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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 2, 2026 has been entered.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. IT102020000029450, filed on December 2, 2020.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In page 2 of the remarks, Applicant states that a translation of the priority document is submitted and is also accurate. Furthermore, Applicant requests acknowledgement of the receipt of the certified copy of the priority document, IT102020000029450, listed in the virtual file wrapper as received from WIPO on May 30, 2023. Examiner acknowledges the receipt of the certified copy of the priority document, as well as receipt of the translation of the priority document.
In page 3 of the remarks, Applicant states that claim 34 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (“112(a)”) for not complying with the written description requirement, with Examiner stating that claim 34’s limitation of a “message [having] been encrypted by using at least a first cryptographic key” is not stated in the Specification as to how this is achieved, including [page 18, lines 22-24] stating that “if a message has been encrypted by using four private keys”, but does not provide enough information as to how this limitation is achieved or if the messages “combine” or if the same message is marked as having different private keys encrypting said message, which can count as being encrypted multiple times. Applicant points to paragraphs [0051], [0056], [0068]-[0069] and Fig. 3 of the published Application of the Specification.
Examiner disagrees with the statements made by the Applicant regarding the statements of the paragraphs listed above and Fig. 3 of the published Application as providing sufficient description for the concept of a message being sequentially encrypted by two distinct apparatuses using their respective private keys. The paragraph numbers in the Specification are not listed in the originally filed Specification dated May 30, 2023, and Examiner reminds the applicant that any support for the claims must be found in the originally filed Specification, not the published documents. Furthermore, the listed paragraphs above describe a first encryption phase (P1a, P1b) for paragraph [0051], found in [page 9, lines 19-22] of the originally filed Specification, and a second encryption phase (P6a, P6b) for paragraph [0056] in [page 10, lines 11-15], and restated in paragraphs [0068]-[0069], equivalent to [page 12, line 15-page 13, line 24], but do not sufficiently clear up the previous rejection made on the limitation of claim 34 regarding a “message [having] been encrypted by using at least a first cryptographic key” for the concept of a message being sequentially encrypted by two distinct apparatuses with their respective private keys, and as described in [page 18, lines 22-24], equivalent to paragraph [0091] of the published Application, does not sufficiently clear up the scenario in which a message has been encrypted using four different private keys, and as a result, Examiner maintains the rejection under 112(a) for claim 34. Dependent claims 35-37, and 39 will also have their rejections maintained based on the 112(a) rejections maintained for claim 34.
It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
In pages 3-4 of the remarks, Applicant states that claim 20 has been rendered unpatentable over Bozzo (US 20190351924 A1) in view of Galla ("Implementation of RSA"), and that the claim has been amended with the phrase “verifying that said second decrypted message is equal to said first message by performing a bitwise comparison between the content of said second decrypted message and said first message […]”, with support found in paragraph [0055] of the published Application described by Applicant, equivalent to [pages 10, lines 2-10] in the filed Specification, with the claimed invention being patentable over the combination of Bozzo and Galla as the combination does not teach “bitwise comparison between the content of two messages”, the bitwise comparison being a content-identity check performed on plaintext data, which is distinct from the verification performed by the combination cited by the Office. Bozzo’s verification phase being a cryptographic check based on XORing pseudo-signatures and not involving plaintext comparison, with Galla being a general-purpose document not providing motivation to modify Bozzo’s cryptographic protocol to implement specific plaintext verification and subsequential re-encryption logic as required by the amendments. Applicant states that a key distinction between the invention of the Applicant and the combination of Bozzo and Galla is stated, and requests allowance for claim 20, as the Japanese examiner considered the same publications, but stated that Bozzo does not teach or suggest the claimed verification step.
Examiner disagrees with the Applicant regarding the amended claim 20 and the limitation “verifying that said second decrypted message is equal to said first message by performing a bitwise comparison between the content of said second decrypted message and said first message […]”, as while it is true that the reference of Bozzo does not involve any plaintext comparison of the messages after the exchanging phase for the XOR bitwise comparison of said messages, Galla’s Figure 3 provides an authentication process for verifying the messages being sent from one device to another device are the same across both devices. When substituting the process of comparing pseudo-signatures of Bozzo with the comparison of messages of Galla, as described in Galla’s Fig. 3 shown in page 2 describes an authentication process, teaches the limitation of amended claim 20 of verifying the second decrypted message being equal to the first message by performing the bitwise comparison between the contents of both messages. Furthermore, the bitwise comparison in amended limitations in claim 20 is not sufficiently described in the Specification in either [page 10, lines 4-6] or [page 16, lines 3-7], as while it is stated that it can be performed in the invention, it is not described how it is performed, with no steps outlined and what operations can be performed for the bitwise comparison in either section of the Specification. Also, “content” is stated to be evaluated in the bitwise comparison in the messages, but is not described in the Specification, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not understand what “content” is defined as or what is included in the “content” in the invention. As a result, the amended claim 20 and equivalent independent claim 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as lacking sufficient written description regarding the “bitwise comparison” operation and the “content” being compared described in the claims, with their respective dependent claims also being rejected based on their dependency to claims 20 and 25. Claims 20 and 25 are also being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the indefinite term of “bitwise”, as the bitwise comparisons are stated to be performed in the invention between a second decrypted message and a first message to verify that both messages are equal, but what types of bitwise comparison operations can be performed is not stated in the Specification, and the passage of [page 10, lines 4-6] describes that a bitwise comparison can be performed on two messages or at least a portion thereof, and what type of bitwise comparison operations are performed on the messages or a portion is unclear in the filed Specification. Finally, Examiner states that even if a corresponding Application of another country has been deemed allowable in said country, Japan in this case, with respect to claims of similar scope to this Application, the Examiner states that the combination of Bozzo in view of Galla continue to teach the limitations present in claim 20 and other independent claims present in this Application. As a result, Examiner maintains the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 of amended independent claim 20 and similar independent claims as well. Dependent claims will also have their rejections maintained based on the rejections maintained on their independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 20-28, and 38 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.
The term “bitwise comparison” in claim 20, line 21, and claim 25, lines 16-17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “bitwise comparison” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Bitwise comparisons are stated to be performed in the invention between a second decrypted message and a first message to verify that both messages are equal, but what types of bitwise comparison operations can be performed is not stated in the Specification, and the passage of [page 10, lines 4-6] describes that a bitwise comparison can be performed on two messages or at least a portion thereof. The claim requires “verifying that said second decrypted message is equal to said first message by performing a bitwise comparison between the content of said second decrypted message and said first message.” The specification discloses “by making a bitwise comparison between the two messages or at least a portion thereof, so as to verify their equality” but provides no objective rule for (i) what is included/excluded in “content”, (ii) how a “portion thereof. Because the claim and specification fail to provide objective boundaries for the claimed comparison, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine with reasonable certainty the scope of the claim.
In claims 21-24 and 26-28, and 38, dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of their respective independent claim, and therefore, the dependent claims 21-24 inherit the deficiencies of independent claim 20, and the dependent claims 26-28, and 38 inherit the deficiencies of independent claim 25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
Claims 20-28, and 34-39 are 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 claims contain 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.
In claims 20 and 25, the limitation of ‘verifying that said second decrypted message is equal to said first message by performing a bitwise comparison between the content of said second decrypted message and said first message’ in claim 20, line 20-22, and claim 25, lines 16-17, is not stated in the specification as to how this method is achieved. The bitwise comparison in amended limitations in claim 20 is not sufficiently described in the Specification in either [page 10, lines 4-6] or [page 16, lines 3-7], as while it is stated that it can be performed in the invention, it is not described how it is performed, with no steps outlined and what operations can be performed for the bitwise comparison in either section of the Specification. Also, “content” is stated to be evaluated in the bitwise comparison of the messages, but is not described in the Specification, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not understand what “content” is defined as or what is included in the “content” in the invention.
In claim 34, the limitation of ‘message has been encrypted by using at least a first private cryptographic key and a second private cryptographic key’ in lines 3-4, is not stated in the specification as to how this method is achieved. While in page 18, line 22-24, it is stated that ‘if a message has been encrypted by using four private keys (i.e. has been generated by using four apparatuses 1,1a,1b,1c),’, it does not adequately provide enough information as to how this is achieved and whether the messages ‘combine’ or if the same message is marked as having different private keys encrypting said message, counting as being encrypted multiple times.
In claims 21-24 and 26-28, and 38, dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of their respective independent claim, and therefore, the dependent claims 21-24 inherit the deficiencies of independent claim 20, and the dependent claims 26-28, and 38 inherit the deficiencies of independent claim 25.
In claims 35-37, and 39, dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of their respective independent claim, and therefore, the dependent claims 35-37, and 39 inherit the deficiencies of independent claim 34.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitations recites sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitations are: ‘memory means containing at least one first private cryptographic key’ in claim 20, line 2, ‘communication means adapted to communicate with a separate apparatus’ in claim 20, line 3, and ‘control or processing means are configured for generating a first message comprising information that changes a state of said critical system’ in claim 20, lines 5-6.
Because these claim limitations are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
In claims 21-24, dependent claims inherit issues and possible claim interpretations of their respective independent claims. Although 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is not invoked despite the presence of means in independent claim 20, the dependent claims are listed here for possible inherency of interpretation.
In claim 25, the terms of “means”, which are ‘memory means’, ‘communication means’, and ‘control or processing means’, which were discussed in claim 20 above, apply to claims 25 as well, have ‘memory means’ and ‘communication means’ do not invoke 112(f) as well.
In claims 26-28, and 38, dependent claims inherit issues and possible claim interpretations of their respective independent claims. Although 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is not invoked despite the presence of means in independent claim 25, the dependent claims are listed here for possible inherency of interpretation.
In claim 29, the terms of “means”, which are ‘memory means’, ‘communication means’, and ‘control or processing means’, which were discussed in claim 20 above, apply to claims 29 as well, have ‘memory means’ and ‘communication means’ do not invoke 112(f) as well.
In claims 30-33, dependent claims inherit issues and possible claim interpretations of their respective independent claims. Although 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is not invoked despite the presence of means in independent claim 29, the dependent claims are listed here for possible inherency of interpretation.
In claim 34, the terms of “means”, which are ‘memory means’, ‘communication means’, and ‘control or processing means’, which were discussed in claim 20 above, apply to claims 34 as well, have ‘memory means’ and ‘communication means’ do not invoke 112(f) as well.
In claims 35-37, and 39, dependent claims inherit issues and possible claim interpretations of their respective independent claims. Although 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is not invoked despite the presence of means in independent claim 34, the dependent claims are listed here for possible inherency of interpretation.
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 20, 24-25, 29, 33-34, and 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bozzo et al. (US 20190351924 A1), hereinafter Bozzo, in view of Galla et al. ("Implementation of RSA"), hereinafter Galla.
Regarding claim 20, Bozzo discloses an apparatus for controlling a transportation system, comprising: memory means containing at least one first private cryptographic key, communication means adapted to communicate with a separate apparatus, control or processing means in communication with said memory means and said communication means ([0025] Fig. 2 for apparatus 1 that controls a transportation system, which is further described as a railway network in paragraph [0024] as a system for generating messages for controlling the railway network, including railway cars, switches, and related components, and [0017] describes a rail system S in Fig. 1. [0027] Memory means 12 that contains a key in the memory, the key in memory corresponds to a private cryptographic key of the applicant. [0028] Communication means 13 allows device 1 to communicate with other equipment 1b and other elements of the system S in Fig. 1. [0030] Control or processing means 11, or CPU 11, is connected with memory and communication means via a communication bus 17 in Fig. 2.),
wherein said control or processing means are configured for generating a first message comprising information that changes a state of said transportation system ([0034] Fig. 3, preparation phase P1a has the CPU 11 generate a message body, equates to generating a first message of the applicant.),
Bozzo does not appear to fully disclose, but Galla also teaches the limitations of ‘wherein said control or processing means are also configured for: encrypting said first message by using the first private cryptographic key, thereby generating a first encrypted message’ (Paragraph [0035] of Bozzo has in Fig. 3, where a first pseudo-signature prepared in phase P2a. Galla teaches in Figs. 2 and 3 that the RSA cryptographic system can be used with either key used for encryption and the other key for decryption, stated in page 2. Furthermore, page 3 of Galla states in section “2. Theory and History”, that if a message is encrypted with one key, it can be decrypted by the other key, and when using the private key for encryption, and a public key for decryption. This combination teaches the Applicant’s limitation of generating a first encrypted message.),
transmitting, via the communication means, said first encrypted message to at least the separate apparatus ([0036] of Bozzo Fig. 3, exchanging phase of P3a and P3b. Galla teaches an encrypted message in Fig. 3 using a private cryptographic key, sending an encrypted message to destination B.),
receiving, via the communication means, at least one second encrypted message generated by the separate apparatus and encrypted by said separate apparatus by using a second private cryptographic key ([0036] of Bozzo Fig. 3, where exchanging phase of P3a and P3b contains receiving the second encrypted message phases of the applicant. Combining Galla’s teaching of an encrypted message in Fig. 3 using a private cryptographic key with Bozzo’s separate apparatus, teaches the limitation of the Applicant.),
‘decrypting said second encrypted message by using a public cryptographic key associated with said second private cryptographic key, thereby generating a second decrypted message’ ([0050-0054] of Bozzo, see Fig. 3 for verification phase C1a. By combining the pseudo-signatures, hashing two keys together to obtain a verification key Key_AB, as seen in [0048] and [0053] of Bozzo, used to validate a message from apparatus 1b. Galla shows in Fig. 3 that a public key corresponding to source A is used to decrypt a message in destination B, and in combination with a message being transmitted to apparatus 1a of Bozzo, teaches the limitations of the Applicant, and generates a second decrypted message.).
‘verifying that said second decrypted message is equal to said first message by performing a bitwise comparison between the content of said second decrypted message and said first message and, if the verification is successful, encrypting at least said second encrypted message with said first private cryptographic key, thereby generating a third encrypted message’ (Paragraph [0050] of Bozzo Verification phase C1a corresponds to a verification phase of the applicant. Furthermore, Galla’s Fig. 3 shown in page 2 describes an authentication process, showing sources A and B, where a message source is encrypted on source A with a private key, encrypted message sent over to source B, and then decrypted with a public key to obtain the second decrypted message and validate the second decrypted message being equal to the first message. In combination with the XOR bitwise comparison between two pseudo-signatures to verify the validity of the pseudo-signatures received by the other apparatus described in step C1a/C1b of Fig. 3 of Bozzo as described in paragraphs [0051]-[0054], substituting the pseudo-signature comparison of Bozzo with the comparison of the messages over two sources described in Galla, teaches the limitation of performing a bitwise comparison between the contents of said second decrypted message and said first message for verification of the second decrypted message. When the verification is successful, the process of Fig. 3 moves to P4a, as described in [0037-0038] of Bozzo, another signature preparation phase prepares a signature using a second pseudo-signature and a first key. Galla teaches that in page 3 states in section “2. Theory and History”, that if a message is encrypted with one key, it can be decrypted by the other key, when using the private key for encryption. When a message can be encrypted twice, combined with the fact that private and public keys roles for decryption and encryption are interchangeable depending on the scenario, shown in Figs. 2 and 3 of Galla on page 2, correspond to the limitation of encrypting an already encrypted message with a private cryptographic key. In combination with the second and third messages of Bozzo, corresponds to encrypting a second message to produce a third encrypted message of the Applicant.),
‘transmitting, via the communication means, said third encrypted message to a recipient’ ([0039] of Bozzo, Transmission phase, although not shown, transmit the third encrypted message to a recipient, in combination with the teachings of Galla on page 3 regarding encrypting a message.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Bozzo and Galla before them, to include Galla’s ‘encrypted message’, ‘encrypting said first message’, and ‘decrypting said second encrypted message’ in Bozzo’s system performing ‘controlling a transportation system’. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to increase security by having Figure 3 be described as “Public-Key Cryptosystem: Authentication” to encrypt a plaintext message using a private key, and use the public key for decryption of the message for authentication, as taught by Galla [pg. 2].
Regarding claim 24, Bozzo in view of Galla teaches the apparatus of claim 20 as recited above. Bozzo also discloses a system for the generation of messages for controlling the transportation system, comprising: a first apparatus and a separate apparatus according to claim 20 ([0020]-[0022] Fig. 1, system 0 generates messages for controlling a railway system, corresponding to transportation system, an apparatus and separate apparatus are part of system 0.),
wherein said first apparatus and said separate apparatus are configured for communicating with each other over a data communication network ([0025]-[0028] Fig. 3, shows two apparatuses communicating with each other.).
Regarding claim 25, Bozzo in view of Galla teach the apparatus of claim 20 as recited above, as independent claim 25 is a method with similar limitations to independent claim 20 above.
Regarding claim 29, Bozzo discloses a device for the distribution of messages for controlling a transportation system, comprising: memory means containing at least one first cryptographic key ([0020]-[0022] Fig. 1, system 0 generates messages for controlling a railway system, corresponding to transportation system, which is further described as a railway network in paragraph [0024] as a system for generating messages for controlling the railway network, including railway cars, switches, and related components, and [0017] describes a rail system S in Fig. 1, an apparatus and separate apparatus are part of system 0. [0027] Memory means 12 that contains a key in the memory, the key in memory corresponds to a cryptographic key of the applicant.),
communication means adapted to communicate with a separate apparatus in accordance with claim 20 ([0028] Communication means 13 allows device 1 to communicate with other equipment 1b and other elements of the system S in Fig. 1.),
control or processing means in communication with said memory means and said communication means ([0030] Control and/or processing means 11, or CPU 11, is connected with memory and communication means via a communication bus 17 in Fig. 2.),
Bozzo does not appear to fully disclose, but Galla also teaches wherein said control or processing means are configured for: receiving, via the communication means, an encrypted message from said separate apparatus, wherein said message has been encrypted by using at least a first private cryptographic key and a second private cryptographic key (Bozzo [0036] Fig. 3, phase P3a/P3b has a message being received from a separate apparatus. Bozzo [0045]-[0049], Paragraph [0045] shows the bitwise XOR operations, indicating Key_A and Key_B are part of a hash of a message. In combination with the double encryption of Fig. 4 of Galla in page 3 of the reference with a message hash containing hints of Key_A and Key_B in Bozzo, teaches the limitation of encrypting a message with a first and second private cryptographic keys of the Applicant.),
decrypting said encrypted message by using at least the first public cryptographic key associated with at least said first private cryptographic key or said second private cryptographic key, thereby generating a plaintext message (Bozzo [0043]-[0044] XOR operations of the pseudo-signatures and the keys that the apparatuses have after the exchanging operation in P3a and P3b in Fig. 3. C1a and C1b are operations that verify the pseudo-signatures based on the two pseudo-signatures. The public key in use has been created by performing a bitwise operation on two private keys, as shown in paragraph [0053]. Bozzo [0050-0054] See Fig. 3 for phase C1a, corresponds to the decrypting phase. When combining the teachings of Bozzo with those of Galla, Fig. 4 in page 3 of the reference, showing a public key associated with a message source, corresponding to a public key being associated with a first private cryptographic key, with the public key being utilized to decrypt a message and produces a plaintext message, teaches the limitations of the Applicant.),
transmitting, via the communication means, said plaintext message to the separate apparatus comprised in said transportation system ([0036] Exchanging phase P3a, P3b. [0037]-[0039] Step P4a helps to generate a third encrypted message. Step P5a prepares the message, and while not shown, a message is sent to a recipient after step P5a. Paragraph [0040] states that the phases that occur in the apparatuses can occur in a non-sequential manner, meaning that the transmission of a message can come after checking the validity of a message, and therefore, the apparatus can send a plaintext message to the separate apparatus in the system.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Bozzo and Galla before them, to include Galla’s elements of ‘decrypting said encrypted message by using at least the first public cryptographic key associated with at least said first private cryptographic key or said second private cryptographic key’, ‘message has been encrypted by using at least a first private cryptographic key and a second private cryptographic key’ in Bozzo’s device performing ‘controlling a transportation system’. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to increase security by having Figure 3 be described as “Public-Key Cryptosystem: Authentication” to encrypt a plaintext message using a private key, and use the public key for decryption of the message for authentication, and also using Figure 4 as both “Authentication and Secrecy” as a means to have multiple keys be used for encryption to further strengthen security, even with different types working together, as taught by Galla [pgs. 2-3].
Regarding claim 33, Bozzo discloses a message distribution system of claim 29 as described above. Bozzo also discloses a message distribution system for controlling the transportation system, comprising: a first device according and a second device according to claim 29, wherein said first device and said second device are configured for communicating with each other over a data communication network ([0020]-[0022] Fig. 1, system 0 generates messages for controlling a railway system, corresponding to transportation system, an apparatus 1a, and second apparatus 1b are part of system 0. [0025]-[0028] Fig. 3, shows two apparatuses communicating with each other.).
Regarding claim 34, Bozzo in view of Galla teach the device of claim 29 as recited above, as it is a method with similar limitations to independent claim 29 above.
Regarding claim 38, Bozzo discloses a computer program product which can be loaded into the memory of an electronic computer, and which comprises a portion of software code for executing the phases of a method according to claim 25 (See Bozzo’s claim 11, which executes the method steps of claim 10, which include the phases described according to the applicant's claim 25, to which the phases are shown in Fig. 3 of the Bozzo.).
Regarding claim 39, Bozzo discloses a computer program product which can be loaded into the memory of an electronic computer, and which comprises a portion of software code for executing the phases of a method according to claim 34 (See Bozzo’s claim 11, which executes the method steps of claim 10, which include the phases described according to the applicant's claim 34, to which the phases are shown in Fig. 3 of the Bozzo.).
Claims 21 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bozzo in view of Galla, further in view of Chu et al. (US 20210176075 A1), hereinafter Chu.
Regarding claim 21, Bozzo in view of Galla teaches the apparatus of claim 20 as recited above. Bozzo does not appear to fully disclose, but Galla also teaches wherein the control or processing means are also configured for receiving, via the communication means, a fourth encrypted message generated by an apparatus with a private cryptographic key starting from a message encrypted with at least the second private cryptographic key ([0057] Further voting phase happens after P5a occurs in the apparatus of claim 20, which means the operations can continue with other apparatuses, with paragraphs [0058]-[0059] corresponding to the first apparatus sending a third encrypted message, and receiving a fourth message, respectively. Third message is described in paragraph [0037]. with phase P4a showing a second pseudo-signature, which has already been encrypted with a second private key. The process of Fig. 3 of Bozzo begins once again when receiving and validating messages, based on the process of [0057]. Galla teaches that in page 3 states in section “2. Theory and History”, that if a message is encrypted with one key, it can be decrypted by the other key, and when using the private key for encryption, and a public key for decryption. In combination with the fourth message of Bozzo, which can be encrypted with second private cryptographic key as stated in Galla, corresponds to a fourth encrypted message of the Applicant.),
decrypting said fourth encrypted message by using at least a public cryptographic key associated with cryptographic key, thereby generating a fourth decrypted message ([0050-0054] See Fig. 3 for verification phase C1a. By combining the pseudo-signatures, hashing two keys together to obtain a verification key Key_AB, as seen in [0048] and [0053], used to validate a message from apparatus 1b. Galla shows in Fig. 3 that a public key corresponding to source A is used to decrypt a message in destination B, and in combination with a message being transmitted to apparatus 1a of Bozzo, teaches the limitations of the Applicant, and generates a fourth decrypted message.),
verifying said fourth decrypted message on the basis of the first message and, if the verification is successful, encrypting said fourth encrypted message with the first private cryptographic key, thereby generating a fifth encrypted message ([0050] Fig. 3, Verification phase C1a corresponds to a verification phase of the applicant, and can occur again when receiving new messages. When successful, the process of Fig. 3 moves to P4a, as described in [0037-0038], another signature preparation phase prepares a signature using a second pseudo-signature and a first key, which can also be used with a fourth pseudo-signature and a first key. Galla teaches that in page 3 states in section “2. Theory and History”, that if a message is encrypted with one key, it can be decrypted by the other key, and when using the private key for encryption. In combination with the fourth and fifth messages of Bozzo, corresponds to encrypting a fourth message to produce a fifth encrypted message of the Applicant.),
transmitting, via the communication means, said fifth encrypted message ([0039] Transmission phase, although not shown, transmit the fifth encrypted message to a recipient, in combination with the teachings of Galla on page 3 regarding encrypting a message.).
Bozzo in view of Galla does not appear to teach ‘a third apparatus with a third private cryptographic key starting’, and a ‘second public cryptographic key associated with said second private cryptographic key or with said third private cryptographic key’.
However, Chu teaches a third apparatus with a third private cryptographic key starting ([0043] Displays that the three devices in Fig. 1 of Chu are mostly the same, and can be interchanged with each other. [0153]-[0154] Shows that two devices can interchange with one another, and a second device can be substituted for a third device in Chu. Fig. 18 further shows a device with its own private key, to which a third device will contain its own private key, as stated in [0155].),
And a second public cryptographic key associated with said second private cryptographic key or with said third private cryptographic key ([0155] A device can output the certificate indicating the identity of another device, in this case a third device 300 mentioned in the Chu. In conjunction with Bozzo's phase C1a and an algorithm described in [0051]-[0053] of Bozzo, and the private key used for decryption, and public key used for decryption in pages 2-3 of Galla, will contribute to a second public cryptographic key where a first private key combines with a third private key.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Bozzo, Galla, and Chu before them, to include Chu’s ‘a third apparatus with a third private cryptographic key starting’, ‘second public cryptographic key associated with said second private cryptographic key or with said third private cryptographic key’, Galla’s ‘fourth encrypted message generated by an apparatus with a private cryptographic key starting from a message encrypted with at least the second private cryptographic key’, ‘decrypting said fourth encrypted message by using at least a public cryptographic key associated with cryptographic key’, and ‘encrypting said fourth encrypted message with the first private cryptographic key, thereby generating a fifth encrypted message’ in Bozzo’s apparatus performing the controlling of a transportation system, and Chu’s ‘wherein the control or processing means are also configured for receiving, via the communication means, a fourth encrypted message generated by an apparatus with a third private cryptographic key’. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to increase security by having various devices available in a system, and in the case of Chu, a blockchain network. Each device can guarantee the identity of other devices, establish communication with each other, each device including its own set of keys to help with the authentication aspect of Chu, and can help with confirming if a message is valid across the multiple devices, as taught by Chu [0203] and Fig. 1. Increasing security is also performed by having Figure 3 be described as “Public-Key Cryptosystem: Authentication” to encrypt a plaintext message using a private key, and use the public key for decryption of the message for authentication, as taught by Galla [pg. 2].
Regarding claim 26, Bozzo in view of Galla teach the method of claim 25 as recited above. Bozzo in view of Galla teach the limitations also present in dependent claim 21 recited above.
Claims 22-23, 27-28, 30, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bozzo in view of Galla, and further in view of Chu as applied to claims 21 and 26 above, and further in view of Mandal et al. (US 20190081790 A1), hereinafter Mandal.
Regarding claim 22, Bozzo in view of Galla, and in view of Chu teach the apparatus of claims 20 and 21 as recited above. Bozzo in view of Galla does not appear to fully teach the limitations of ‘wherein the second public cryptographic key associated with said second private cryptographic key and with said third private cryptographic key is the result of a combination’, and ‘between at least a fourth public cryptographic key associated with said second private cryptographic key, and a third public cryptographic key associated with said third private cryptographic key’.
However, Chu also teaches that wherein the second public cryptographic key associated with said second private cryptographic key and with said third private cryptographic key is the result of a combination ([0043] Displays that the 3 devices in Fig. 1 of Chu are mostly the same, and can be interchanged with each other. [0155] A device can output the certificate indicating the identity of another device, in this case a third device 300 mentioned in Chu. In conjunction with Bozzo's phase C1a, an algorithm for combining keys described in [0051]-[0053] of Bozzo, will contribute to a second public cryptographic key where a first private key combines with a third private key, and when combining the teachings of Bozzo with those of Galla, Fig. 4 in page 3 of the reference, showing a public key associated with a message source, corresponding to a public key being associated with a first private cryptographic key, and another private cryptographic key when it comes to decryption. However, since an operation can take place on any apparatus, we can perform this function on the second and third devices of the system of Chu, corresponding to the second device and the third device of the applicant, which each contain a second private key, and a third private key, respectively.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Bozzo, Galla, and Chu before them, to include Chu’s ‘wherein the second public cryptographic key associated with said second private cryptographic key and with said third private cryptographic key is the result of a combination’, and Galla’s ‘with said second private cryptographic key and with said third private cryptographic key’ in Bozzo’s apparatus performing the controlling of a transportation system. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to increase security by having various devices available in a system, and in the case of Chu, a blockchain network, and with those devices present, and in light of Bozzo, the keys being combined from the other devices will ensure that while the first device will not know the identities of the private keys, it can use a key that will operate similarly, and use it for decrypting incoming messages for both apparatuses, as taught by Chu, Fig. 1. Increasing security is also performed by use of private keys for encryption is used by having Figure 3 be described as “Public-Key Cryptosystem: Authentication” to encrypt a plaintext message using a private key, and use the public key for decryption of the message for authentication, as taught by Galla [pg. 2].
Bozzo in view of Galla, and further in view of Chu does not appear to teach the limitation of ‘between at least a fourth public cryptographic key associated with said second private cryptographic key, and a third public cryptographic key associated with said third private cryptographic key’.
However, Mandal teaches the limitation of ‘between at least a fourth public cryptographic key associated with said second private cryptographic key, and a third public cryptographic key associated with said third private cryptographic key’ ([0046] The two other participating systems send over the their respective public keys 144 and 154 to a first system, shown in Fig. 1B, and the public keys 144 and 154 correspond to, respectively, a fourth public key associated with a second private key, and a third public key associated with third private key. In Fig. 4 of Galla, public keys are shown to be associated with their respective private keys, teaching this limitation of the Applicant. Then, applying the XOR operation of [0051]-[0053] for combining keys as described in Bozzo, we can have a second public key that is the result between a fourth public key associated with a second private key of a separate apparatus, and a third public key associated with a third private key of a third apparatus.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Bozzo, Chu and Mandal before them, to include Mandal’s and Galla’s ‘between at least a fourth public cryptographic key associated with said second private cryptographic key, and a third public cryptographic key associated with said third private cryptographic key’ in Bozzo’s apparatus for controlling a transportation system, and Chu’s ‘wherein the second public cryptographic key associated with said second private cryptographic key and with said third private cryptographic key is the result of a combination’. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to increase security by having the various public keys that have been collected, and when a system has both of those keys, can ensure stronger security by performing a multitude of functions, which can include the combination of keys that is taught by Bozzo, and generate messages to send to both systems, as taught by Mandal [0046], and Fig. 1B. Increasing security is also performed with Galla by having Figure 3 be described as “Public-Key Cryptosystem: Authentication” to encrypt a plaintext message using a private key, and use the public key for decryption of the message for authentication, and also using Figure 4 as both “Authentication and Secrecy” as a means to have multiple keys be used for encryption to further strengthen security, even with different types working together, as taught by Galla [pgs. 2-3].
Regarding claim 23, Bozzo in view of Galla teach the apparatus of claim 20 as recited above. Bozzo does not appear to fully disclose, but Galla also teaches wherein the control or processing means are also configured for transmitting, via the communication means, said first encrypted message (Bozzo [0036] Fig. 3, where exchanging phase of P3a and P3b correspond to the transmitting and receiving phases of the applicant. Page 3 of Galla states in section “2. Theory and History”, that if a message is encrypted with one key, it can be decrypted by the other key, and when using the private key for encryption, and a public key for decryption. This combination teaches the Applicant’s limitation of generating a first encrypted message, and teaches the limitation of transmitting a first encrypted message of the Applicant.),
receiving, via the communication means, also at least one fourth encrypted message generated by the apparatus and encrypted by said apparatus by using a private cryptographic key (Bozzo [0036] Fig. 3, where exchanging phase of P3a and P3b correspond to the transmitting and receiving phases of the applicant. Galla teaches that in page 3 states in section “2. Theory and History”, that if a message is encrypted with one key, it can be decrypted by the other key, and when using the private key for encryption, and a public key for decryption. In combination with the fourth message of Bozzo, which can be encrypted with second private cryptographic key as stated in Galla, corresponds to a fourth encrypted message of the Applicant.),
decrypting also said fourth encrypted message by using a fifth public cryptographic key associated with said private cryptographic key, thereby generating a third decrypted message ([0050-0054] See Fig. 3 for phase C1a, corresponds to the decrypting phase. By combining the pseudo-signatures, hashing two keys together to obtain a verification key Key_AB, as seen in [0048] and [0053], used to validate a message from apparatus 1b. Galla shows in Fig. 3 that a public key corresponding to source A is used to decrypt a message in destination B, and in combination with a message being transmitted to apparatus 1a of Bozzo, teaches the limitations of the Applicant, and generates a third decrypted message.),
verifying also at least said third decrypted message on the basis of said first message and, if the verification is successful ([0050] Fig. 3, Verification phase C1a. [0060] describes a validation with another apparatus that is done when the comparison of messages is successful, primarily through equal messages. This includes the first message that was performed in claim 20 of this application.),
encrypting at least said second encrypted message and said fourth encrypted message with said first private cryptographic key, thereby generating said third encrypted message (When successful, the process of Fig. 3 moves to P4a, as described in [0037-0038], another signature preparation phase prepares a signature using a second pseudo-signature from a separate apparatus, and a fourth pseudo-signature from a third apparatus, is utilized with a first private key. Galla teaches that in page 3 states in section “2. Theory and History”, that if a message is encrypted with one key, it can be decrypted by the other key, and when using the private key for encryption. In combination with the second and fourth messages of Bozzo, corresponds to using a first private key encrypting a third encrypted message of the Applicant.).
Bozzo in view of Galla does not appear to teach ‘third apparatus’, and ‘third private cryptographic key’.
However, Chu teaches third apparatus ([0043] Displays that the 3 devices in Fig. 1 of Chu are mostly the same, and can be interchanged with each other. [0153]-[0154] Shows that two devices can interchange with one another, and a second device can be substituted for a third device in the Chu. Fig. 18 further shows a device with its own private key, to which a third device will contain its own private key, as stated in [0155].),
third private cryptographic key ([0155] Fig. 18 further shows a device with its own private key, to which a third device will contain its own private key.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Bozzo, Galla and Chu before them, to include Chu’s ‘third apparatus’, and ‘third private cryptographic key’, Galla’s ‘first encrypted message’, ‘fourth encrypted message generated by the apparatus and encrypted by said apparatus by using a private cryptographic key’, ‘decrypting also said fourth encrypted message by using a fifth public cryptographic key associated with said private cryptographic key’, and ‘encrypting at least said second encrypted message and said fourth encrypted message with said first private cryptographic key, thereby generating said third encrypted message’ in Bozzo’s apparatus performing the controlling of a transportation system, and ‘wherein the control or processing means are also configured for transmitting, via the communication means, said first encrypted message’. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to increase security by having various devices available in a system, and in the case of Chu, a blockchain network. Each device can guarantee the identity of other devices, establish communication with each other, each device including its own set of keys to help with the authentication aspect of the Chu, and can help with confirming if a message is valid across the multiple devices, as taught by Chu [0203] and Fig. 1. Adding a third apparatus to a system in view of the primary art of Bozzo would be an obvious addition to further stabilize the transportation system by having extra apparatuses to control other parts of a transportation system. Increasing security is also performed by having Figure 3 be described as “Public-Key Cryptosystem: Authentication” to encrypt a plaintext message using a private key, and use the public key for decryption of the message for authentication, and a public key for decryption, as taught by Galla [pg. 2].
Bozzo in view of Galla, and further in view of Chu does not appear to teach the aspect of ‘also to a third apparatus’.
However, Mandal teaches the aspect of ‘also to a third apparatus’ ([0047]-[0048] Second and third systems in Fig. 1B receive an encrypted message simultaneously.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Bozzo, Galla, Chu, and Mandal before them, to include Mandal’s ‘also to a third apparatus’ in Bozzo’s apparatus performing the controlling of a transportation system, ‘wherein the control or processing means are also configured for transmitting, via the communication means, said first encrypted message’, and Chu’s ‘third apparatus’, and ‘third private cryptographic key’. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to increase efficiency by increase efficiency by having one operation that will be sent to two devices, which when viewing the applicant's invention in light of Chu, and Mandal, shows that a response can then be received from the two other apparatuses after the first encrypted message is sent from the first apparatus, which will assist in the process of establishing communication to at least three devices in a system, and further verification that the message is the same across the three devices, as taught by Mandal, [0032]-[0034], and Fig. 1B.
Regarding claim 27, Bozzo in view of Galla teach the method of claim 25 as recited above. Bozzo in view of Galla teach the limitations also present in dependent claim 22 recited above.
Regarding claim 28, Bozzo in view of Galla teach the method of claim 25 as recited above. Bozzo in view of Galla teach the limitations also present in dependent claim 23 recited above.
Regarding claim 30, Bozzo in view of Galla discloses the device of claim 29 as recited above. Bozzo in view of Galla does not appear to fully teach, but Chu teaches that wherein the encrypted message received has been encrypted by using a third private cryptographic key ([0043] Displays that the three devices in Fig. 1 of Chu are mostly the same, and can be interchanged with each other. [0153]-[0154] Shows that two devices can interchange with one another, and a second device can be substituted for a third device in Chu. Fig. 18 further shows a device with its own private key, to which a third device will contain its own private key, as stated in [0155]. Furthermore, page 3 of Galla states in section “2. Theory and History”, that if a message is encrypted with one key, it can be decrypted by the other key, and when using the private key for encryption, and a public key for decryption. This combination teaches the Applicant’s limitation of an encrypted message being encrypted with a private cryptographic key.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Bozzo, Galla, and Chu before them, to include Chu’s ‘device according to claim 29, wherein the encrypted message received has been encrypted by using a third private cryptographic key’, Galla’s ‘encrypted message received has been encrypted by using a third private cryptographic key’ in Bozzo’s device for the distribution of messages for controlling a transportation system. One would have been motivated to make such a substitution of the second device in Bozzo, to the third device present in Chu, to increase security by having various devices available in a system, and in the case of Chu, a blockchain network. Each device can guarantee the identity of other devices, establish communication with each other, each device including its own set of keys to help with the authentication aspect of Chu, and can help with confirming if a message is valid across the multiple devices, as taught by Chu [0203] and Fig. 1. Adding a third apparatus to a system in view of the primary art of Bozzo would be an obvious addition to further stabilize the transportation system by having extra apparatuses to control other parts of said system. Increasing security is also performed by having Figure 3 be described as “Public-Key Cryptosystem: Authentication” to encrypt a plaintext message using a private key, and use the public key for decryption of the message for authentication, and a public key for decryption, as taught by Galla [pg. 2].
Bozzo in view of Galla, and further in view of Chu do not appear to teach the aspect of ‘also to a third apparatus’.
However, Mandal teaches the aspect of ‘also to a third apparatus’ ([0047]-[0048] Second and third systems in Fig. 1B receive an encrypted message simultaneously.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Bozzo, Galla, Chu, and Mandal before them, to include Mandal’s ‘also to a third apparatus’ in Bozzo’s device for the distribution of messages for controlling a transportation system, ‘wherein the control or processing means are also configured for transmitting, via the communication means, said first encrypted message’, and Chu’s ‘third apparatus’, and ‘third private cryptographic key’. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to increase efficiency by increase efficiency by having one operation that will be sent to two devices, which when viewing the applicant's invention in light of Chu, and Mandal, shows that a response can then be received from the two other apparatuses after the first encrypted message is sent from the first apparatus, which will assist in the process of establishing communication to at least three devices in a system, and further verification that the message is the same across the three devices, as taught by Mandal, [0032]-[0034], and Fig. 1B.
Regarding claim 35, Bozzo in view of Galla teach the method of claim 34 as recited above. Bozzo in view of Galla teach the limitations also present in dependent claim 30 recited above.
Claims 31 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bozzo in view of Galla, and further in view of Mandal.
Regarding claim 31, Bozzo in view of Galla discloses the apparatus of claim 20, and the device of claim 29 as recited above. Bozzo in view of Galla does not appear to fully teach, but Mandal teaches the limitation of ‘wherein the first public cryptographic key is the result of a combination between at least a second public cryptographic key associated with at least said first private cryptographic key, and a third public cryptographic key associated with at least said second private cryptographic key’ ([0046] The two other participating systems send over the their respective public keys 144 and 154 to a first system, shown in Fig. 1B, with public key 144 corresponding to a third public key associated with a second private key. In Fig. 4 of Galla, public keys are shown to be associated with their respective private keys, teaching this limitation of the Applicant. The second public key associated with the first public key is already in the memory of system 120 in Mandal. Using the XOR operation present in Bozzo [0051]-[0053], we can combine the two public keys together to achieve the first public cryptographic key, when also taking into account the teachings of Galla, Fig. 4 in page 3 of the reference, showing a public key associated with a message source, corresponding to a public key being associated with a first private cryptographic key, and another public key associated with a second private cryptographic key.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Bozzo, Galla, and Mandal before them, to include Mandal’s ‘wherein the first public cryptographic key is the result of a combination between at least a second public cryptographic key associated with at least said first private cryptographic key, and a third public cryptographic key associated with at least said second private cryptographic key’, Galla’s ‘second public cryptographic key associated with at least said first private cryptographic key, and a third public cryptographic key associated with at least said second private cryptographic key’ in Bozzo’s device for the distribution of messages for controlling a transportation system. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to increase security by having the various public keys that have been collected, and when a system has both of those keys, can ensure stronger security by performing a multitude of functions, which can include the combination of keys that is taught by Bozzo, and generate messages to send to the other system, and decrypt messages in a more secure manner while saving time having to check the other apparatus every time, as taught by Mandal [0046], and Fig. 1B. Increasing security is also done by having Figure 3 be described as “Public-Key Cryptosystem: Authentication” to encrypt a plaintext message using a private key, and use the public key for decryption of the message for authentication, and also using Figure 4 as both “Authentication and Secrecy” as a means to have multiple keys be used for encryption to further strengthen security, even with different types working together, with multiple public and private key pairs present, as taught by Galla [pgs. 2-3].
Regarding claim 36, Bozzo in view of Galla teach the method of claim 34 as recited above. Bozzo in view of Galla teach the limitations also present in dependent claim 31 recited above.
Claims 32 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bozzo in view of Galla, and further in view of Huck (US 20210281406 A1).
Regarding claim 32, Bozzo in view of Galla teaches the device of claim 29. Bozzo does not appear to fully disclose, but Galla also teaches wherein the control or processing means are configured for decrypting said encrypted message by executing the steps of decrypting said encrypted message by using at least the first public cryptographic key associated with at least said first private cryptographic key, thereby generating a first decrypted message ([0050-0054] See Fig. 3 for phase C1a, corresponds to the decrypting phase. The public key in use has been created by performing a bitwise operation on two private keys, as shown in paragraph [0053]. Galla shows in Fig. 3 that a public key corresponding to source A is used to decrypt a message in destination B, wherein the public key is also associated with its respective private key.),
transmitting, via the communication means, said first decrypted message ([0036] Exchanging phase P3a, P3b, including transmitting. [0037]-[0039] Step P4a helps to generate a third encrypted message. Step P5a prepares the message, and while not shown, a message is sent to a recipient after step P5a. Paragraph [0040] states that the phases that occur in the apparatuses can occur in a non-sequential manner, meaning that the transmission of a message can come after checking the validity of a message, and therefore, the apparatus can send a decrypted message to a separate apparatus in the system. Decrypted message is described in Fig. 3 in Galla, using a public key to decrypt a message.),
receiving, via said communication means, a second decrypted message, wherein said second decrypted message has been decrypted by using at least one fourth public cryptographic key associated with at least said second private cryptographic key ([0036] Exchanging phase P3a, P3b, including receiving. [0058]-[0059] corresponding to the first apparatus sending a first decrypted message, and receiving a second decrypted message from a separate apparatus, respectively. The separate apparatus performs the same functions as the first apparatus, and has the same properties as it, except it contains a private key unique to it. A public key that has been generated by a separate apparatus, and stored within that has been combined with a first and second private key corresponds to the fourth public cryptographic key of the applicant. Paragraph [0040] states that the phases that occur in the apparatuses can occur in a non-sequential manner, meaning that the transmission of a message can come after checking the validity of a message, and therefore, the apparatus can send a plaintext message to a separate apparatus in the system. Furthermore, when combining the teachings of Bozzo with those of Galla, Fig. 4 in page 3 of the reference, showing a public key associated with a message source, corresponding to a fourth public key being associated with a second private cryptographic key, with the public key being utilized to decrypt a message and produces a plaintext message, teaches the limitations of the Applicant.),
decrypting, by the control or processing means, said second decrypted message by using the first public cryptographic key associated with at least said first private cryptographic key, thereby generating the plaintext message ([0043]-[0044] XOR operations of the pseudo-signatures and the keys that the apparatuses have after the exchanging operation in P3a and P3b in Fig. 3. C1a and C1b are operations that verify the pseudo-signatures based on the two pseudo-signatures, and a message is verified using a public cryptographic key, and generates a plaintext message. The public key in use has been created by performing a bitwise operation on two private keys, as shown in paragraph [0053]. [0050-0054] See Fig. 3 for phase C1a, corresponds to the decrypting phase. When combining the teachings of Bozzo with those of Galla, Fig. 4 in page 3 of the reference, showing a public key associated with a message source, corresponding to a public key being associated with a first private cryptographic key, with the public key being utilized to decrypt a message and produces a plaintext message, teaches the limitations of the Applicant.).
Bozzo in view of Galla does not appear to teach the aspect of ‘semi-decrypted message’.
However, Huck teaches ‘semi-decrypted message’ ([0203] Fig. 8, the bottom half of the figure shows the decryption process of a message happening, and using a reverse offset operation 818, as stated in the specification, we have partially decrypted data 820, corresponding to the semi-decrypted data of the applicant.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Bozzo and Huck before them, to include Huck’s ‘semi-decrypted message’, Galla’s ‘said encrypted message by using at least the first public cryptographic key associated with at least said first private cryptographic key’, ‘said second decrypted message has been decrypted by using at least one fourth public cryptographic key associated with at least said second private cryptographic key’, ‘decrypting, said second decrypted message by using the first public cryptographic key associated with at least said first private cryptographic key, thereby generating the plaintext message’ in Bozzo’s device for the distribution of messages for controlling a transportation system, and ‘wherein the control or processing means are configured for decrypting said encrypted message by executing the steps of decrypting said encrypted message by using at least the first public cryptographic key associated with at least said first private cryptographic key’. One would have been motivated to make such a substitution of the decrypted message present in Bozzo with the semi-decrypted message present in Huck to increase efficiency by having information that isn't as sensitive, or have metadata readable, so that the systems can detect what types of messages are either generated and transmitted/received by the apparatuses in the system, as shown in Huck, Fig. 8. Increasing security is also done by having Figure 3 be described as “Public-Key Cryptosystem: Authentication” to decrypt a message using a public key, and use the public key for decryption of the message for authentication, as taught by Galla [pg. 2].
Regarding claim 37, Bozzo in view of Galla teach the method of claim 34 as recited above. Bozzo in view of Galla teach the limitations also present in dependent claim 31 recited above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
SOUNDARARAJAN et al. (US 20200044831 A1, “SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR USING DISTRIBUTED ATTESTATION TO VERIFY CLAIM OF ATTESTATION HOLDER”)
LEE et al. (US 20080046743 A1, “Electronic Document Signing System For Business, Has Message Digest Generating Module Generating Message Digest Of Document, And Message Digest Encrypting Module Encrypting Message Digest With Key So As To Yield Digital Signature”)
DESBOROUGH (CA 2352325 A1, “HIGH ASSURANCE DIGITAL SIGNATURES”)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOMMY MARTINEZ whose telephone number is (703)756-5651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8AM-4PM ET.
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 on Monday thru Friday, 7AM-7PM ET. 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.
/T.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2496
/JORGE L ORTIZ CRIADO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2496