrypted first data with the first key set to produce decrypted first
data; and provide the decrypted first data to the first source ("in response to a request
by the receiving user for decryption of the encryption, the apparatus B acquiring a key corresponding to the receiving user ID, decrypting the received message and returning the decrypted message to the receiving user" Koseki: para. 29).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Plotkin, Haeger, Ramprasad and Brunet with the teaching of Koseki to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied in order to provide decrypted data to intended user.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamid; Laurance US 20130179676 (hereinafter Hamid) in view of Haeger and further in view of Ramprasad.
As per claim 29, Hamid discloses: A system comprising: a plurality of security devices [communicatively connected to a common data storage], wherein each given security device within the plurality of security devices is configured to:
[retrieve a plurality of sets of keys];
encrypt incoming data with a set of keys [from the plurality of sets of keys] corresponding to the given security device to produce encrypted data (Laurence: Para. 20 and "Another exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure includes a method for providing hardware security modules over a multi-user network. The exemplary method can include providing shared resources [Common data storage] over a multi-user network to multiple users, connecting multiple hardware security modules to the shared resources, wherein each hardware security module is associated with at least one user, establishing a secure connection between the at least one user and an associated hardware security module, and providing encrypted data to the at least one user,
wherein the data can only be decrypted with keys stored on the associated hardware security module." Hamid: para. 6); and
a first switch connected to a plurality of data sources and configured to: receive first data from a first data source within the plurality of data sources (Hamid Para. 6 and 20°): and
route the first data to a first security device within the plurality of security devices based at least in part on identifying the first data source as a source of the first data (Hamid Para. 6 and 20");
Hamid discloses: encrypt with a set of keys corresponding to the given security device (Laurence: 20 and "Another exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure includes a method for providing hardware security modules over a multi-user network. The exemplary method can include providing shared resources [Common data storage] over a multi-user network to multiple users, connecting multiple hardware security modules to the shared resources, wherein each hardware security module is associated with at least one user, establishing a secure connection between the at least one user and an associated hardware security module, and providing encrypted data to the at least one user, wherein the data can only be decrypted with keys stored on the associated hardware security module." Laurence: para. 6).
Hamid does not explicitly teach; however, Haeger discloses: store the encrypted data on the common data storage (Haeger in Crypto Proxy for Cloud Storage Services discloses a common storage communicatively coupled to plurality of user's computers that receives the user's encrypted data encrypted by the user's computers or a proxy. Haeger: paragraphs 2 and 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hamid and incorporate Haeger to store encrypted data. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and could be applied further secure store by storing encrypted data in a centralized manner and separated from the corresponding encryption keys.
The combination of Hamid and Haeger does not teach; however, Ramprasad discloses: retrieve a plurality of sets of keys (Ramprasad: para. 43);
encrypt incoming data with a set of keys from the plurality of sets of keys (Ramprasad: para. 43);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Hamid and Haeger with the teaching of Ramprasad to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to further secure the communication between devices.
Claims 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamid in view of Haeger in view of Ramprasad and further in view of Koseki.
As per claim 30, the rejection of claim 29 is incorporated herein. The combination of Hamid, Haeger and Ramprasad does not explicitly teach; however, Koseki discloses:
each given security device within the plurality of security devices is further configured to:
receive a request from a corresponding data source to read data (in response to a request by the receiving user for decryption of the encryption, the apparatus B acquiring a key corresponding to the receiving user ID, decrypting the received message and returning the decrypted message to the receiving user. Koseki: para. 39).;
in response to receiving the request, retrieve encrypted data from the common data storage (Koseki: para. 39);
select the set of keys;
decrypt the encrypted data with the selected set of keys to produce decrypted data; and provide the decrypted data to the corresponding data source (Koseki: para. 39).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Hamid, Haeger and Ramprasad with the teaching of Koseki to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied in order to enhance security of data.
As per claim 31, the rejection of claim 30 is incorporated herein. The combination of Hamid, Haeger and Ramprasad does not teach; however, Koseki discloses: a second switch connected to a plurality of data sources and configured to:
identify the request from the corresponding data source to read the data (the system utilizes user ID. Koseki: para. 39); and
route the encrypted data from the common data storage to the given security device based at least in part on having identified the request being from the corresponding data source (Koseki: para. 39).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Hamid, Haeger and Ramprasad with the teaching of Koseki to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied in order to enhance management of the data.
As per claim 32, the rejection of claim 29 is incorporated herein. Laurance teaches: each security device within the plurality of security devices corresponds to a separate entity (Laurance: para. 6), and each separate entity is not authorized to access data of each other separate entity (Laurance: para. 6).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamid in view of Haeger in view of Ramprasad and further in view of Plotkin.
As per claim 33, the rejection of claim 29 is incorporated herein. The combination of Hamid, Haeger and Ramprasad does not explicitly teach; however, Plotkin discloses: the first data comprises an identification of the first data source (Plotkin: para. 9).
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamid in view of Haeger in view of Ramprasad and further in view of Scott-Nash; Mark E US 20100128874 (hereinafter Scott-Nash).
As per claim 34, the rejection of claim 29 is incorporated herein. The combination of Hamid, Haeger and Ramprasad does not explicitly teach; however, Scott-Nash teaches: the first switch is communicatively coupled to a plurality of data sources; and each of the plurality of data sources is located at a different physical location ("the media controller 114 selects one of the media storage units connected with each media
channel and the media storage identification of the selected media storage unit is used to generate the cipher key (s) for the media channel." Scott-Nash: para. 24 and fig, 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Hamid, Haeger and Ramprasad with the teaching of Scott-Nash to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied in order to enhance the utility of the method.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamid in view of Haeger in view of Ramprasad and further in view of Brunet.
As per claim 35, the rejection of claim 29 is incorporated herein. The combination of Hamid, Haeger and Ramprasad does not explicitly teach; however, Brunet discloses: the given security device is further configured to retrieve the set of keys from an external Key manager based at least in part on the first data source (Brunet: para.9 and 42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Hamid, Haeger and Ramprasad with the teaching of Brunet to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied in order to enhance security of data.
Claims 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamid in view of Haeger in view of Brunet and further in view of Chui.
As per claim 36, the rejection of claim 35 is incorporated herein. The
combination of Laurance, Haeger, Ramprasad and Brunet does not explicitly teach; however, Chui discloses: cache the set of keys in a first cache; and retrieve the set of keys from the first cache to encrypt further data received from the first data source ("To ensure that the identity of the lock used to encrypt a particular code sentence is not lost, the corresponding key (or the identity of the key) of the lock-key pair is stored in cache memory, for later retrieval. Then, using an encryption algorithm that converts, for example, a four-integer lock into a 4.times.4 matrix, each integer of an encoded block is matrix-multiplied against the lock matrix, thereby encrypting the encoded blocks of the secret key." Chui: para. 65)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Laurence, Haeger, Ramprasad and Brunet with the teaching of Chui to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied in order to enhance the speed of operation.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greco; Paul M. et al. US 20070116266 (hereinafter Greco) in view of CHANG; YENG MING US 20120124378 (hereinafter Chang) and further in view of Pinder; Ellis A. US 9088552 (hereinafter Pinder).
As per claim 37, Greco teaches: a cryptographic module comprising:
a packet output engine (Switch Module, Greco: fig. 4 and para. 42-44).
an output cryptographic core configured to perform decryption for data packets
received from the packet output engine (Greco: para. 39-42 and fig. 4 Encryption
module 400);
Greco does not explicitly teach a packet input engine; however, Chang discloses:
a packet input ("The present invention discloses a personal cryptographic device connectable to a host system. The personal cryptographic device includes a storage module configured to store a client key and a device serial number, a data entry module [input engine]
an input cryptographic core configured to perform encryption for data packets received from the packet input engine (configured to allow a user to input unique user information, an encryption/decryption module configured to encrypt the device serial number and the unique user key with the client key; and an authentication configured to request new key information using the encrypted device serial number and encrypted unique user information." Chang: para. 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Greco with the teaching of Chang to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied in order to secure the system data.
The combination of Greco and Chang does not teach; however, Pinder discloses: a key loader controller configured to retrieve a plurality of key sets (“a controller configured to: one of create a traffic encryption key and select a traffic encryption key from a plurality of pre-loaded traffic encryption keys as a function of a user input, for encrypting group communications with a plurality of other wireless portable radios; and in response to a user request to provision the traffic encryption key, sequentially for each of the plurality of other wireless portable radios” Pinder: col. 6, lines 59-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Greco and Chang with the teaching of Pinder to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied in order to provide secure data management.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greco
in view Chang in view of Pinder and further in view of Ahmed.
As per claim 38, the rejection of claim 37 is incorporated herein. The
combination of Greco, Chang and Pinder does not teach; however, Ahmed discloses: a key cache configured to store the plurality of key sets, wherein the packet input engine is
configured to detect a header of a first data packet and to select a first set of keys
based on the header (authentication credentials (key) in the header of the packets are
detected in order to perform the authentication. Anmed fig. 3 and paragraph 0062).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Greco, Chang and Pinder with the teaching of Ahmed to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied in order to provide both encryption and decryption of data.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greco in view Chang in view of Pinder in view of Ahmed and further in view of Josephine Suganthi et al. US 8289975 (hereinafter Suganthi).
As per claim 40, the rejection of claim 38 is incorporated herein. The combination of Greco, Chang, Pinder and Ahmed does not teach; however, Suganthi discloses: circuitry configured to zeroize the input cryptographic core after the input cryptographic core performs encryption (Suganthi: col.69, lines 13-19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Greco, Chang, Pinder and Ahmed with the teaching of Suganthi to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and could be applied to enhance security of the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 39 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHODRAT JAMSHIDI whose telephone number is (571)270-1956. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-6:00.
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, Carl Colin can be reached at 5712723862. 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.
/GHODRAT JAMSHIDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493