DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 13 January 2026 has been entered.
By the above submission, 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 13 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), it is acknowledged that Applicant agrees that a digital signature is a cryptographic primitive that is used to guarantee the authenticity of the sender/signer of a message (page 10 of the present response). Although Applicant asserts that the definition should not be limited by the specific prior art references cited in the previous Office action (page 10 of the present response), it is noted that the Braun, Rivest, and Claesen references were not considered to be limiting on the definition, but instead were merely cited as examples of the definitions and conventional usage of digital signatures (see page 3 of the final Office action mailed 23 October 2025). Although Applicant asserts that “hash and ciphertext that is based further on sets of random numbers likewise qualify as ‘signed’ data within the Office’s definition” (see page 10 of the present response, broadly citing Figure 13A and page 28, line 16-page 33, line 23 of the present specification), it is not clear what particular hash and ciphertext in the cited portions of the specification Applicant is asserting that would qualify as “signed”. In general, there must be a private key (as per conventional asymmetric key digital signature algorithms) or some shared secret known only to the sender and receiver (as per conventional symmetric key message authentication codes and/or keyed hash functions) which would allow the receiver to verify the authenticity of the sender/signer.
Further, although Applicant asserts that the pending claims have been amended to recite “ciphertext” in place of “signature” (page 10 of the present response, referring to page 30 of the present specification), it is noted that the claims do not appear to include the term “ciphertext” as asserted. It is additionally noted that Applicant does not appear to have addressed the other issues of indefiniteness set forth in the previous Office action.
Therefore, for the reasons detailed above, the Examiner maintains the rejections as set forth below.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claims 1-6 and 11-16 have been amended to recite “cybertext” in numerous locations. There is no mention of this term in the specification; therefore, there is not clear antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter in the specification. For further detail, see below in reference to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failure to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite is NOT withdrawn because not all issues have been addressed and/or because the amendments have raised new issues, as detailed below.
The following is a quotation 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 1-20 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.
Claims 1-6 and 11-16 have been amended to recite “cybertext” in numerous locations. There is no mention of the term “cybertext” in the specification. Although Applicant points to page 30 of the specification for support for the amended claims (see page 10 of the present response), it is noted that “ciphertext” and “cybertext” appear to be distinct concepts. Therefore, there is not clear written description of the claimed subject matter in the specification.
Claims not explicitly referred to above are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected base claim.
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 “cybertext” in lines 18, 20, and 21. This is not a term of art and has not been defined in the claims or specification, and therefore the meaning of this term is unclear. The claim futher 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 “cybertext” in line 3. As noted above, the meaning of this term is unclear. The claim further 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 “cybertext” in line 3. As noted above, the meaning of this term is unclear. The claim further 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 “cybertext” in lines 9, 11, and 13. As noted above, the meaning of this term is unclear. The claim further 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 “cybertext” in line 3. As noted above, the meaning of this term is unclear. The claim further 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 “cybertext” in line 3. As noted above, the meaning of this term is unclear. The claim further 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 “cybertext” in lines 20, 22, and 23. This is not a term of art and has not been defined in the claims or specification, and therefore the meaning of this term is unclear. The claim futher 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 “cybertext” in line 3. As noted above, the meaning of this term is unclear. The claim further 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 “cybertext” in line 3. As noted above, the meaning of this term is unclear. The claim further 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 “cybertext” in lines 10, 12, and 14. As noted above, the meaning of this term is unclear. The claim further 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 “cybertext” in line 3. As noted above, the meaning of this term is unclear. The claim further 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 “cybertext” in line 3. As noted above, the meaning of this term is unclear. The claim further 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) and further in view of the lack of written description as detailed with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), 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
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