DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
1. This written action is responding to the amendment dated on 02/06/2026.
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under
the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
3. The objection to claims 5, 14 and 15 is withdrawn.
4. The 112(b) rejection to claims 1-7 is withdrawn.
5. Claims 1, 5, 8, 14 and 15 are amended.
6. Claims 1-18 are submitted for examination.
7. Claims 1-18 are rejected.
8. The Examiner would like to point out that this action is made final (See MPEP
706.07a).
9.
Applicant’s Argument:
On pages 6-8 of the Remarks/Arguments, Applicant argues that Fischer does not teach “decrypt the encrypted input data within the application to produce unencrypted data stored in an internal input buffer”.
Response to Argument: Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments because Fischer substantially teaches upon receiving the bytecode and the encrypted data, the trusted module may decrypt the data, process the bytecode instructions on the decrypted data, encrypt the results [0016], and fig. 3-4, wherein the receiving the encrypting data, decrypting the data, encrypting the results and transferring the encrypted results to the client device can be performed by a software program such as an application, a service, or other program that is executing on a cloud platform, a server, a database node, a computing system, or a combination of devices/nodes [0080] and fig. 4. Thus, Fischer teaches the above limitation.
10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-11, 13 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Fischer et al. US 2022/0067179 (hereinafter Fischer).
Regarding claim 1 Fischer teaches an apparatus for operating system agnostic data encryption, comprising:
a processor; and a memory communicatively connected to the processor, the memory containing instructions configuring the processor to (Fischer teaches a plurality of computing device to communicate with each other, wherein each of the devices comprises at least a memory and a processor [0018] and fig. 1-2B and fig. 5):
receive encrypted input data for processing by an application; store the encrypted input data in a communications input buffer, the communications input buffer being separate from the application (Fischer teaches a client uploads the bytecode and the encrypted data to the host platform, the upload may initially be received by a component (e.g., an application class, etc.) of the application that is running within an untrusted domain/area of the host platform [0015], and fig. 3-4);
execute the application, wherein the application is configured to: move the encrypted input data from the communications input buffer to an application input buffer specific to the application (Fischer teaches the application class may transfer the instructions and the encrypted data to the trusted module via the wrapper. The trusted module may include routines that are “application-independent” and executed on the encrypted data [0015] and fig. 2B-4);
decrypt the encrypted input data within the application to produce unencrypted data stored in an internal input buffer; run one or more programs within the application with the unencrypted input data as an input to generate unencrypted output data; store the unencrypted output data in an internal output buffer, the internal output buffer operating within the application; convert the unencrypted output data into encrypted output data within the application (Fischer teaches upon receiving the bytecode and the encrypted data, the trusted module may decrypt the data, process the bytecode instructions on the decrypted data, encrypt the results [0016], and fig. 3-4, wherein the receiving the encrypting data, decrypting the data, encrypting the results and transferring the encrypted results to the client device can be performed by a software program such as an application, a service, or other program that is executing on a cloud platform, a server, a database node, a computing system, or a combination of devices/nodes [0080] and fig. 4); and
transfer the encrypted output data to an out buffer controlled by the application or an operating system (OS) (Fischer teaches the application class may combine any additional processing results performed outside of the trusted module to the encrypted results, and return the combined/executed results to a main component (e.g., a main class) of the application running on the client device [0016], and fig. 3-4, wherein the receiving the encrypting data, decrypting the data, encrypting the results and transferring the encrypted results to the client device can be performed by a software program such as an application, a service, or other program that is executing on a cloud platform, a server, a database node, a computing system, or a combination of devices/nodes [0080] and fig. 4).
Regarding claim 2 Fischer teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the encrypted input data in the application input buffer and the encrypted output data in the application output buffer are both in protected states (fig. 2B).
Regarding claim 4 Fischer teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the encrypted input data and the encrypted output data are both stored in a same protected data file (Fischer teaches upon receiving the bytecode and the encrypted data, the trusted module may decrypt the data, process the bytecode instructions on the decrypted data, encrypt the results, and return them to the application class via the DFA wrapper [0016] and fig. 2B).
Regarding claim 6 Fischer teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the application is further configured to create a separate data file from a data file of the encrypted input data and store the encrypted output data in the separate data file (Fischer teaches upon receiving the bytecode and the encrypted data, the trusted module may decrypt the data, process the bytecode instructions on the decrypted data, encrypt the results, and return them to the application class via the DFA wrapper. The application class may combine any additional processing results performed outside of the trusted module to the encrypted results, and return the combined/executed results to a main component (e.g., a main class) of the application running on the client device [0016]).
Regarding claim 7 Fischer teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the application is further configured to: extract a portion of the unencrypted input data from a file; run one or more programs with the portion of the unencrypted input data; and return the portion of the unencrypted output data to the same file, which in the process re-encrypts the data (Fischer teaches upon receiving the bytecode and the encrypted data, the trusted module may decrypt the data, process the bytecode instructions on the decrypted data, encrypt the results, and return them to the application class via the DFA wrapper [0016] and fig. 2B).
In response to Claim 8: Rejected for the same reason as claim 1
In response to Claim 9: Rejected for the same reason as claim 2
Regarding claim 10 Fischer teaches the method of claim 8, wherein receiving the encrypted input data comprises receiving the encrypted input data from an external computing device (Fischer teaches a client (i.e. external device) uploads the bytecode and the encrypted data to the host platform [0015] and fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11 Fischer teaches the method of claim 8, wherein receiving the encrypted input data comprises receiving the encrypted input data from a local storage device [0015] and fig. 1.
In response to Claim 13: Rejected for the same reason as claim 4
In response to Claim 15: Rejected for the same reason as claim 6
In response to Claim 16: Rejected for the same reason as claim 7
Regarding claim 17 Fischer teaches the method of claim 8, wherein running the one or more programs further comprises generating a virtual file from the unencrypted input data and running one or more programs with the virtual file [0019].
Regarding claim 18 Fischer teaches the method of claim 17, further comprising storing the virtual file in random access memory (RAM) [0088].
11.
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 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 of this title, 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 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer as mentioned above, in view of Verma et al. US 2016/0309481 (hereinafter Verma).
Regarding claim 3 Fischer teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Fischer does not teach unencrypted input data and unencrypted output data are agnostic to a native operating system (OS) of the processor. Verma substantially teaches a plurality of device may wirelessly communicate with each other via internet [0031-0032], fig. 1, 9-10, wherein a device may include a wireless communication unit with a software that is independent from the operating system on the device [0079] and fig. 7.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fischer such that the invention further includes unencrypted input data and unencrypted output data are agnostic to a native operating system (OS) of the processor. One would have been motivated to do so to make the system more reliable, for example preventing a packet with a malicious code to be separated to other files of the OS.
In response to Claim 12: Rejected for the same reason as claim 3
12.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer as mentioned above, in view of Smith et al. US 2022/0004649 (hereinafter Smith).
Regarding claim 5 Fischer teaches the apparatus of claim 4. Fischer does not teach a data file is an intelligent cipher transfer object (ICTO). Smith substantially teaches different techniques may be used to protect the data and to access the protected data. For example, an irreversible protection scheme may be used to combine multiple pieces of data into a single digital mixture [0038], wherein the ICTO is called digital mixture [0042].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fischer such that the invention further includes a data file is an intelligent cipher text object (ICTO). One would have been motivated to do so to provide self-protecting and self-governing, that is less dependent on keys and passwords for authentication [0006].
In response to Claim 14: Rejected for the same reason as claim 5
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ayoub Alata whose telephone number is (313) 446-6541. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8:00am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Jay Kim can be reached at (571) 272-3804. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/AYOUB ALATA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2494