DETAILED ACTION
A response was received on 11 May 2026. By this response, Claims 1-6 and 11-16 have been amended. No claims have been added or canceled. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the present application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), Applicant alleges that one of ordinary skill would readily understand what is being claimed in light of the detailed description and amended claims (page 8 of the present response, citing page 30 of the present specification). However, while the amendments are sufficient to address the issues of indefiniteness (and lack of written description) previously raised by the term “cybertext”, which has been replaced with the supported term “ciphertext”, neither the present amendments nor Applicant’s arguments appear to address or acknowledge the other issues of indefiniteness raised in the previous Office action. Applicant provides no explanation of how the amendments would address the other outstanding issues of indefiniteness, nor does Applicant explain how the claim limitations at issue should allegedly be interpreted in light of the detailed description.
Therefore, for the reasons detailed above, the Examiner maintains the rejections as set forth below.
Specification
The objection to the specification for failure to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failure to comply with the written description requirement is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims. The rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite is NOT withdrawn for the reasons detailed above and because not all issues have been addressed, as detailed below.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “generating… first tag hash check data based on the second random number and based on the first AS hash” in lines 23-24. It is not clear what algorithm is used or how the hash check data is based on multiple inputs. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claim 2 recites “in response to determining a hash of the second random number matches the second AS hash” in lines 3-4. However, the claims do not recite such determining as part of the method, which appears to be a gap in the claim.
Claim 3 recites “in response to determining that the second random number differs from the first random number” in lines 3-4. However, the claims do not recite such determining as part of the method, which appears to be a gap in the claim.
Claim 4 recites “generating… second tag hash check data based on the third random number and based on the first tag hash” in lines 14-15. It is not clear what algorithm is used or how the hash check data is based on multiple inputs. It is not clear how these meet the definitions of these operations.
Claim 5 recites “in response to determining that the third random number differs from the second random number” in lines 3-4. However, the claims do not recite such determining as part of the method, which appears to be a gap in the claim.
Claim 6 recites “in response to determining a hash of the third random number matches the third AS hash” in lines 3-4. However, the claims do not recite such determining as part of the method, which appears to be a gap in the claim.
Claim 11 recites “generating… first tag hash check data based on the second random number and based on the first AS hash” in lines 25-26. It is not clear what algorithm is used or how the hash check data is based on multiple inputs. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claim 12 recites “in response to determining a hash of the second random number matches the second AS hash” in lines 3-4. However, the claims do not recite such determining as part of the method, which appears to be a gap in the claim.
Claim 13 recites “in response to determining that the second random number differs from the first random number” in lines 3-4. However, the claims do not recite such determining as part of the method, which appears to be a gap in the claim.
Claim 14 recites “generating… second tag hash check data based on the third random number and based on the first tag hash” in lines 15-16. It is not clear what algorithm is used or how the hash check data is based on multiple inputs. It is not clear how these meet the definitions of these operations.
Claim 15 recites “in response to determining that the third random number differs from the second random number” in lines 3-4. However, the claims do not recite such determining as part of the method, which appears to be a gap in the claim.
Claim 16 recites “in response to determining a hash of the third random number matches the third AS hash” in lines 3-4. However, the claims do not recite such determining as part of the method, which appears to be a gap in the claim.
Claims not explicitly referred to above are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected base claim.
Examiner’s Note
Because the claims are rendered indefinite due to the issues as detailed above in reference to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), it has not been possible to fully construe pending Claims 1-20 in order to analyze the claims for novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 and non-obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103. As per MPEP § 2173.06 II, if there is uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. See also In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962). A search has been performed to the extent possible, and references that appear to be relevant were cited in the previous Office action.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zachary A Davis whose telephone number is (571)272-3870. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:30pm, Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Rupal D Dharia can be reached at (571) 272-3880. 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.
/Zachary A. Davis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492
Prosecution Insights