DETAILED ACTION
This Action is in consideration of the Applicant’s response on January 23, 2026. No amendments are made by the Applicant. Claims 1 – 20, where Claims 1, 10, and 17 are in independent form, are presented for examination.
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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on January 21, 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent 11,876,889 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed January 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued:
a) Regarding Claims 1, 10, and 17, Urbanik does not disclose or suggest of the claimed key generator.
The Office respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertions.
1. With regards to a), In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., key generator that is superior to key tables) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The Applicant appears to misinterpret the updating of the key table with the generation of the encryption keys [See Remarks, Pg. 8-9]. As indicated in the Office Action, the first 32 bytes (256 bits) are used to generate a 112 or 128 bit key [Para. 0021, 0052-53, 0070-72, 0077]. A key generator can be any information or value that is used to generate encryption keys. Therefore, Urbanik discloses the claimed limitation.
The Applicant further emphasis size of the key generator where the number of bits increases the entropy and size of the orbit of the key generator [See Remarks, Pgs. 9-11]. However, nothing within the claims specifies any size requirements other than the key generator being at least 64 bits greater than the generated key. The Applicant’s arguments are merely reciting mathematical properties associated with numbers and does not distinguish the claims from the cited art.
Additionally, the remarks regarding Urbanik’s key being able to be computed would also require the attacker to know the hash function used [See Remarks, Pg. 11]. Likewise, Applicant’s invention would be moot if an attacker obtained the key generator and the hash function used to generate the encryption key, regardless of the size of the key generator. No other arguments are presented. Therefore, the prior art rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1, 2, 4 – 6, 8 – 13, 15, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Urbanik, in the alternative, Urbanik, in view of PGPub. 2011/0283110 (hereafter “Dapkus”).
2. Regarding Claims 1, 10, and 17, Urbanik discloses a system of encrypting information, comprising:
providing, by a system, information and a first key generator [Fig. 1], the system including at least one machine having at least one processor and at least one memory [Para. 0005; inherent in data encryption systems to utilize a processor and memory];
wherein the first key generator is comprised of a first part and a second part [Fig. 1; Para. 0037-38];
deriving a first key by applying a one-way hash function to the first part of the first key generator [Fig. 1; Para. 0036-37, 0052, 0055-56, 0070-73, 0092], wherein the size of the first key generator is at least 64 bits greater than the size of the first key [Para. 0021, 0052-53, 0070-72, first 32 bytes used to generate key of 112 or 128 bits];
encrypting, by the system, one or more blocks of the information based on the first key [Fig. 1; Para. 0055];
computing a second key generator by applying a one-way function to both the first part of the first key generator and the second part of the first key generator resulting in a second key generator [Fig. 1; Para. 0036-37, 052, 0055-56, 0070-73, 0092; second key generator is the transformed key table];
wherein the second key generator is comprised of a first part and a second part [Fig. 1; Para. 0036-37, 052, 0055-56, 0070-73, 0092; second key generator also used in subsections];
deriving a second key by applying a one-way hash function to the first part of the second key generator, wherein the size of the second key generator is at least 64 bits greater than the size of the second key [Para. 0021, 0051-54, 0070-72, first 32 bytes used to generate key of 112 or 128 bits];
encrypting one or more additional blocks of the information based on the second key [Fig .1; Para. 005-256, 0070-73, 0092].
In the alternative the Applicant opines that Urbanik does not disclose of a machine comprising a processor and memory, Dapkus discloses a system and method of encrypting communication between devices using a machine comprising a processor and memory to perform the various functions [Figs. 9 and 10; Para. 0195-196, 0199-200]. It would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Dapkus with Urbanik since both systems are within the field of encryption. The combination applies well-known, well-understood, routine implementation of a computing device to implement encryption. The motivation to do so is to utilize Urbanik in a practical application in the real world versus being merely theory or simulation for commercialization.
3. Regarding Claims 3 and 12, Urbanik or, alternatively, Urbanik and Dapkus discloses the limitations of Claims 1 and 10. Urbanik further discloses that said one-way function requires at least 264 computational steps to find a preimage point [Para. 0020, 0052-53].
4. Regarding Claim 4, Urbanik or, alternatively, Urbanik and Dapkus discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Urbanik further discloses that said one-way function requires at least 264 computational steps to find a collision [Para. 0020, 0052-53].
5. Regarding Claims 5 and 13, Urbanik or, alternatively, Urbanik and Dapkus discloses the limitations of Claims 1 and 10. Urbanik further discloses that said second key is derived at least in part by applying a different, one-way hash function to the second key generator than the one-way hash function used in deriving the first key [Para. 0045, 0047, 0063].
6. Regarding Claims 6, 16, and 18, Urbanik or, alternatively, Urbanik and Dapkus discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 10, and 17. Urbanik further discloses that said one-way hash function used in deriving the first key requires at least 264 computational steps to find a collision [Para. 0020, 0052-53].
7. Regarding Claims 7 and 12, Urbanik or, alternatively, Urbanik and Dapkus discloses the limitations of Claims 1 and 10. Urbanik further discloses that said one-way hash function used in deriving the first key requires at least 264 computational steps to find a preimage point [Para. 0020, 0052-53].
Claims 2, 11, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urbanik, in view of PGPub. 2007/0234034 (hereinafter “Leone”) or, alternatively, Urbanik, in view of Dapkus and Leone.
8. Regarding Claims 2, 11, and 19, Urbanik or, alternatively, Urbanik and Dapkus discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 10, and 17. Urbanik further discloses the use of a SHA-2 hash function to generate the first key [Para. 0021]. Neither Urbanik nor Dapkus, however, specifically discloses that said one-way hash function is one of the following: SHA-384, SHA-512, SHA-1, Keccak, BLAKE, Gr0stL, JH, or Skein.
Leone discloses a system and method for securing communications between devices within a network [Abstract]. Leone further discloses the implementation of cipher block chain encryption [Para. 0082, 0089]. Leone additionally discloses the use of SHA-1 function to generate the encryption key [Para. 0074]. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Leone with Urbanik since both systems implemented hashing algorithms to generate encryption keys for block ciphers. This would have been an obvious variation to the type of hashing algorithm that is used and would have been a designer’s choice to implement. The motivation to do so is to use a more utilized hashing algorithm to simplify implementation of the encryption system [obvious to one skilled in the art].
Claims 8, 9, 14, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urbanik, in view of U.S. Patent 6,324,558 (hereinafter “Wilber”) or, alternatively, Urbanik, in view of Dapkus and Wilber.
9. Regarding Claims 8, 14, and 20, Urbanik or, alternatively, Urbanik and Dapkus discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 10 and 17. Urbanik further discloses of using a Random Number Generator to create the key that initiates the encryption process [Para. 0016-17]. Neither Urbanik nor Dapkus, however, specifically discloses that said non-deterministic process uses photons.
Wilber discloses a random number generator (RNG) circuit [Abstract]. Wilber further discloses that the RNG circuit can use quantum noise in a stream of photons to generate a random number [Fig. 17; Col. 24, line 65 – Col. 25, line 6]. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Wilber with Urbanik since the incorporation of a photon RNG is a well-known circuit used to generate random number and would have been a designer’s choice as to how the random number is generated.
10. Regarding Claims 9 and 15, Urbanik, in view of Wilber, or, alternatively, Urbanik, in view of Dapkus and Wilber, discloses the limitations of Claims 8 and 14. Wilber further discloses that said photons are detected by a semiconductor chip [Fig. 17; Col. 24, line 65 – Col. 25, line 6].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Contacts
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tae K. Kim, whose telephone number is (571) 270-1979. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday (10:00 AM - 6:30 PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Jorge Ortiz-Criado, can be reached on (571) 272-7624. The fax phone number for submitting all Official communications is (703) 872-9306. The fax phone number for submitting informal communications such as drafts, proposed amendments, etc., may be faxed directly to the examiner at (571) 270-2979.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free).
/TAE K KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2496